Moulin Rouge! Previews — Page 16

ACL2006 said: "Instead of touring, they should set up a company in Vegas. That's the general vibe I'm getting on the word-of-mouth. It'll probably run for a few years, but it's weekly nut is probably on the high side. Mixed reviews and a few Tonys on their set, lighting and costumes will only hold them for so long.
"

You were so right with your ATP predictions.

Please delete

Updated On: 7/23/19 at 08:20 AM

disneybroadwayfan22 said: "Looks like I'm seeing Amber's first Santine performance on the 8th. She's also on on the 10th.

https://twitter.com/ArdolinoAmber/status/1150834755098873856"

A friend of mine messaged her on Instagram and she said she’s going on for Bahiyah Hibah’s (ensemble) track, not Satine.

I attended this last night with my mother and we are both still on a high from it. It's the most lavish, extravagant production I have seen in years- full of eye-popping visuals and incredible vocals.

It is a very different animal from the film, and for the most part I think the changes are smart (and, according to the article in the Times, some are simply necessary due to song rights issues). The story is streamlined where it needs to be streamlined (in, say, eliminating many of the movie's barely-defined ensemble roles) and expanded where it needs to be expanded (mostly with the Duke, or Toulouse-Lautrec). The expansion of the pop music score largely works very well- it's hard to argue that artists like Lady Gaga or Adele don't belong aside Madonna and Elton John. While many have said that the exploded jukebox style of the score is played for laughs, I found that to be largely not the case, and judging by the audience response, I am not alone. Yes, there are definitely moments where song recognition is played for laughs- in the Elephant Love Medley, for instance. But when sung sincerely, whether as a standalone moment ("Firework" or in one of the production numbers, the score is taken seriously by both the performers and audience.

The production numbers in the show are all stunners- much has been said about the act 2 opener, and rightfully so. The choreography and the costumes and the vocals and the music all come together so well in so many moments, leaving you thrilled and exhilarated. The cast, likewise, gives their all. Tveit has certainly never sounded better or been more charming, and Olivo is certainly different than Kidman's idiosyncratic performance but no less compelling. Danny Burstein turns every moment onstage into gold, and even though he leads only one number- and it is not nearly as compelling as the character's songs in the film- his presence is acutely felt throughout.

Where the adaptation fails is unfortunately a major misstep and a major moment: the ending. The show within the show barely registers and is more subdued and small than all that came before it. Whereas the incomprehensible Bollywood show in the film was a spectacle on top of a spectacle featuring a moment for basically every character, the musical just offers up... a snippet of a melodrama scene in front of a painted backdrop, a snippet of "Your Song," and then Satine's death. The Duke was already dispatched in a brief scene before this sequence, told off by Satine and left to stomp away. It's so oddly small and untheatrical for a show that had, until that point, been huge and heightened. Where is the lavish production, the moment of triumph for all the denizens of the club? Where is Christian being reminded of his ideals by Lautrec? Where is the Duke actually getting his comeuppance in the form of a very public breakdown and humiliation- which, incidentally, in the film, also gave Zidler his redemption? Where is the major moment of joy between Christian and Satine? This isn't an issue of "it's different from the movie so I don't like it"- I liked or could understand nearly all the deviations from the film in the show. This is just a remarkably inert and dramatically unsatisfying conclusion. It's not enough to scuttle the show, but for a production that I had very few faults with up to this point, it was jarring.

People have an issue with the encore, but frankly, given the anticlimax of the ending, I welcomed it.

I've seen a lot of critiques along the lines of "I had fun, BUT..." For me, it seems like the show just wants you to have fun and be carried away on the dazzle. It's not the first show to want this and it won't be the last. And it succeeds at hitting the bull's eyes on the target it sets for itself, which cannot be said for many shows that seem to aim for more and end up with far less.

Terrific review Kad! I wonder why great productions are so reluctant to fix a fatal flaw during previews.

I'm reminded of Network. Cranston was amazing, but a subplot featuring a cuckolded wife that was plodding and pretty useless. I know Cranston needed some down time, but the wife character should have been axed, and the network guys could have had an added scene that made more sense. I read that the production in England had the exact same problem, yet it didn't get fixed over here.

Not for nothing, Network wasn't nominated for a Tony for Best Play. And if a few tweaks were made, it could have been.

Is it the producer/director's ego that they can't/won't edit their baby?

Kad said: "For me, it seems like the show just wants you to have fun and be carried away on the dazzle. It's not the first show to want this and it won't be the last. And it succeeds at hitting the bull's eyes on the target it sets for itself, which cannot be said for many shows that seem to aim for more and end up with far less."

