muscle23ftl said: "CT2NYC said: "chernjam said: "Lot666 said: "CT2NYC said: "The word that I've always used to describe the original production design is "cinematic." Since the musical is based on the movie, I always assumed it was John Napier's intention to bring the moviegoing experience to the stage, and, in that respect, I think it was aincredible success. The set changes flowed beautifully, and I have yet to see anything that matches it in this regard. It was perfection."
I've always thought it sounded like a very ambitious concept that was executed beautifully, and I can't imagine that it would have "detracted" (as some have posited) from my experience. Not having seen the original production is one of my biggest regrets.
"
CT2NYC - "Cinematic" - is probably the best description of it. It really was something spectacular that was groundbreaking and innovative at the time (made crashing chandeliers and helicopters on stage seem like nothing). It's probably why they figured it would return a huge profit.
But the difference was that the chandelier (Phantom) and Helicopter (Saigon) both were elements that added an amazing theatrical flair to the story. The mansion was spectacular in its own right.
When I went to see the Second US Tour (the paired down, much maligned - unfairly in my mind - version) I was surprised how much of the story, the music and the performances really hit me differently than the original. It just felt much more moving and human to me - rather than a "movie".
Now seeing Glenn reprising her role in this new production, I appreciate that even more. It really is a fascinating story, with some interesting characters and one of ALW's most beautiful scores. That stands out more... And seeing actors being able to create different theatrical moments (ie - Car chase scene) - well isn't that what theatre is supposed to do?
I was one of the early doubters about a revival sans the original Napier sets, as well as about Close starring again. I am happy to eat both of those sets of words.
"
I get that, chernjam, and that's why, for me, the original production was at its best with Betty Buckley. After Glenn Close, I think some thought that she was too subdued as Norma. I believe she added much-needed pathos to the role, which nicely balanced the spectacle. In the current revival, Glenn Close plays her closer to Betty Buckley than to her original incarnation. Also, in my opinion, no other Norma comes close to Betty Buckley in regard to vocal talent. Her voice is in a league of its own.
"
I totally disagree, I saw Betty on Broadway as Norma and her vibratto made me want to leave the theatre...also I dislike the color of her voice. The same goes for Elaine Paige. I think Patti's voice is better than anyone else's, but unfortunately I know her personality and it turns me off, plus she didn't act this role well. Glenn is my favorite by far. This show also needs a screen siren, an actress that can sing, as Andrew Lloyd Webber stated recently. Also Glenn is the biggest star of them all! :)
"
Let's agree to disagree, muscle23ftl. I, for one, couldn't get enough of Betty Buckley's voice. So much so, in fact, that I saw her 4 times! Don't get me wrong, I love Glenn Close. Hell, I even loved the show with Elaine Paige, my least favorite Norma. I suppose it's all a matter of preference.
Updated On: 3/7/17 at 05:03 PM