Flashdance
My two cents worth
Rate Topic:
-
Group:
Full Members
-
Posts:
71
-
Joined:
13-April 07
-
Gender:Male
-
Location:London
Posted 08 October 2008 - 12:49 PM
Well i had such hope for this show. I really enjoyed footloose and it seemed to be going along the same route of that so i was quite excited. However the set just looked awful as soon as i walked into the theatre. It was so cheap looking and when i looked into the orchestra pit it was as usual for a touring production 5 keyboards, a synthesizr board, an electric drum kit and a trumpet. so disappointing;. the show started and it sounded very good. Until i realised that actualy the singing was dubbed and it wasnt even the people in the cast at the very begginging, the song was called working mens orchestra or something like that. then the openeing number started and it was far too long. i think about 10 minutes of song and dance and no characters really introduced. I think they assumed everyone had seen the movie. The accents were dreadful or some of them wehere at least. Victoria soeone or other who played alex was good but her accent slipped a lot and for a role that required alot of dancing she didnt seem to do a lot. even her big dance solo to get into the school she stumbed about 8 times and even fell when striking the last pose. The water chair thing was more like someone had dribbled from the rafters a nd it had landed on her. Was a bit pants really. The music was all very samey and there were far too many characters fr the show to flow. I also had a problem with the fact that in the movie the bar she dances in is great. they have bg light walls, and different sets. in the show it had such potential but felt like they had said you have thirty seconds to improvise being sexy. go. They had also cut some of the best characters from the film, ie the guy that tells the jokes that works in the kitchen. And so on. I just felt very let down and disappointdby a show that has such huge potential.
0
-
Group:
Full Members
-
Posts:
71
-
Joined:
13-April 07
-
Gender:Male
-
Location:London
Posted 08 October 2008 - 12:50 PM
sorry for the bad grammar it was typed off my i phone.
0
#3
Guest_Guest_James_*_*
Posted 08 October 2008 - 02:17 PM
I really enjoyed this, ok so the 'working mens orchestra' was dubbed and I often thought that some pieces during the ensembles dance pieces were dubbed too with them singing over. Orchestra size wasn't huge but it sounded fine and the sound was well balanced along with some fine voices - I haven't seen the film so went along with an open mind, I thought that the sound effects before the show opened were effective, along with the set, the use of sliders were effective to hide pieces of scenery coming on and off although I felt that the producers should have invested in a few more pieces of scenery. For a 'static' set I thought it was really effective and well used, including the moving bridge, at least it added another level to the action and an effective place to store the water drop. Unless I missed something, I just couldn't understand what the purpose of this water drop is, it would have been far more effective after the audition piece but then I figured that it would cause too much mess and not enough time to clear the stage. I really enjoyed this production compared to most touring at the moment, the theatre was full and it received a well deserved standing ovation for a well deserved cast. I couldn't really fault it as it does have a great cast with some very polished performances, it also gave me a great buzz and that 'go and see it again' feeling. I'm not always sure it is fair to compare the stage version to the film as it is not going to be possible to create a carbon copy and producers will not always risk a high investment as films tend to have a much higher budget for obvious reasons but I believe they have given us an excellent production. My advice is to go and see this production, it has the feel good factor and is a great night out, I wouldn't go comparing to the film though, i'm lucky enough as I haven't seen the film! If I have seen a film version i really do try to go with an open mind - As this isn't the most advanced touring production, I do think the ticket prices are a little steep as with most at the moment but if you can afford it then it is worth seeing yes and I don't think anyone could go expecting more than this show is willing to offer 'the feel good factor' - if you want spectacular sets etc then it has to be London i'm afraid!
0
#4
Guest_Guest_*
Posted 11 October 2008 - 11:12 AM
QUOTE(smelly1345 @ Oct 8 2008, 12:49 PM)  Well i had such hope for this show. I really enjoyed footloose and it seemed to be going along the same route of that so i was quite excited. However the set just looked awful as soon as i walked into the theatre. It was so cheap looking and when i looked into the orchestra pit it was as usual for a touring production 5 keyboards, a synthesizr board, an electric drum kit and a trumpet. so disappointing;. the show started and it sounded very good. Until i realised that actualy the singing was dubbed and it wasnt even the people in the cast at the very begginging, the song was called working mens orchestra or something like that. then the openeing number started and it was far too long. i think about 10 minutes of song and dance and no characters really introduced. I think they assumed everyone had seen the movie. The accents were dreadful or some of them wehere at least. Victoria soeone or other who played alex was good but her accent slipped a lot and for a role that required alot of dancing she didnt seem to do a lot. even her big dance solo to get into the school she stumbed about 8 times and even fell when striking the last pose. The water chair thing was more like someone had dribbled from the rafters a nd it had landed on her. Was a bit pants really. The music was all very samey and there were far too many characters fr the show to flow. I also had a problem with the fact that in the movie the bar she dances in is great. they have bg light walls, and different sets. in the show it had such potential but felt like they had said you have thirty seconds to improvise being sexy. go. They had also cut some of the best characters from the film, ie the guy that tells the jokes that works in the kitchen. And so on. I just felt very let down and disappointdby a show that has such huge potential. That's funny...my programme said the band was 2 Keyboards, 2 Guitars, Bass, Drums, Trumpet, Horn - maybe I was imagining things?