THIS

Updated On: 7/17/19 at 07:05 PM

Kad, Excellent write-up on MR. The stage ending has bothered some -- if one is like me and didn't love the film, it's easier to ruminate about it -- so here my take that may be charred in flames:

1. Actually you are right about the powers that be of the show show wanting the audience smiling as they left the theater. Timbers said in a article last year (yeah, I read a lot) that he felt these are dark times and that's why the encore jazzed up the end of the show.

THE FOLLOWING IS BASED ON BOSTON -- I HAVEN'T SEEN NY SO ANY CHANGES WELL........

2. My biggest difference is the show in the show. I don't see the backdrop with C&S as being a replacement for Bollywood as a show in a show. I see the opening of Act 2 -- Bad Romance Rehearsal as the replacement. Per Act 1 The Pitch to the Duke -- It tells the story of the sailor and ingenue (C&S) being separated by IMO people in hire to the gangster. And considering the athleticism of the dancing I don't see a fully costumed replica being done satisfactorily at the end of the show. As a theater entry, they use the Rehearsal as the probably strongest scene in the show to shoot Act 2 out of a canon.

3. I especially didn't like the Bollywood sequence in the film-- (you called it ridiculous) -- I found it keystone copish with Nini dropping something on the head of a henchman, Zidler doing his bounce at the Duke, etc. Also, Timbers seems pretty PC and I can see him feel the Bollywood segment is cultural appropriation -- at least now in 2019 if not in 1899.

I didn't feel that stage Zidler needed redemption like the film one. In the film Zidler knew about the consumption from the doctor and didn't tell S until much later. He was more manipulative than stage Zidler who had formed a family with with his troop. The fact that Satine immediately slept with the Duke in the stage version shouldn't be a surprise -- she is labeled a courtesan early on and won't be giving up virtue. This is her family unlike Kidman's MR relationship -- Kidman wants to fly away to be a real actress -- no strong bond with her fellows.

You didn't mention Nini but here goes for someone who might think she too needed redemption-- in the film she lets the Duke know about S&C relationship. On stage (and remember this was Boston, so I don't know if it still exists), she lets S know about the murder and mayhem that the Duke and his henchmen are guilty of when a girl had rebuffed his advances.

4.The Duke being told off and not being humiliated in public is a hard one to justify -- so here's a weak attempt. The Duke may plan a scourge on S&C and her death ruins any possible malicious satisfaction. Also, he's very rich and he is surrounded by very rich audience members -- in our day these type of folks get away with things that us mere poorer mortals don't. He'll open up his own cabaret or whatever to salvage his emotional wounds.

5. I missed in the film Lautrec giving C more reminders of the Bohemian ideals -- on stage didn't he do it early on with Children of the Revolution on the stage. I know Rythmns of the Night was eliminated or at least shortened for Burn the House Down (D. Byrne is a friend of Timbers and T working with B is Timbers next assignment.) And I see that as a metaphoric revolutionary statement.


Basically, the ending is quieter but most that end with death are quieter. Camille, etc. The Powers that Be maybe should have done a bit more to bolster the end.....but Baz and his oscar winning wife for the movie, Catherine Martin seemed to give it their very satisfied approval. Until I listened to an interview with Logan and Timbers, I thought Baz was not that involved but they would periodically do so -- often agreeing but sometimes suggesting a relook. Baz: "This new theatrical production absolutely honors the movie, but finds a new life that is exciting and vital for THIS audience in THIS time."

That's it for now -- just my thoughts.

Updated On: 7/21/19 at 02:40 AM

Looks like Baz was at the matinee today and gave a speech with his wife.

Link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPTyNELB2ek

Updated On: 7/20/19 at 07:55 PM

So basically what I'm getting from the tweens on this board is that you can throw everything, but the kitchen sink at a show just for spectacle sake and the tweens will "love" it. How about substance in the book and songs or emotion in the performances? If I wanted to see a thrilling spectacle I'd go to Vegas or a Lady Gaga concert. This is why I don't take much of the "reviews" on here seriously. Once the mixed reviews come out I'm sure the demand will go down.

Updated On: 7/21/19 at 04:31 AM

BenjaminNicholas2 said: "Saw it and while entertaining, it was more Vegas than Broadway.

I say give this thing an even bigger Vegas budget and let them go nuts in Nevada. This feels shoehorned into NYC, even with the current trend of movie-to-stage musicals.

Ah, and yeah, Tveit and Olivo have zero chemistry. Just crickets. Seeing as it's a cornerstone of the story and what made the film so enjoyable, I'd love to see them attempt it. I don't think it's ever going to happen. It feels as if they spent more time on hitting the musical notes than taking acting direction."

There is nothing more boring than an old musical comedy queen lamenting current Broadway productions.