Moulin Rouge Colonial Theatre Previews — Page 20

I suppose I should clarify what I meant by some things. I think trying to put a carbon copy of Moulin Rouge onstage would be bad news. So I'm not advocating zero changes. I just think that with this piece, which is so hyper specific and hyper stylized, you can't (or you shouldn't) stray too far from the source. It won't look good. Which, I think, is what we are dealing with. Successful movie to stage adaptations take what is on screen and translate it into a theatrical medium. The traces of the original heart of the show got lost in translation. That is the main problem. It just isn't recognizable anymore.

And I would be foolish to think that the film isn't campy. It 100% is. What I meant by campy, in regards to the stage adaptation, is that it doesn't deal with the camp in the way the film did. There's nothing classy about the proceedings. It was all self-aware, winking at the audience camp a la Rock of Ages. It lessens the experience. This is all my opinion and I totally understand how people could disagree with him when talking about the film. I just think they nailed the tone in the film and totally missed the mark entirely on stage. The film is over the top, high romance, which can be viewed as ridiculous to some. But that is the world they created. And it works. The stage show felt very......Las Vegas tribute show to me. Gaudy and campy in the not great way.  

And to respond to how they handle Firework.......It quite literally is a park and bark and then moving on. The comparison of One Day I'll Fly Away as Satine's "I Want" song is perfect. You totally understand her character after that moment. Look up the lyrics to Firework. That's what we get instead. THAT is our insight into our leading lady's emotion. (Disclaimer: I'm not calling the original film a masterpiece in writing, I just think they did a good job with the song selection and cluing into the characters personalities.They were smart about it.)

The more I talk about it, the more I think the adaptation is a mountain too tough to climb. That film is spectacularly gorgeous and cinematically paced. It is a gargantuan effort to translate to the stage.

Updated On: 7/24/18 at 03:37 PM

Miles2Go2 said: "First, let me say I have not seen the stage production, but my interpretation of “One Day I’ll Fly Away” in the movie is different than Wick3’s. I see it as a song that foreshadowsSatine’s death. I’m not sure that occurred to me until I rewatched it recently. "

I think you're both right. To me, the reason it works so well is because it's working on those two levels. It's dramatic irony at its best.

Regarding the changes to the show-within-a-show: Someone mentioned they're glad they changed it as it could be perceived as offensive. It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, but I rewatched this scene from the film yesterday. Can someone explain to me why this sequence might be considered offensive? I read that the Bollywood-style number is one of the things that inspired Luhrmann to do the movie, and I absolutely loved it. One of the characteristics of these types of Bollywood dance sequences is they're so over the top; they really don't take themselves very seriously, so I'm not seeing where it could be insulting or mocking. It seems to me it is an homage. I must be missing something. What aspects of it have I not considered that might be offensive? There must be some truth to this claim since it's one of the things they changed  from the film.

A few things before I give my thoughts having gotten home.

1.  I am not a fan of the fillm, and cannot explain why I was so drawn to seeing this.

2.  I had absolutely AWFUL seats, and I'm pretty pissed about that.  (I lodged a complaint with the house manager, who could only tell me she'd have the box office contact me. We'll see.)   These seats, frankly, should not be sold at all, as they are beyond obstructed view. (They are not listed/sold as obstructed view, btw.)  If I had to gander a guess, I'd say I missed at least 1/2 of the show.  I am not exaggerating one bit.  For those curious we had the last two seats in the front row of the mezz, house left.  (The biggest complaint is the damn windmill that blocks you view, combine that with a light pole an a thick string of lights going in front of your face.)    EDIT:  NOW the website says this about our seats:  "Limited Side View. Guests may miss some action on one side of the stage."    First, it didn't say that when I bought the tix (says it nowhere on my confirmation or tix) and secondly, you miss FAR more then what's on "one side of the stage."  
 

The theater's refurbishment is truly beautiful.   I can't imagine how much this cost to re do.   Stunning. lobby and house.

 

Set and costumes: amazing.  Choreo  (what I could see of it) : crazy wonderful.  Direction: really disappointing, it often felt like directing 101.   It really didn't feel like Alex Timbers.  

