tale of . . . wow- Page 3

[Patash]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 4:10pm

I just want to say that I haven't seen it and know nothing about it but what I've read here. But I must ask -- what kind of real theatre person would walk out of a show at intermission? Specifically a show he's never seen before -- not an obviously horrible production of something he knows. How could any theatre goer not be interested enough to see if somehow there might be some amazing number or single performance in ACT II worthy of staying to see. I just can't imagine not giving a new show a chance to at least see it through to the end. And if it's really THAT bad, wouldn't you want to stay to be able to trash the second act too? It seems to me that staying for the second half would give your opinion that much more weight (who can trust an opinion of a critic who didn't even see the whole show?)-- and would give you twice as much material for bad-mouthing?

[winston89]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 7:32pm

Patash, I wanted to say I agree with you.

I don't think anyone can make a fair judgment on this or any show if they only saw the first half. I was talking to a poster on here in regards to Two Cities. They said that they didn't like the show, and that they hated it so much that they left at intermission. I pointed out that they really couldn't have given a fair assessment because they left at intermission. I said that for all he knew, act two could have been better. He said that he agreed with me and that when he next talks about the show he will mention that he only saw half of it. The point that I am trying to make is this. If you only saw half and left at intermission, say that and say that that you didn't like what you saw. Don't leave at intermission and say the entire show was bad. You didn't see the entire show, you only saw half so you really couldn't say if the entire show was bad.

I have been noticing this a lot in Tale of Two cities threads.

[Alfred Califano]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 11:21am

i just bought my tickets from tkts thinking that i could get a little further back then front row with student rush and ended up in the second row. Am i still going to be as obstructed with the stage lights as i would be if i were in front row? i just want to know if i paid double for the same problem. ha

[Alfred Califano]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 11:21am

i just bought my tickets from tkts thinking that i could get a little further back then front row with student rush and ended up in the second row. Am i still going to be as obstructed with the stage lights as i would be if i were in front row? i just want to know if i paid double for the same problem. ha

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 12:04pm

A Tale of Two Cities really shouldn't resemble Les Mis because the French Revolution was an entirely different atmosphere from the 1832 student rebellion. And you can't say that it only is like Les Mis because of the French Revolution because there are a lot of French Revolution-based shows and movies that do not invoke Les Mis. For instance, the movie Danton is one of the best depictions of the Reign of Terror that I've ever seen and I didn't think of Les Mis once during it.

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 12:09pm

the story, characters, costumes, and sets do NOT resemble Les Mis.

the blocking and music resemble Les Mis !! it's a Les Mis wannabe. And winston.. please. No response is needed.

[Eponine]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 12:29pm

okay, random question. Did anyone think that James Barbour was channeling Captain Jack Sparrow during his drunk Sydney scenes?

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 12:35pm

Well I'd just like to add that A LOT of people in the Mezz at Friday's show disagree with the notion of the show being good. I heard so many responses of the show being like a high school production. Someone around me mentioned it being the "Diet version of Les Miz". I enjoy the score book and lyrics....but Untill Tomorrow is like the first draft of a very bad version of One Day More.

[winston89]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 12:35pm

Too Darn Hot, you are not allowed to say that I can't respond. I will say that I disagree. Not, that your OPINION is wrong (like you have said to me). I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Updated On: 8/25/08 at 12:35 PM

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 12:37pm

OK. Patash, I do consider myself a "real theater person" even though I walked out of Tale of Two Cities. I see over 50 shows a year and walk out on one or two. With this, as I wrote, it wasn't good or bad enough to interest me. I had work to do and had already put in 90 minutes wanting to be engaged. Nothing in the first act had given me much hope I'd be blown away by something in the second act. If I was hasty or wrong in that regard, my bad.

Yes, leaving deprived me of some ammunition if I wanted to badmouth the show or express, as Winston incorrectly reports "how much I hated" it. But this allegedly unreal theater person doesn't go to shows primarily to contribute to a loved- it, hated-it ping pong match, but to be affected by the piece and, fairly far down the list of priorities, report my experience on boards like this. I found the first half of Tale of Two Cities to be inert, so my friend and I, after some discussion, walked away, with no glee or dreams of spreading our hate around but with some misgivings and greater hope of finding something more constructive to do with our time.

Winston, read my post again or our enjoyable PMs to each other and let me know where the hate was. I always admitted I'd seen only the first half, did not pretend to be writing "a review" but merely to report my experience as honestly and reasonably as possible.

Updated On: 8/25/08 at 12:37 PM

[aspenwheezer]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 1:08pm

Even having had read the news reports of Barbour's legal problems, I have to say, I did not think of them when he was in the Little Lucy scene or the Seamstress scene. Nor did I hear nervous laughter or anything else that would indicate that people were thinking what you (adam?) thought during those scenes. Myself and the people in my group, however, did think the scenes of Sydney Carton with Little Lucy and the Seamstress were sweet and did much to show Carton's humanity and redemption of his earlier drunken, uncaring self.

[Midnight Radio]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 3:16pm

Funny because when I saw it, I thought both of those moments were incredibly awkward for the exact same reason...

[bwaybri2]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 6:25pm

another reason why I loved this show - the story behind its creator -

how often has an unknown wrote the book/music/lyrics to a show - impressive -

[Neverandy]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 6:41pm

"another reason why I loved this show - the story behind its creator -

how often has an unknown wrote the book/music/lyrics to a show - impressive -"


This worked so well this year with Gone with The Wind in LONDON.

[bwaybri2]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 7:11pm

I knew Gone with the Wind - and TOTC is no Gone with the Wind -

you would think people on this board would embrace new arrivals -

[son_of_a_gunn_25]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 7:21pm

Updated On: 4/3/10 at 07:21 PM

[MyLife]

Posted: 8/25/08 at 8:04pm

Yes, I saw a lot of Jack Sparrow in Sydney Carton, and loved it. But Act 2 Barbour's portrayal drastically changes. Barbour is amazing in the role and I hope he gets recognized for his performance whether critics praise the show or bash it.

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 8/27/08 at 3:17pm

Looking back on it, I think it was Barbour's performance that kept me in my seat. Despite a lack of structural soundness and (IMO) many missed opportunities to clarify the show flow, TOTC is a breathtaking showcase for JB, and he was riveting to watch (and hear).

It would be such a shame if the producers and author don't do the work necessary to save the show.

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/27/08 at 6:15pm

Sometimes you can work your tail off, do every conceivable thing to rework a show--even bring in a top-notch hired gun to make something better--and it's just never quite right.

On the other hand, as paradoxical as it may seem, there are times when a show's obvious flaws are of no importance to an audience. I remember taking my kids to
see "Starlight Express" in the U.K.

We sat next to avery friendly Brit who was seeing the show for the fourth time and gave my kids a quick synopsis. (There was no need to worry about "spoilers".)
My wife and I had the same thought as we looked at the set, "My God! How can this possibly work?." It was a night out for me, but I could never imagine it would run for almost 8,000 performances on the West End.

If Barbour's performance kept you in your seat, it may bring other's to the theater.
I've always found the character of Sidney Carton mesmerizing, indifferent to his incarnation, whether in a drama, made-for-prime time movie, or a book on tape.

Your rave about his performance, despite your considerations about the shows liabilities, will probably inspire me to tell a few friends that this element of the show may be enough in itself to take in a performance.