0
-
Group:
Full Members
-
Posts:
384
-
Joined:
13-February 07
-
Gender:Female
-
Location:London, UK
-
Interests:Musical theatre, costumes, shiny things
Posted 11 October 2008 - 11:14 PM
I saw this on Tuesday, I saw a LOT of parallels with Footloose, Fame, and a bit of Rent in there. So, generally, derivative of stuff I like! Victoria Hamilton-Barritt I last saw playing Carmen in Fame, and she didn't seem to be playing a notably different character here. Same accent, same dance... I really liked the three other dancers characters, tho the greek chorus style was just like Footloose. The death scene was very like "Contact" from Rent, tho it went on a bit and got a bit silly.
I did think there were pacing issues, Act 1 was far too long and the weak-bladdered wine drinkers around me were up and down like yoyos, pushing through the rows to get to the Ladies. Act 2 seemed a lot shorter. The water drop seemed like a duty to include it rather than being part of the story telling, but practically had to be the end of act 1 so they can clear up after!
Like Footloose, I think the songs showed their pedigree, the original soundtrack numbers being much stronger than the newly written material, well, far more memorable and very different in style. However, unlike Footloose and Fame, I don't think there's a huge appeal beyond the nostalgia for the movie? Do the teenyboppers want to go see it?
Also, I know it's the way of the world, but it's a shame that "Jimmy" wassname off the telly, who is a fairly small role, gets star billing when Ruthie Stephens, playing Gloria, the secondary female lead, is treated like a featured ensemble role. She should be a star!
###Belle###
0
-
Group:
Full Members
-
Posts:
56
-
Joined:
18-May 08
-
Gender:Female
-
Location:Glasgow
-
Interests:Music, lyrics, what people are thinking when they write lyics and songs and if they are all based on real life situations, listening to someone play acoustic guitar, books - fiction and non-fiction, films, people, comedy, talking, banter, real life, football, our way of life (i.e. in Glasgow, when asked what school you went to, really people just want to know if you're Catholic or Protestant), dance - not me personally but I like watching it done properly, people with raw talent, make up, writing, drawing, fashion and style. Interesting people with good stories. Natural wit. The theatre and everything to do with it. From the make up and costumes to the actors and performers themselves.
Posted 13 October 2008 - 10:29 AM
QUOTE(Belle @ Oct 12 2008, 12:14 AM) Also, I know it's the way of the world, but it's a shame that "Jimmy" wassname off the telly, who is a fairly small role, gets star billing when Ruthie Stephens, playing Gloria, the secondary female lead, is treated like a featured ensemble role. She should be a star! I for one loved Flashdance. It was a fun night out and a well put on show. However, I do agree that it dragged on a bit. And Belle I totally agree with your take on Jimmy. Bruno Langley was excellent in this role but it was a fairly small part. Gloria, for me, was the star of the show. Ruthie Stephens is going to go far.
Call me Heather.
0
-
Group:
Full Members
-
Posts:
236
-
Joined:
25-August 07
Posted 13 October 2008 - 03:27 PM
Weirdly, I agree with pretty much all the negative comments above and yet I really enjoyed the show!!!
The water drop was completely pathetic. They need to visit Never Forget for some tips!
It is terrible that the z-list celebs are billed higher than the actual talent.
The accents were dubious.
The lead didn't dance as much as you'd expect a lead character in a dance musical to dance!!
There were a lot of ideas that were a little too obviously stolen from other shows.
BUT.....I thought the group choreography was brilliant. Several of the ensemble were absolutely fantastic dancers.
And I genuinely enjoyed the show. Can't really explain why.....just one of those things that appealed to me despite the huge list of reasons why it shouldn't!! I guess that's why you should always try things for yourself before deciding based on reviews!!!
0
 - Newbie
-
-
Group:
Full Members
-
Posts:
1
-
Joined:
14-October 08
Posted 14 October 2008 - 05:33 PM
ive seen the show several times now, namely as my boyfriend Adam is Guitar 1... i love the show, although i prefer Djalenga Scott playing Alex. The music is awesome and the show, in my opinion, is well put together. The dancers are fantastic and well as the singers.. some, yes may be out of tune and may try a little hard than they should but overall its a great show to watch. Ruthis of course is an amazing dancer and actress. I feel everyones accent was auite good... obviously there are always going to be people who have differant opinions, but in mine.... i wouldnt keep going back to watch the show if i thought it wasnt good 
0
Share this topic:
1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
|
|
This topic is locked
Promote to Article
