The stupid board isn't letting me quote posts, but I completely empathise, ajblowing. I have friends who like theatre, but not to the extent I do, and I'm very much single and would love to find a date who likes theatre as much as I do! I go to the theatre alone more often than I go with someone, and while that's not a problem, it would be nicer to share it with someone - I do get a bit jealous of all the couples sometimes!
I don't trust the Mirror as far as I could throw it, so I'm taking this with a mountain of salt.
I like Sheridan Smith, and think she'd be a decent Eliza acting-wise, though I think she's a little old for the part. But she's not a great singer, she's just ok, and I highly doubt she'd be able to get anywhere near the last note of I Could Have Danced All Night. The role needs a strong singer.
As for David Walliams, I'm sorry to be blunt, but the less said, the better. I thought he was by far the weakest in the Grandage Midsummer Night's Dream, and can't think of many people who are less suited to playing Henry Higgins. He and Smith don't have much chemistry on-stage either.
I would rank it as the strongest score from the last decade, I'm struggling to think of anything that's anywhere near as memorable to me apart from Avenue Q, which I don't think is as good a score as Wicked, though clever in its own right.
Each to their own though, opinions differ widely - for example I've read so many raves about the Matilda score, but I thought that was entirely forgettable!
I never said that you were saying they had to be English, but you did say they had to speak with an 'English', accent and I disagreed. I still disagree, I don't think it matters in the slightest what accent they have as long as their diction is clear. It's not as if it's set in a particular country - it's set in an imaginary one, so there are no accent rules. I'd much rather have an Elphaba with a bit of an accent who can sing it out of the park than one who has perfect English but can't sing the score. And what does 'English' accent mean anyway? There are hundreds of different accents in England! If the performance is good, then people will concentrate on that rather than any accent anyway, so I don't think at all that there's any reason to say they have to speak in an 'English' accent, regardless of the fact that that's a misnomer in itself.
wickedlover, on 19 November 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:
Well it can't really be any accent, imagine what it would have been like if Rachel Tucker just kept her Northern Ireland accent.
She did in parts! There were always little bits, especially when Elphaba is angry, that Rachel really sounded Northern Irish to me. Whether it's just because I'm from NI as well so notice it more, I don't know. I disagree entirely that they 'have' to sound English though - that means saying every single person ever to have played Elphaba on Broadway has done it wrong, which is plainly ridiculous. The accent doesn't matter as long as what the actress is saying can be made out easily.
well isn't emma hatton the alternate? i heard will is only doing 7 shows a week?
No offence, but it seems your announcement about Louise being Ellen in Miss Saigon was completely wrong, so citing a source for your information would be very helpful... Seems very strange that they would introduce an alternate (essentially) to London now for an Elphaba who's proven her ability to do 8 shows a week, when actually they needed one several years ago...
Please excuse this ignoramus but ...
I heard the 2 of the cast on Radio London last Saturday morning and they did one of the songs and it was pretty funny. I know nothing about the show except that whispers are coming back that it is amazingly good. A word of mouth hit.
Now I organise group outings amongst work colleagues and over the years (20 years) we have seen just about everything. But I know my audience and we like to leave the theatre laughing and humming a good tune. So would you recommend this. Will they be patting me on my back saying 'Good choice matey' . BTW if it is anything like Sondheim NO we don't like him. Too wordy and clever and no tunes - we are simple people.
No, you won't leave laughing (though you may well be leaving humming a tune - plenty of the audience on Friday were!), but theatre is about more than that - and certainly if you've seen just about everything then no doubt you'll have seen plenty that does more than make you laugh before. It will make you laugh though, there's a lot of humour in it, but it's not a cheesy love story, and it doesn't insult the audience's intelligence. You are more likely to leave crying than laughing, and for good reason - the last scene is heart-wrenching. Having said that, it's not Sondheim, so it's neither hard to follow nor lyrically over-complex. What it is is beautiful simplicity with a lot of heart, raw emotion and songs that, in my opinion (contrary to the poster above), will be in your head for a long time, especially the hauntingly beautiful Falling Slowly and Gold. I've seen it twice and I'd recommend it more highly than anything else currently playing in the West End. It's not a jukebox musical, but it's not poorer because of that, and after just a single viewing it became one of my favourite shows.
Why employ people that haven't had training is it a case of not what you know but who you know? It devalues the profession & stops trained performers getting their break imho
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Not everyone who's good has had training - not everyone can afford it (I know that doesn't apply in this case, but the principle's the same and you made a complete sweeping statement).
And equally not everyone who's had training is good (sometimes it's who you know that gets you into a school too...).
People can get their big break in lots of different ways, but it doesn't make them any less deserving of it. I think you should be judging on talent, not the name of the school on someone's CV!
Some of the best people in the arts have never been trained - Katharine Hepburn only did am-dram in college, current Best Actress Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence has never had any training... and the same undoubtedly goes for plenty of theatre talent too.
Personally I'd rather see a talented person who's right for a particular role - I don't give a damn where they did or didn't train! Trained performers are no more entitled than anyone else.
The set is in a bar for atmosphere, that's all - it's set in Dublin for goodness sake, and the music is predominantly based on traditional Irish folk music that's heard in bars all over the country. It's not meant to be lavish, there are plenty of shows that do that. It's a show about the music and the story, and if you don't go in expecting a big loud musical, then the simplistic beauty of the music and lyrics alone should be enough to keep you invested so that you don't care about the set, which is a secondary concern rather than in any way pivotal to the show. At least they did for me, but then again the music is what counts for me. I probably wouldn't care if the set was as little as two chairs and a microphone. For me the performances count, not how lavish the set is.
The question isnt whether it will tour easily, the issue as to how well it will do on tour.
Well whether it will tour easily is inherent in that, but regardless, I answered the point about how well it could do in my previous post. How well it will do is something no-one can say unless they've got an uncanny ability to predict the future accurately.
Eastender, in my opinion there are many shows that could beat Guys and Dolls, it wouldn't even make my top 10 of Greatest Musicals and possibly not even the top 20. I don't agree with all of your criteria, but I'll go by them anyway.
I’m putting in a second vote for Les Miserables – as far as I’m concerned no other musical comes close.
Story: redemption, love, sacrifice, faith, hope, trying to make a difference - Les Mis has it all and it’s not shallow or light. It doesn’t insult the audience by trying to make light of difficult issues, but has a depth and complexity to the story and the characters which gives the show an extra dimension.
Humour: it’s not a show with a humorous subject, but it still manages to have just the right amount of light relief through the Thenardiers – just listening to Master of the House alone is hilarious. And there’s other humour there as well – Eponine and Marius teasing each other, the barricade boys teasing a lovestruck Marius…
Songs: Well, there’s no better score than Les Mis in my opinion. You want showstoppers (though I disagree that a great musical has to have one – look at Once, for example – but that’s another issue entirely), this has them in abundance: solos for almost every character with wonderful, meaningful lyrics: Who Am I? I Dreamed a Dream, On My Own, Stars, Empty Chairs at Empty Tables… from complex soul searching (Soliloquy) to prayer (Bring Him Home), and rousing ensemble numbers: Do You Hear the People Sing, At the End of the Day and of course One Day More. It’s an almost flawless score and lives long in the memory.
Commercial: Well, it’s been running for 27 and a half years, that speaks for itself.