25th Anniversary Restaged Tour

Raphael wrote:

PhantomsGhost wrote:It looks like Katie's wearing a necklace? Maybe a locked with a pic of her father, or Raoul in it? Kind of a cool idea, IMHO, if that's what it is.

It is a great idea... if you could do a close-up so the audience could see the (alleged) picture in the locket. And that's not being narrow-minded, that's just being logical

And I still say the changes to Maria's costumes look a lot more like high-end versions of what could be put together for a high school production.

R.

In my opinion, it's a great idea whether or not the audience can see the photograph inside. Props that give an enriched, personal relation to an actor on stage can make a show very interesting. And if all the answers aren't quite there in the spotlight, that's okay!

As long as it's not introduced into the story, a prop that adds "texture" to a character is fine (like the rosary Christine was holding during the graveyard scene in the high school production I saw). I subscribe to the "Chekov's gun" rule - don't introduce irrelevant elements into a story. You're time is better spent trying to fix the plot holes already there.

R.

I'm reading here and there that the new UK tour chandelier now has "glass" falling at the audience when it crashes. I just wonder if anyone could confirm this and eventually what they use. My immediate thought was confetti, but then people would probably write confetti and not glass? On the other hand, I know it's impossible for them to pour glass over the audience. So I'm just curious on what exactly is going on.

The new tour seems to be well received in general. People seem to be mixed about the chandelier and some minor acting choices (or staging). And MOTN is a returning disappointment. But the cast is always praised in the comments and reviews I read. Seems to be the main selling point. People also seem very impressed with the new sets. The Phantom's disappearance at the end is another "talkie".

Anyone here heading for the Manchester leg of the tour?

Does anyone know if they sell a brochure?

SweetChristine wrote:Does anyone know if they sell a brochure?

I've seen scans of one with rehearsal pictures. Judging by how few actual stage pictures floating around the internet, I wanna claim they haven't made a "proper" brochure with pictures. Probably ready for opening night in Manchester?

operafantomet wrote:I'm reading here and there that the new UK tour chandelier now has "glass" falling at the audience when it crashes. I just wonder if anyone could confirm this and eventually what they use. My immediate thought was confetti, but then people would probably write confetti and not glass? On the other hand, I know it's impossible for them to pour glass over the audience. So I'm just curious on what exactly is going on.

The new tour seems to be well received in general. People seem to be mixed about the chandelier and some minor acting choices (or staging). And MOTN is a returning disappointment. But the cast is always praised in the comments and reviews I read. Seems to be the main selling point. People also seem very impressed with the new sets. The Phantom's disappearance at the end is another "talkie".

Anyone here heading for the Manchester leg of the tour?

I'm there for the manchester performance on 7th april. I'm actually quite excited!
OG

Wandering Child posted these two links on tumblr: Act I, Act II. It's a very detailed review of the tour, with a lot of interesting observations and even illustrations (drawn by the author).

SweetChristine wrote:Does anyone know if they sell a brochure?

JOJ tweeted yesterday that souvenir brochures should be available soon.

charleygirl wrote:

SweetChristine wrote:Does anyone know if they sell a brochure?

JOJ tweeted yesterday that souvenir brochures should be available soon.

Hi there Charleygirl. I'm seeing the show this saturday. Do you think it may be out by then?
OG

No idea, I'm afraid. That was all he said in answer to someone's question on the subject. Hopefully you'll be lucky - would make sense to bring them out for the next leg of the tour.

charleygirl wrote:

SweetChristine wrote:Does anyone know if they sell a brochure?

JOJ tweeted yesterday that souvenir brochures should be available soon.

I know he answered me!

Another fresh review of the tour production, quite lengthy.

I saw the matinee yesterday in Manchester. Fantastic singing from all principals (especially the amazing singer playing Carlotta!) One new directorial choice I did think was very good was

Spoiler:

Otherwise I prefer the original production, but it was extremely interesting to watch the new show.

A *huge* complaint I have though, is that I couldn't see 40% of the stage from my seat (row T, in the stalls)... while I knew the seats were not as good I would have liked (due to ticket availability when I purchased them) they should have been listed as 'restricted view', as I could literally only see the bottom 60% of the stage due to the huge overhanging balcony.

We missed seeing anything during the first minute of the title song, as our view of the actors was completely blocked by the balcony ceiling, and we had to walk up at intermission to see if there really was a chandelier up there. I was very disappointed, as I was very curious to see the new sets, which I feel like I completely missed out on. We wandered around at intermission, and found that you would only be able to see the chandelier if you were seated in row F or forward, and all rows behind about would suffer an increasingly restricted view due to the overhang. The balcony might have been a better place to sit. Oops.

So be forewarned! That really let me down. I've never had such a poor view of a production unless I clearly knew going in that I had bought a restricted view ticket. Missing 40% of the stage seemed unacceptable to me.


ETA -- fun fact: Box 5 at the Garnier has an even worse view of the stage. Can't see a thing from there either

Yet another review from Tumblr, quite negative.

ette wrote:I saw the matinee yesterday in Manchester. Fantastic singing from all principals (especially the amazing singer playing Carlotta!) One new directorial choice I did think was very good was

Spoiler:

Otherwise I prefer the original production, but it was extremely interesting to watch the new show.

I've heard that mentioned many times from others regarding the show, yet it's not new. This was done by other Christines in theBrilliantOriginal. Katie Knight-Adams is one who did this, as well.

I didn't like it when I heard about it then, and still don't like it. It makes little sense to me, especially when Raoul is standing right there. Why would she fling herself off like that in front of him? She's the one who dragged him up to the rooftop to begin with.

