Moulin Rouge Colonial Theatre Previews- Page 20

[millie12]

Posted: 7/24/18 at 3:37pm

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

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 7/24/18 at 3:43pm

millie12 said: "...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.

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 film."

You hit the nail on the head.  I didn't think of it that way but yes, it does seem like a Las Vegas show with the performers highly talented belting out all these modern tune with very little artistic nuance and no emotion.

[MadAboutTheBoy]

Posted: 7/24/18 at 7:52pm

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.

[Broadwaybound22]

Posted: 7/24/18 at 8:41pm

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' that I think fairly represents the naivete of 1900 theatrical 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. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/25/18 at 12:59am

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.  

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Or more precise, why the hell is he not part of the ending????  If he's so dangerous, why isn't he there when they profess his love?   Why isn't the gun for HIM?   He just disappears!

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

[kennin]

Posted: 7/25/18 at 1:10am

I was there tonight.  Some good changes since first preview.  Matthew Morrison was in the audience.  More later...

[ren598]

Posted: 7/25/18 at 1:20am

“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.  

[kennin]

Posted: 7/25/18 at 10:17am

kennin said: "I was there tonight. Some good changes since first preview. Matthew Morrison was in the audience. More later..."

So a few changes from the first preview (spoilers ahead):

The guys in the ensemble was dressed as gentlemen at the club in the intro period of the first preview.  Now, they are dressed in leather in a more provocative style.  The older man in front of me said that a male and female ensemble member should “Get a Room.”

I have read about the change to Roxanne, but I do not remember the first preview.

Karen and Aaron do not descend for the curtain call.

Aaron does not storm down the theater aisle during the show within a show.

My favorite changes made me so happy.  There was added dialogue about the “secret song” (Come What May) in Christian’s apartment.  He tells Satine he will write a secret song that will represent their love.  When he shows up at the show, she sings a chorus before launching into your song.  I would have like more “Come What May” but at least the scene finally held some emotion for me.

I know that there is a lot of chat about the chemistry but I am okay with it.  Karen’s acting when Aaron sings to her for the first time is amazing!

A couple lingering problems:

Aaron sobbed when Karen died the first night.  Last night, he showed minimal emotion before launching into the “narrator role.”  I have a real issue with his delivery when he narrates.  How does an actor say, “I can barely talk about her death (paraphrase)” as the words roll off of his tongue with no signs of him being upset?  I know Aaron can do it, but I think he needs some direction to put him in the right place.  His intensity in Act II is amazing EXCEPT for when the woman that he loves dies.  Huh?  I think that one of the problems is that the people surrounding him are so perfect that any flaws will show.

I did still have the issue with the laughter at song recognition but that is not going to change and I need to get over it.  

I was really pleased with the progress of the show.  I cannot wait to see it progress.

[msmp]

Posted: 7/25/18 at 10:48pm

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.

[V2David]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 12:17am

Saw this tonight & I absolutely loved it. (I am a big fan of the movie too).

A few comments:

This is a jukebox musical. If you aren't a fan of jukebox musicals (which frankly the movie was too) then this isn't for you. The first act there was some laughter when songs came up as sometimes the transition into the songs seemed a little cheesy or the audience was trying to guess what was next. But the audience got more used to it by the second half & the laughter was a lot less.

Speaking of the audience it was outstanding! They were very into the show which made it more fun for the performers and everyone. One of the best crowds I have ever seen a play with.

The sets are to die for (but you already knew that). Costumes too. Everything is first class and some.of the best I have seen.

Most of the songs work very well and are choreographed very well. Very few of them didn't work, but I'm sure we will see some fine tuning. Also not sure why people are complaining the songs are paint-by-number. I thought there was good variety to a bunch of them & enjoyed the mashups.

Now a few suggestions:
Get rid of Rhythm of the Night. It unnecessarily drags on the opening sequence too long before the main story gets going.

I know there are voice-overs in the play, but the monologues by Christian do not work in the play. We don't need to be told what is going to happen at the end of the play. It ruins the suspense. There is no need for any of these Christian monologues in the show (except maybe the end). They seem awkward, unnecessary and anti-climatic.

What happens to the Duke at the end? He is kind of dropped (or I missed it?)