For those that didn't get her NOT wanting to be with the Duke...what are you NUTS?  He's a particularly horrid person.   (Hot as hell, but horrific)

Chemistry between Tveit and Olivio is almost as bad as everyone says, I do blame some of that on the dialogue, as it's pretty rough; but their first kiss seemed lime middle schoolers trying to look passionate

I don't have a problem with most of the changes from the film, but can see the points of many things already brought up.  My only real beef is the the duke at the end.  

As for the music changes: no problems for me (but again, I'm not in love with the film)  I do disagree with those that suggest the audience's laughter was at the music, I thought it was from the suprise, fun and figuring out what was coming.   I've never seen an audience more primed to fall in love with a show.  The energy was, as others have said, palpable.

I'm sure there is more I can expound on, but I"m pretty pooped, so will add more tomorrow.  Overall, I like it - I can't say I loved it, because there was just so much I just couldn't see!

Updated On: 7/25/18 at 12:59 AM

“2.  I had absolutely AWFUL seats, and I'm pretty pissed about that.  (I lodged a complaint with the house manager, who could only tell me she'd have the box office contact me. We'll see.)   These seats, frankly, should not be sold at all, as they are beyond obstructed view .  If I had to gander a guess, I'd say I missed at least 1/2 of the show.  I am not exaggerating one bit.  For those curious we had the last two seats in the front row of the mezz, house left.  (The biggest complaint is the damn windmill that blocks you view, combine that with a light pole an a thick string of lights going in front of your face.)”

So sorry to hear about the lousy seats. Mezz row B seat 27 (which most likely would have been the seat right behind you) came up for lotto losers for Tuesday night’s performance.  I debated for the longest time whether to jump on it, but ultimately decided not to.  I’m glad I didn’t after hearing your experience.  

I was there last night as well, and I pretty much agree with what Kennin said in the post above. Add back the emotion in Aaron's voice in the death scene and I think the show would be almost perfect. Hopefully they correct the direction in this last week of previews!

The Roxanne change and the greater intensity to the "Rolling in the Deep/Crazy" medley really made me happy. For me, those two changes made Act II live up to the energy--albeit a very different kind of energy!--that exists in Act I.

yknot said: "What is the Roxanne change?"

It's sung closer to how it was in the movie, albeit mostly by Aaron/Christian; he's much more gravely at the start and his performance is far more manic, in my opinion.

That being said, without the context of the tango (aside from briefly at the start when Zidler tells the story of the dance itself), it doesn't necessarily fit the story of the musical. The song needs to stay in the show, and I like the change in the vocals, but it could definitely be integrated better.

Broadwaybound22 said: "Count me as another who's a bit perplexed by those who feel the 'Hindi Sad Diamonds' was offensive in the film. It's an over-the-top homage to Bollywood (an artform that obviously didn't exist at the time)thru the'Luhrmann lens' thatI think fairly representsthe naivete of 1900theatrical conventions and the mystique and folklore surrounding the Middle East at that time. It doesn't strive to be a culturally accurate representation of any sort of reality -- and like it or not, is true to the theatrical revues that were common at the Moulin Rouge during this time period. I'm not suggesting that the content isn't riddled with outdated and insensitive stereotypes/generalizations (especially thru a contemporary lens)-- but that's exactly what that kind of show would BE mounted in 1900 -- it's true to period and true to history. It's actually one of the most gorgeously designed/lit numbers committed to film -- and it's shame some variation of it couldn't be introduced in the stage version."

"It doesn't strive to be a culturally accurate representation of any sort of reality ."

Exactly. Can somebody explain to me why every fantasy film has to represent current reality or be culturally accurate? 

 

V2David said: ". I wonder if they sang the song with "Satine" instead of "Roxanne" would that work??"

What? No.

....

Just no.

I understood it perfectly in the musical.  

 

Yes, the film is a jukebox musical, but the stage adaptation is dealing with these songs in a way that the movie didn't: for laughs and not at the progression of the story, imho. As an aside, the amount of fans of the movie who have written about how disappointing an adaptation this was is quite staggering. Outside of these forums that is. I think people have just forgotten what the movie actually is. 

When you say it's "sung closer to how it was in the movie".. has the arrangement changed to be closer to the movie? I saw it last Saturday and didn't like the change of adding so much of the chorus ("put on the red light" and lessening the focus on the countermelodies. No problem with any other movie changes, but I didn't think this arrangement needed to be changed at all.