The King and I previews thread — Page 8

My guess is: this is in part -- in part, underscore -- a problem built into moving from the relative size and security of the rehearsal room into the cavernous Beaumont. I know both actors and directors who can vouch for this. To some degree it happens to every play or show. And, if English is not this actor's first language, the concessions one's ear (the director's and others seated at a table) makes to diction and phrasing in close quarters do not automatically serve once the performance has a considerable aesthetic distance between actor and auditor. The work now has to be focused on building a clear, discernible performance that fits that particular stage and house. The diction work "should" have been done; yet it was not. I doubt it's too late. But it needs to be very much site-specific, so that the performance fills that house.

---

Updated On: 3/14/15 at 10:46 AM

Sounds like I am skipping this one too for my May lineup (I am already skipping An American in Paris) No interest to start with and reading through the threads solidify the decision. Ha I may end up watching Les Miz (for the 16th time) and Kinky Boots (4th time) again which will not be so bad! I already got tix for On the Twentieth Century (2nd visit) and Something Rotten

Updated On: 3/14/15 at 11:02 AM

"And to the poster who insinuated that Renshaw didn't trust or respect the material, that's ridiculous. He told the story beautifully, honoring the authors' original intentions every step of the way. Yes, he made a couple cuts (at the bequest of the producer) but nothing that compromised the material. As for Wang, he had such respect for FDS that he wanted to breathe new life into it with his adaptation. The musical most likely wouldn't work today in its original form and he was on a rescue mission. Not everything landed in his revisal but it certainly had some arresting moments and smart ideas."

First of all, I didn't hate it, I thought for a production that changes some things, it was actually decent. But when you have the King and Anna to almost kiss after "Shall We Dance", that's where want to say "NO!"; that is what a second rate director/playwright would do for such a production that does somewhat disrespects the integrity that Oscar Hammerstein II put his all into by having the two to be attracted on an intellectual level that grows into one of the greatest sexually charged moments in theater history that is very sublte and you would never need to add anything at all. And please don't defend Hawng's God-forsaken, amateurish, and not to mention horrifyingly revised version of FLOWER DRUM SONG, that was trying to be something it was not and it's tragic for the effort the production put into. It was such a huge misfire and critical flop that the organization allows both the original book and the revised one to be used and I've seen a production that uses the original book and everyone in the theater that night loved it. So the original book still works and David Henry Hawng, for all of his wonderful talents, didn't need to go though such trouble to update it.

BTW: Did the boat really made the audience literally gasp? I've never heard a gasp inducing theater story like that since the audience gasped at the LOVELAND transformation in the original production of FOLLIES. Sher and his production team are on to something alright.

Updated On: 3/14/15 at 02:28 PM

Do you all think it's going to be a Anna is the star of the show while the King is a good support to her kind of a production?

I was surprised to read in one of the interviews with Kelli O'Hara that she had never seen a production or the film version of The King and I. There's obviously nothing wrong with being unfamiliar with any show in the musical theater canon, regardless of perceived popularity or importance, but I was especially surprised that someone who often rhapsodizes on the beauty of Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals (and laments the death of the Golden Age of Broadway sound) was unfamiliar with one of their more frequently-produced shows.

---

I also didn't find him that difficult to understand in the clip and the audio quality isn't even that great. I would imagine the clarity of a studio recording will make it easier to understand him even more so than the acoustics of the theatre allow.

Robbie2, check you PM

So was there some kind of contract that each audience member had to sign regarding the disclosure of details about the boat to members of the public?

I have. Several times. Is it that big of a deal? It's an online message board.

Exactly, I most likely won't get back to NY to see this show at all, and I've always been fascinated by those moments on a stage where something so incredible in terms of physical production can make an audience gasp in disbelief.

Now, if only the internet would offer some type of online forum where people could discuss the details of Broadway shows... Some type of website perhaps... Maybe one that offers a glimpse into the world of Broadway... The broadway world if you will...

"Probably a third to a half of the posters here would put Sondheim over Rodgers."

You have GOT to be kidding. Truly, you have GOT to be kidding. Yes, I know that there are some brainwashed and/or brainwashing and/or hopeless and/or corrosive and/or corroded individuals here--- but surely nowhere near THAT many!

************SPOILER ALERT REGARDING BOAT EFFECT *************



************ DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU WISH TO KNOW ABOUT BOAT EFFECT!!!! ***********







The boat moves forward from the stage and the prow extends over a part of the audience.

It's striking, but really, it isn't the eighth wonder of the world.

Updated On: 3/14/15 at 09:20 PM

I really wish the two of you would go straight to hell.

---