Scherzinger in SUNSET BLVD. Previews — Page 6

There's no gun, and the noises don't sound anything like gunshots. It's completely ambiguous, and it actually comes across as kind of supernatural, but...

Updated On: 10/2/24 at 06:41 PM

Intermission now. Nicole is magnetic wow ow. Don’t know why it’s 90 degrees in here (usher said it’s the directors choice)
The pre show with young Norma was awkward and everyone thought it was Nicole and started to clap and then it was complete silence for 5 minutes. Someone in the mezz shouted “shut the lights and let’s go already”

You're kidding! Not MUCH makes any sense in this Production:
1. Why is silent movie star Norma Desmond made out to be a 2024 pop diva? Oh wait...I get it...it's ART!
2. Why does this Norma mug and pose for the camera every 2 seconds.
3. Why are the dancers/chorus costumed in black workout clothes?
4. Why are there video cameras doing extreme closeups every 5 minutes? What do those closeups signify, apart from nothing.
5. Why don't Joe and Betty show any inkling of even acknowledging each other, never mind falling in love?
6. Why is everyone talking just a beat slower than any other human being on the planet? And Norma's songs are endless. Speed it up, toots!
7. SPOILER: Why does Joe strip down to his skivies at the end.
8. SPOILER: What is the sound effect before the final reveal of the bloody Norma? As I said before, it sounds like she's actually eating him.
9. Why all the blood in the end? We see a gun when Joe is doing his "Sunset Boulevard" walk at the beginning of Act 2. Then it never shows up again. So how does Norma kill Joe in the blackout? Did she EAT him (after those vivid sound effects)? If she stabbed him, why does she have so much blood on her but he just has a smudge?

SO many questions?

Updated On: 10/2/24 at 10:56 PM

I totally get if we're just supposed to imagine Max is older. I'd have no issue with that. But, in the show's official casting announcement, Jamie Lloyd says both Norma and Max are in their 40s. So, it seems very intentional but makes no sense logistically, which is what confuses me.

That being said, the timeline in this production is all over the place anyways. It still takes place in 1949-50, but Norma is aged down to 40 instead of 50 years old. But she still started acting at 16. That means she started acting in 1926. The silent movie era was over by 1929. So, are we supposed to believe she only had a 3-year career and was done by the time she was 19? But still became so famous and beloved?

CreatureKitchen said: "I totally get if we're just supposed to imagine Max is older. I'd have no issue with that. But, in the show's official casting announcement, Jamie Lloyd says both Norma and Max are in their 40s. So, it seems very intentional but makes no sense logistically, which is what confuses me.

That being said, the timeline in this production is all over the place anyways. It still takes place in 1949-50, but Norma is aged down to 40 instead of 50 years old. But she still started acting at 16. That means she started acting in 1926. The silent movie era was over by 1929. So, are we supposed to believe she only had a 3-year career and was done by the time she was 19? But still became so famous and beloved?"


OFFS. It’s not a documentary.

7. SPOILER: Why does Joe strip down to his skivies at the end."



I thought it was because we saw her give him the clothes in act one, instead of the cigarette case in the original, so the clothes were all he had to "give back" before he left... though he still sings the line about the "use of the trinkets."

Speaking of the clothes... WHAT ON EARTH was with the slow, creepy doll delivery when she gave him the clothes before New Years Eve?!?!

Just saw this tonight as well and came out positive on the whole, though it did take me a little to settle into. There's a lot of abstraction and I think I had to just convince my brain to see it that way (I've never seen a production before but I know the score fairly well). But that abstraction is also why small details like the years and anachronisms didn't bother me (though I do find it curious that they were changed, because if they don't matter then why make a point of it being that way?).

Nicole is absolutely giving an outstanding performance. I can't say that every single one of her choices landed with me but it was just thrilling to see (even from the back of the balcony--thank you projection screen). She's so fluid and manic and it's exciting just to see what she'll do next even if you don't ultimately agree with it. Her singing too is incredibly modulated, she plays around with timbre and placement and the deliveries manage to feel fresh while suiting the production they're in (though I'm sure certain purists will quibble). I'm having a VERY hard time imagining Mandy doing what Nicole does, so I'm curious if it'll be reconceptualized for her (I can imagine Caroline Bowman coming closer though).

