Show #1: Into the Woods @ Regent's Park Open Air Theatre, i.e. in the actual woods (or at least surrounded by a number of trees), under a perfect late summer sky. Completely magical. I'll never watch this show again anywhere else, 'cause what could beat this setting?
The show itself: 1st half of show is wonderful; 2nd is depressing, overlong and mostly recycles tunes from the 1st. Should almost have left at the interval with a perfect experience! Adored the set design, but hated the bizarre hunter/rastafarian costumes. Cinderella had dreadlocs! Even in her "ballgown", wich wasn't much to look at!
Shows #2 and #3: Henry IV parts I and II, Shakespeare's Globe. Standing up for 6,5 hrs watching Shakespeare might not be fun for everyone, but it's how I spent my Sunday! Again, perfect weather. Loved how every little thing on stage was ENTIRELY authentic, down to every single hand-sewn stitch, and footwear many SCA people would kill for.
Shakespeare's history plays aren't my favourites, though: Henry IV is supposedly one of the best, but I still didn't find it particularly riveting. Give me a good tragedy or comedy any day. Did love Roger Allam and Jamie Parker in the lead roles.
Show #3: Passion @ Donmar Warehouse. A deliciously twisted love triangle. Sort of slow in the beginning, but the sicker the thing got, the more I enjoyed it.
It was a joy and a privilege to watch Elena Roger, the petite Argentinian übertalent. David Thaxton was pleasing to the eye and the ear, possibly a little nervous acting alongside two far more famous women, but seemed to get over it somewhat as the play progressed. (The other famous woman, Scarlett Strallen, was fine, too.)
The theatre is so small you could almost reach out and touch the actors ♥
Show #4: Love Never Dies. My holiday was filling up with artsy, brainy productions. What to do, what to do? Go see Lloyd Webber's newest megamusical / Phantom sequel!
If you loved the original Phantom, you're VERY likely to hate this sequel. If you thought the original had a lovely, happy ending and expected our heroine to ride off into the sunset with her hero, this show will rape your memories and make you a very sad panda. You have been warned.
Personally, I've never been crazy about Phantom, and always thought Christine seemed more concerned with escaping the scary opera house and less in love with her rescuer.
Result: I actually rather LIKED this sequel. It has lovely new tunes, everyone's all grown up, and the Phantom's a more well-rounded character this time around. Act I is actually rather wonderful and full of promise. Shame about the ending, though, which is unrewarding for everybody and sort of spoils the experience.
the tiny fringe theatre that produces hit after hit after hit, West End transfers, Broadway transfers, you name it. The theatre is almost too small for my tastes, but the production was delightful.
Aspects of Love should be renamed Aspects of Lust, though. It portrays a bizarre unverse where everyone fancies everyone and no one ever says no - which is FINE by me and rather entertaining. But what the hell does that have to do with LOVE...? They'll jump into bed two hours after meeting each other and immediately call it love. They certainly have their terminology mixed up. This baffled me throughout the show.
Also, Andrew, please stop recycling your tunes between shows. It confuses me.
The story was more captivating the 2nd time around. Small things mattered. Loved it. (Not as much as A Little Night Music, though.)
To continue yesterday's train of thought: This musical is the COMPLETE opposite of Aspects of Love. It sees love as an obsessive, all-consuming force. Which got me thinking: Could both views be correct? Do certain people life in an Aspects of Love world - love for fun / to avoid loneliness / because they honestly fall in love that easily - while others live in a single-minded Passion world, where love is rare but all-consuming?
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti