| |
dom ohanlon
Newbie
|
Hiya everyone!!
I am going to see the show for the second time, to see the cast change. I hope the new Higgins is as good as Jonothon Pryce!!
Hey, does any1 out ther know if they are planning to make a video and DVD, like they have done with OKLAHOMA? It would be amazing!!! The show is brilliant and i cant wait 2 see it again! I would love to own a copy at home!
Of course if they did, they would hav 2 get Jonothon and Martine back. They wold draw people 2 buy it!
Plz �reply!
dom
13
-----
Dominic
|
Total Posts: 10 | Joined Mar. 2002 | Posted on: 1:27 pm on May 15, 2002 | IP
|
|
Lucy
Junior Member
|
Not too sure they could get both Jonathan and Martine! But we can live without Martine, Joanna Riding any day! As for Alex Jennings being as good as Jon...diferent maybe but "As Good" ? Nah!! Not on your Nellie! (Tacky reference to South Pacific but God I miss it!!!!! Any one else see it? Phil Quast is a genius! Long live the man who stole the Olivier from under Jon's sniffer!
-----
Lucy
|
Total Posts: 73 | Joined Mar. 2002 | Posted on: 6:44 am on May 18, 2002 | IP
|
|
mmebahorel
Junior Member
|
I wish they could have videoed South Pacific! *sigh* I was sorry that the "Making of" stuff had to be canned.
And yes, I saw it. Many many times. I was a regular fixture there after seeing it twice in previews. Philip was amazing -- that man is a bloody genius. I loved both of them, but I think I would have voted for Phil, too -- Jon was excellent, and moving, and different, and yet there was just something that seemed more different and that made much more sense in Philip's interpretation. But both men took overdone roles and made them not just their own, but into something that seemed completely new. Still, I have to say that Phil's boyish Emile was such a brilliant idea and so perfectly executed that I was very glad to see him get a third Olivier. Anyway, yes, I was a fixture. Just ask Nick Holder and Lauren Kennedy *g*.
I think the only way a video would be done is if they can get Martine. Martine is that name that will boost sales, and sales are the only justification for the massive expense that a video will entail. While it should be done, it will be dependent on Martine, I'm sure. But considering the number of productions that have never been video recorded, I certainly don't expect a video.
|
Total Posts: 59 | Joined Feb. 2002 | Posted on: 5:25 pm on May 18, 2002 | IP
|
|
Kathryn
Newbie
|
I think Jon should have got the Olivier. I'm saying this without having seen Philip Quast in South Pacific, and that's a bit presumptuous of me I know but I cannot see how the role of Emile de Becque can be compared to that of Henry Higgins. The latter is more complex musically and emotionally and in its language and therefore requires greater technical skill. Both actors may have done well, but Jon should have got the award in recognition of the greater demands of his role.
-----
Kathryn
|
Total Posts: 27 | Joined April 2002 | Posted on: 7:34 pm on May 18, 2002 | IP
|
|
mmebahorel
Junior Member
|
But see, you haven't see Philip Quast's Emile. Quast's Emile *is* as complex emotionally as Pryce's Higgins. I also don't believe that one is any more complex musically than the other (perhaps for the orchestra, but My Fair Lady does not have a complex and taxing vocal part for Higgins -- if it was, they could never have hired Alex Jennings). Jon's role may have had more stage time, since there isn't a secondary plot line, but at times, depending on the voters' idea of how Shaw should be played, Jon may have gone over the top a couple of times. And depending on the voters' idea of de Becque, Phil's boyish interpretation may not have been to their liking. It's all subjective. God, look at the Tonys last year. The winner for best actress had one song, while one of the nominees carried an entire show. There's no completely objective measure in figure skating, gymnastics, or theatre.
It was a draw, and what would you have preferred? One of those years when no one really stood out, or a year in which there were multiple fantastic performances? The latter means a much richer theatre season, even if it does mean greater disappointment at award time for certain people.
If it was just about doing well, Brent Barrett did extremely well, too. Lauren Kennedy was fantastic, and I preferred her in her role to Marin Mazzie in hers, but she was not nominated at all, and I think Nellie Forbush is just as demanding as Lilli Vanessi. Oh, so Lauren didn't have to throw things. She had to exhibit a controlled anger and heartbreak, which is more difficult than Lilli's broad emotions. The women's nominations were less than ideal this year. At least Jon got a nom -- I was not happy about Lauren being snubbed. And that's how awards go -- we like them only when we like the people who won. I've given up on caring -- yeah, it was great that Phil go recognition, but did it help the show extend? No. At the end of the day, everyone was in the same place they were before the nominations were announced. And this was a year where the outcome was pretty good for me. Become a cynic, it's easier *g*.
|
Total Posts: 59 | Joined Feb. 2002 | Posted on: 10:19 am on May 19, 2002 | IP
|
|
Lucy
Junior Member
|
I was annoyed that Lauren was snubbed as well, even more annoyed that Martine wasn't!