Like I said, the whole concept took me a bit of time to settle into and I found the car chase scene to be laughable, to the point where I was concerned I'd hate the entire production, but thinking back on it now, I think it does add a layer to the show that's playing with general layers of perception. I'd love to see this again, because I think it would take a second watch to be able to fully digest what Jamie Lloyd is doing, but I think there's a lot of smart stuff about the idea of what you see on screen vs what's you portray in real life vs your own conception of yourself. A lot of the aesthetic imitates film noir but I think the show straddles the line between that and straight up camp/melodrama, so there are still moments that feel overdone. But if anything Jamie Lloyd (and his lighting designer) know how to create gorgeous stage pictures with shadow and light.

The main part I think that didn't really work for me was Betty. Pretty much the whole Hollywood cast (including Joe) are directed to essentially keep stony faces and it works once you realize that this show isn't going to be presented like other musicals, but it doesn't quite land for Betty being somewhat of a newcomer to the scene, and it makes it hard to understand how much Joe really does care about Betty (so Too Much in Love lands with a bit of a thud). In general most of the characters feel like they're at a bit of a remove, which does help Norma feel more vibrant (maybe overly so in some instances), but it's an interesting choice when taken with the whole of the show.

The sound design was a bit rough from the balcony. I could hear most things fairly clearly until there was an ensemble number and then it was just mush. But the bigger problem was that it just felt blaring, everything dialed up way too high. It could be thrilling in moments like the Sunset Boulevard reprise and the final few scenes, but I'd rather they save it for those moments. The images on the screen were a tiny bit distorted from the angle, but I was concerned that the top would be cut off by the proscenium arch and that wasn't an issue at all! Though I think front mezz would probaby be the ideal place to sit.

I can't say I loved this as much as others in this thread, but half an hour into the show I could already tell that I'd want to see it again, both with Nicole and the other Normas (also Jimin Moon as an understudy for Joe is quite intriguing too!). It feels like a show where the "meaning" behind it might change with each watch or where there might always be something else to be gleaned.

TBone said: "7. SPOILER: Why does Joe strip down to his skivies at the end."
I thought it was because we saw her give him the clothes in act one, instead of the cigarette casein the original, so the clothes were all he had to "give back" before he left... though he still sings the line about the "use of the trinkets."
Speaking of the clothes... WHAT ON EARTH was with theslow, creepy doll delivery when she gave him theclothes before New Years Eve?!?!"

Basically he gives the clothes back because he doesn't want to owe Norma anything. It's getting rid of her completely from his life, which includes anything she gave him.

When he strips down to his boxers, I want someone to shout out, 'She paid for them too!'

2. Why does this Norma mug and pose for the camera every 2 seconds

Because she can't help herself. Norma has lived her life in the studios, in front of the camera and thats all she knows about communicating with the audience, with the fans still out there in the dark. That's what she thinks the public love her for and so she's giving it to them. And she is leaving no crumbs!

.

Updated On: 10/3/24 at 12:59 AM

"What right? You want me to tell you?"...I LOVE Nicole's line readings!!!!!

Can someone please just film this production???

Bernadette is going to get jealous about how much you now gush over Nicole. :)

Lot666 said: "WldKingdomHM said: "Don’t know why it’s 90 degrees in here (usher said it’s the directors choice)"
Are you being facetious, or is this true? Is the house routinely kept at 90 degrees?"

It was HOT. My partner had to roll his tshirt up. Once I entered I started to fan myself but it’s very true about Jamie wanting the theater to be dark and warm

This detail that you're concerned with probably doesn't matter to a lot of people....

CreatureKitchen said: "I totally get if we're just supposed to imagine Max is older. I'd have no issue with that. But, in the show's official casting announcement, Jamie Lloyd says both Norma and Max are in their 40s. So, it seems very intentional but makes no sense logistically, which is what confuses me.

That being said, the timeline in this production is all over the place anyways. It still takes place in 1949-50, but Norma is aged down to 40 instead of 50 years old. But she still started acting at 16. That means she started acting in 1926. The silent movie era was over by 1929. So, are we supposed to believe she only had a 3-year career and was done by the time she was 19? But still became so famous and beloved?"