I don't think he gave us a link to his video so that everyone could relentlessly critique his work as well as every individual in the cast and production team. He posted the link for us theater people to enjoy. If you don't enjoy it, keep it to yourself. Updated On: 4/8/05 at 02:06 PM
It's nice that you want to defend him, but he did post the link on a message board. A message board which is for discussing subjects such as the post he made. Also, he conveniently edited out the inital subject heading which referred to his production being cool and the Broadway version being lame. It's fine to post that opinion, but you can't be surprised when people turn around and critique his production back.
In other words, no. No one has to keep it to themselves if they didn't like something someone posted and you needn't try to censor people's actions. Not one of these posts are personal attacks, they are criticism and valid ones at that.
If you don't enjoy our posts, keep it to yourself :)
Jeff, I really did like the show, but I'm totally open to constructive criticism and people are allowed to have their own opinions, that's fine. About the prostitute thing, this was our own version of the show. We made it a little darker than I've seen it done before, not the Disney-esque version they did on Broadway and in many regional productions. When I met with the girl who played Audrey, we thought it made her character much more interesting if she indeed had been some other person in a past life. Almost a prostitute. It made sense (to us) why she would have such a hard time being with someone who truly cared for her because she had never had anything but loveless relationships with men, which explains her relationship with Orin. We never straight out said, "Audrey is a prostitute in our production," but that's what we used for her background with our actors. If anything we said the short girl in the trio was a prostitute.
And I pride myself on being able to take my closeness to my production out of it when critiquing it, and I still don't see these American Idol comments. Honestly, (and I don't want to ruffle any feathers with this comment) if the trio was black, no one would have any problem if they sang the show exactly the same way. There was one singular moment that was added, which is when Ryah is riffing over the other two who are singing backups. And she is BELTING. I don't know what you consider belting, but that little Irish girl is belting her brains out.
Thenardier, I tried my best! We didn't have any African American kids available (it was done in a suburb...), which is why we didn't take the usual route with the trio. I didn't want them up there doing a minstrell show.
I never said my production wasn't cool. That's still in the subject line, because I think it is cool. I didn't want people jumping on me for calling the revival lame, which it was.
And go ahead and say what you want. That's what these boards are for. I DO think that a lot of the comments are invalid, since people didn't see the entire production, but I make comments all the time based on a video clip or a CD...
bj - I don't think you need to justify yourself at all. If you thought the Bway production was lame, then that is your opinion. I don't see why people are jumping all over you for it. I have heard much, much worse things on these boards than that.
Anyway, from that clip, it looked like it was a great production with an astoundingly talented (not american idol at all, in my opinion)and young cast.
"When you're a Jet, / You're a Jet all the way, / From your first pirouette / To your last grand jete." --Brian Kaman
bj-i totally agree with keggss. your production looked awesome and the power behind all of those voices was amazing. and even if it was "american idol" sounding...i loved it! the urchins are supposed to be that way. in the touring production i saw last month the urchins sang it exactly the same way, with all the runs and trills. and i agree, i don't think the board would have as big of a problem with it if your urchins were african-american, but who says white girls can't play urchins?
i commend you for your obviously hard work on this production and it made me jealous! i want to be in a production like that. i loved everything i saw in that clip!
and yes...the broadway production DID lack heart and was too fluffy, i think, for the content of the show.
"Somethin's comin', I don't know what it is but it is gonna be great!"
Very nice things in the clip, at least. But it didn't come together. Staging wasn't up to par. Where's the follow-through in the vocals? The high notes aren't the only things that should sound good.
The plant was hideous. I have seen worse, but from the looks of the production, the plant was not up to par. I have seen a high school production's plant that had similar concepts but looked much better.
Too flashy. Too "look what I can do!" A serious story is to be told, and it seems what either the director or the actors did was made it a theme park attraction.
I liked setting it in the current time period. Costumes were nice. But those platform shoes were distracting, and probably uncomfortable for the actress playing Audrey.
Overall: Better than average for a regional production, with the potential to be better.
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
That was awesome! Some real talented kids. My former high school did a production of Little Shop a couple of years back. It was sad. Your production totally blew them away!
Side note: How did she not fall down in those shoes? hehe!
"Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker" -- Willy Wonka
Maniac, she's a ballerina, so she has really really strong ankles. And she didn't wear them the entire show, just for the first scene. She moved surprisingly well in them.