Phil's Emile was very layered and both the guys (Phil and Jon) are terribly talented, both with three Oliviers I believe now, classically trained at their countries most acclaimed drama schools (NIDA and RADA) and both deserved it against the other candidates. However who deserved it between themselves?
Their acting is spot on but as we're looking at "best actor in a musical" Phil's singing wins miles over Jon's, not only because of the limitations of Higgins's score but also because of talent! Phil is simply the best (and I mean it! Screw Russel Watson and Micheal Ball) Baritone I have ever heard.
P.S. Thanks for telling me about the faces. You won't get me to stop using them now!
-----
Lucy
|
Total Posts: 73 | Joined Mar. 2002 | Posted on: 2:13 pm on May 19, 2002 | IP
|
|
Lucy
Junior Member
|
Before some know-it-all says it I know Micheal Ball is a Tenor!
-----
Lucy
|
Total Posts: 73 | Joined Mar. 2002 | Posted on: 2:15 pm on May 19, 2002 | IP
|
|
Kathryn
Newbie
|
OK, I admit I can't enter into a debate about Jon vs Philip as I didn't see the latter. I agree with you mmebahorel, that it's better for the theatre overall to have more than one obvious contender for an award. I would have been very happy if Jon had won, but I'm sure he'll get over it; after all he's won before and you don't survive in the theatre as long as he has unless you're fairly thick skinned! After hearing youall talk about it though, I'm really sorry i missed South Pacific .
-----
Kathryn
|
Total Posts: 27 | Joined April 2002 | Posted on: 5:31 pm on May 19, 2002 | IP
|
|
Lucy
Junior Member
|
SP was terrific! Matthew Bourne's choreography and Trevor Nunn's directing...who could ask for more in a musical. Despite being a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical the cast overcame the obvious cheese that comes with doing one and even managed to sing some of the worst lyrics in history with conviction. Now there's a feat!
The characters that are so flat and thoughtless on paper were transformed into real people and the whole cast was magnificent!
You can't expect Les Miserables story line wise when you go to see R&H but it was highly entertaining and the CD (excuse the advertising) is a must for those winter blues. (just sing 'A Cockeyed Optimist' at the very top of your voice with all the feeling you can and try to suppress fits of giggles and the immense urge to skip about the room and you'll know exactly what I mean . Go on! I dare you!)
Then there is Philip Quast... seen him in anything else? The man is fabulous and veryone knows it apart from himself. Could not wish for a better actor on and off the stage, believe me! And the voice!
-----
Lucy
|
Total Posts: 73 | Joined Mar. 2002 | Posted on: 2:44 pm on May 20, 2002 | IP
|
|
mmebahorel
Junior Member
|
The whole ensemble was terrific as well. Their bits of stage business were always very individual, and though I did a lot of Tam Mutu watching, I never failed to notice each of the other guys on occasion, and the girls were great with their own little characterisations in I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Out of My Hair. Wasn't so fond of Sheila Francisco, but it could be the character, too, and Edward Baker-Duly was sufficient as Joe Cable. A good actor, who suited the part, but the weakest link vocally in the cast.
Of course, what pulled me back so many times was as much Nick Holder as the romantic leads. I read the book after I saw the show the first two times, and at that point, I absolutely latched onto Luther Billis because Nick seemed to incorporate so much of Tony Fry, my favourite character in the book. It's still hard to think of Tony without crying, and I left the book at home for my mother at the end of March.
I think the inclusion of Now Is The Time helped the character of Emile a lot. "I am back where I started, seeing the world as it is. Now is the time, the time to live. No other time is real. Yesterday has gone, tomorrow's a guess, today you can see and feel."
Which of course is not to say that the entire production was better than MFL -- they were different. Bourne's choreography is much more inspired in MFL, but he did a good job with SP in not being too terribly cheesy (it's so easy for R&H to be cheesy). Nothing Like A Dame was excellent; Bloody Mary was brilliant at the beginning but less so as it wore on. But the cast was young, energetic, and really knew their stage business, which allowed distinct characterisations as they weren't playing multiple characters. Some of the characterisations ensemblewise aren't as strong in MFL because the character exist for such a short period of time and more as background than anything else. Sir Reginald Tarrington, for example. Perhaps that's why Valerie Cutko stood out so much. But the ensemble has different things required of it in each piece, so it isn't necessarily fair to compare them. The closed world of that particular army base on that particular island in the South Pacific is different to the interlocking and suddenly vaguely overlapping worlds of London that MFL presents. It's different.
It was a great year for theatre. Wish this year would be as good (why why why are they bringing Contact over here? And I suspect not for a limited run, either.).
|
Total Posts: 59 | Joined Feb. 2002 | Posted on: 6:35 am on May 21, 2002 | IP
|
|
| |
|
Wouldn't it be Loverly...