I was concerned "Come What May" wouldn't be sung enough (based on what I read here) but it features during the 2nd act. Although, it is basically absent from Act 1. Maybe the orchestra should hint at it (instead of "Your Song" so much) in Act 1.

They said "The Show Must Go On" but they didn't sing it! Song is sorely missed. There is a song in the middle of act two (the only song I didn't recognize) that it could easily replace. That song was frankly boring.

"Roxanne" was great but makes no sense in the context of the play. I know people want to hear it though.

Nature Boy was outstanding. Glad they found a way to feature it considering the play doesn't open with it and uses it in a different context.

They obviously need some work on the book (get rid of Christian's monologues telling us what is going to happen!!). But this has everything it needs to be a big hit.

I thought acting / singing / choreography were all excellent. Satine was great. Chemistry between both leads was very good once you accepted the fact they fell in love with each other (I'm not sure the play earned that). But after that point you feel invested in their love story.

That's all I can think of for now. I haven't seen the movie in a long time either (which is probably to the play's benefit). But I highly enjoyed this & look forward to hearing about the continued improvements. I'm sure I will catch this again on Broadway one day. Well worth seeing if you are in Boston!!

[nsguy45]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 1:35am

Saw it tonight(Thursday), Orchestra Center, 2nd row on the aisle.

Very enjoyable, Aaron and Karen were outstanding when they sang, separately and together, but I was just not feeling sufficient chemistry between them.

Danny is another standout, as are numerous other cast members.

Some of the songs were just too gimmicky and obviously chosen to get an audience reaction, even though they might not be appropriate choices.

Sets, costumes and choreography were exceptional.

At 3 hours, it could use some trimming.

I agree, the audience Thursday evening was excellent and very much into the show.

[yknot]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 2:36am

What is the Roxanne change?

[msmp]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 3:08am

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.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 3:42am

Other than different womans name being used, the context of the song does fit, imo. Its about a women not needing to turn tricks, hoping she'll stop with the duke.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 4:26am

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]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 9:02am

Forgive my ignorance for not understanding what the song "Roxanne" is about! It definitely fits in the context of the story. It is just a bit confusing because there really is no character named "Roxanne". I wonder if they sang the song with "Satine" instead of "Roxanne" would that work? Or would people be put off with that big of a change to the lyrics of such an iconic song?

[greenifyme2]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 9:14am

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

What? No.

....

Just no.

[Tinyaugoddess]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 9:14am

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

I can’t respond to other films, but Baz Explained his approach when the movie came out. He said that the atmosphere of the moulin rouge was this exciting, crazy, emotional and turbulent experience. The music of the time used at moulin rouge was ahead of its time and really shocked people. However, using that music In today’s audience (or back when the movie was created) wouldn’t have the effect he needed. So he used modern music to engage those same emotions. He and Craig spent countless hours trying to pinpoint the perfect song for the perfect part to engage the right emotion. I

[Tinyaugoddess]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 9:23am

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

I can’t respond to other films, but Baz Explained his approach when the movie came out. He said that the atmosphere of the moulin rouge was this exciting, crazy, emotional and turbulent experience. The music of the time used at moulin rouge was ahead of its time and really shocked people. However, using that music In today’s audience (or back when the movie was created) wouldn’t have the effect he needed. So he used modern music to engage those same emotions. He and Craig spent countless hours trying to pinpoint the perfect song for the perfect part to engage the right emotion. I

[Tinyaugoddess]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 9:27am

For those questioning “Roxanne”... in the movie it’s a story within a story. The Argentinian is talking about a woman back in his country named Roxanne. It’s a warning song to Christian to be careful. I feel like there should be more explanation in the show, because it worked without question in the movie

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 12:02pm

I understood it perfectly in the musical.  

 

[robskynyc]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 12:41pm

MadAboutTheBoy said: "Can someone explain to me why this sequence might be considered offensive?"

its 2018. people are offended by everything lol

 

[millie12]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 4:07pm

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. 

[HunterK]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 5:50pm

I am going tonight (7/27) and very excited....but it is still clocking in at almost 3 hours? Wow! 

Anyway......anyone else going tonight?

[yknot]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 12:36am

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.