Hook, you should have seen the plant BEFORE we got a hold of it. Our set budget was a mere $700, so I guess that's what you get, but I think we went far on a tiny budget. Just curious, how was the staging not up to par? I'm 19. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. And I'm also confused about the "flashy" comment. I actually thought it was darker than most Little Shops. (but then again you haven't seen the show, just these clips) And I guess I just disagree with your comment on the vocals. I thought the harmonies were tight everywhere.
It's not that we want to hear the same version of "alarm goes off at seven," but a part in the music that normally lasts less than a minute seemed like an eternity because it was like "let me show the audience how much I can try and sound like Mariah Carey." I sounded good, but was overkill.
Audrey is NOT a prostitute, but she's a dumb blonde - I ADORE the shoes, they crack me up!!!!
And yes, I agree - the broadway production WAS very lame.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."-Charlie Manson
Ah, we disagree. Audrey is NOT a dumb blonde. That's where you get caught in a trap. If she's played as dumb, the emotion doesn't always come through and she turns into cardboard, similar to Kerry Butler's portrayal. She's somewhat dillusional, but not dumb. She never really makes any remarks that make you say, "Wow, you're dumb." She's flighty, if anything.
Please don't take offense to my costuming comment. As I said, I didn't see the full production so I could only assume that the abstract period was an artistic choice. Being a costume designer and having costumed umpteen different productions of this particular show I have a set idea of what looks "right" to me. I, personally, prefer traditional stagings; however, I commend you and a very talented cast on some bold new ideas and a job well done.
I wasn't feeling Seymour at all, but it's unfair to say so when I only saw those few scenes. Did you change the notes or the key or something for him? He sounded like he was singing lower than anyone I'd heard as Seymour before. Seemed more macho or something. Plus, I personally think he's too good looking for the part lol.
Other than that, the clip was really good. I love the Urchins. And I didn't hear much of a difference from the "Alarm goes off at seven" line when compared to the new Broadway cast recording.
Exactly what munk said about the "flasy"ness. Sing the music as written, and by all means put your original voice into it, and make it your own. Just don't own it for too long, or it becomes like "STOP TRYING TO IMPRESS US! WE GET IT! YOU CAN SING!"
Well, if THAT'S what you did with a $700 budget, kudos to you, my friend!!
I shouldn't comment on the staging. I saw a four minute clip, not the show. But why the exclusion of vocals from Audrey II and Musnik and Orin?
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
I don't really know why they didn't include that. It's video that I recorded. I might be able to put together a video on my own and post it with Dentist, Mushnik and Son and some Audrey II stuff. Maybe I'll do that when I get home...
The clips don't really do Seymour justice. He's truly an amazing performer, and his acting work on the part was phenominal. And yes, he may be too good-looking for the role, but then what do you say of Hunter Foster?
Joshua, I totally understand. I'm the same way when I see shows staged differently than I would have liked. But the non-descript time period was definitely a choice. And considering he did all that on $300 is pretty cool.
That looks like a great production! I enjoyed the video. The costumes were different from what you usually see in LSoH, but I liked them! Very cool outfits for the urchins, and very cool shoes for Audrey in the "Downtown" scene (hehehe). There were also some very talented kids! I liked those girls playing the urchins- they were hilarious- and that Audrey was AWESOME!
I disagree with the comment that the 2003 revival was lame. I thought it was very funny and sweet and not "hollow" at all.
Were Orin and the dentist played by two different people? There are a couple shots of him in a leadther jacket and blonde hair, then theres some guy in the dentisits office with brown longer hair. Who was that?
You are young, life has been kind to you. You will learn.
Wow that was really, really good. The Audrey is AMAZING .. she even looks a little like Kerry Butler. And GO HER for not falling in the shoes, LoL.
The urchins look adorable .. I love the punkness of them, haha. And the green dresses that the clips shows for a second are really really cute too.
Awesome job!! My college is doing Little Shop at the end of the month, I can't wait to go see it, it's one of my favorites (I saw the revival twice and I loved it, just cause I love the music heh) :)
Because it was a youth theatre show, they wanted to have as many people in the show as possible. I refused to have more than three girls in the trio (hence "trio"), so we added four ensemble members that were in Skid Row, random crowd scenes, the finale and worked spots, quick changes, and Audrey II's arms. After that they still wanted to have at least one more person, so I convinced my friend Adam to do all the random parts, and my friend Nick to play the Dentist. (By the way, Orin and the Dentist are the same person. Nick played Orin, Adam played Mrs. Luce, Skip Snip, Bernstein, Customer, announcer, etc.)
I'll try and post some more stuff of Mushnik, Orin, Audrey II and the random parts. Give me a night...