PhantomsGhost wrote:

ette wrote:I saw the matinee yesterday in Manchester. Fantastic singing from all principals (especially the amazing singer playing Carlotta!) One new directorial choice I did think was very good was

Spoiler:

Otherwise I prefer the original production, but it was extremely interesting to watch the new show.

I've heard that mentioned many times from others regarding the show, yet it's not new. This was done by other Christines in theBrilliantOriginal. Katie Knight-Adams is one who did this, as well.

I didn't like it when I heard about it then, and still don't like it. It makes little sense to me, especially when Raoul is standing right there. Why would she fling herself off like that in front of him? She's the one who dragged him up to the rooftop to begin with.

I've never seen it done before, certainly not this explicitly. She was facing the audience while she pretended to look over the edge. Interesting -- in London, does she face the back wall where the skyline is projected?

It seemed realistic enough to me. The way she played it it was as if the nasty dropoff caught her eye and gave her the gruesome idea right there and then. Not like it was pre-planned, but like she was in despair and caught sight of a possible solution to her problems.

I've never seen it done, just read reviews regarding how it was portrayed.

Someone mentioned in a review (May have been further up the page here) but it makes AIAOY not a love song anymore and more of a desperate attempt by Raoul to save her life, and he'd say anything to get her to not jump. IMHO it cheapens their one moment, their one duet together.

PhantomsGhost wrote:I've never seen it done, just read reviews regarding how it was portrayed.

Someone mentioned in a review (May have been further up the page here) but it makes AIAOY not a love song anymore and more of a desperate attempt by Raoul to save her life, and he'd say anything to get her to not jump. IMHO it cheapens their one moment, their one duet together.

I can see how it could be perceived that way, but for me, it deepened their moment entirely. He got to starkly see how panicked and hopeless she had become. His promises and vows to her in the lyrics were desperate, surely, but not just to say any old thing. The increased intensity of the situation forced him to dig deeper (past the 'yes yes, the Angel of Music, but now we go to supper!' persona) to communicate heartfeltedly how willing he was to protect her and keep her safe (even from her own demons that had just threatened to overtake her.)

I usually think the song is pretty, but that they are a bit shortsighted to be simpering away at each other when they are obviously in such terrible and immediate danger. That made their storyline feel more realistic to me.

ette wrote:I've never seen it done before, certainly not this explicitly. She was facing the audience while she pretended to look over the edge. Interesting -- in London, does she face the back wall where the skyline is projected?

To be honest it sounds identical to what Katie Knight Adams did in her first run as Christine, except with her back to the audience instead of facing them. After running around the rooftop in despair, hearing the voice, she stopped in upper left stage, looked "down" from the rooftop, and slowly spread her arms while starting to lean forwards. Her Christine would definitely have jumped off the rooftop, if it hadn't been for Raoul shouting "Christine!!" and then embracing her. A couple of London Christines picked this up from KKA, though none did it as spelled out as her. Hers really was a suicide attempt, or the contours of one. The new tour staging sounds very similar to KKA's little "ad lib".

Ette, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the production! Any comments on the choreography/dancing?

tromp-la-mort wrote:Another fresh review of the tour production, quite lengthy.

Well it did look as if it might fall but it didn’t, but it did look like it had actually been affected unlike the 25th when it looked like there was an unfortunate electricity problem rather than “a disaster beyond imagination”.

Interesting though, this is the fourth review in a row saying that the leads are spectacular, but the supporting cast is dull. I wonder if it's due to the new blocking, giving more room for the three leads, or if it's the cast themselves.

ETA -- fun fact: Box 5 at the Garnier has an even worse view of the stage. Can't see a thing from there either

It tells a lot of the original function of a theatre. The best seats, down in the stalls, were the cheapest. Commoners, low-income people, sat here. The boxes, on the other hand, had poor view of the stage; the most expensive boxes often faced the auditorium rather than the stage. These were for rich people, and they owned the box for the season. The main function was a social one. You could come and go during the performance, you could study the rest of the audience to see social constellations and the latest fashion, and you could invite friends in for a chat. The activity on stage was of less concern, unless a grand star was on. For this reason the light in the auditorium was only dimmed and not turned down as it usually is today.

Only in the early 20th century was the audience forced to focus on the activity on stage. In theatre history it's a rather new tradition, which is why so many is surprised of the boxes in old theatres and operas. You have to understand the whole social context from when the theatre was built. The book "City of Falling Angels" describes it well. The book is about La Fenice, Venice's main opera house, which burned to the ground in 1996. They wanted to make a 100% faithful replica of it - which they did - but the poor view of the main boxes was something they discussed whether should be improved or not. In the end they were recreated in their original state, to honour the ancient tradition of the boxes rather than new tradition.

"The whole experience of going to the opera is a gradually unfolding ritual that begins with the anticipation, getting dressed for the evening, then coming to the theatre, and then entering the place where the main event is going to happen. As with any ritual, whether it takes place in a temple, an arena, or a theatre, the setting is part of the experience. Meduna (the architect) placed the décor of the auditorium so there would be a crescendo of ornamentation. This was the plan: from the orchestra, your eye would be carried upward through the foliage of the magic garden to the wonder of the sky, represented by the shades of blue in the ceiling and the light of the central chandelier which is Apollo - the god of the sun.

All the other figures in the auditorium belonged to the cult of the Dionysus and Bacchus and the woodland spirit of Acardia, because that's really what the place was meant to represent. There was even a satyr above the stage. (...) The light in the theatre were never completely turned off, even during the performance. They were dimmed to a soft glow, so the spectators could still see the images. The images kept them company. You might have gone to the theatre alone, but you still had company. This is a relationship that modern theatre does not care about. The focus today is completely on the stage. The show is sacred. Everyone must be quiet and watch. Modern theatres are sterile places that have great acoustics and great visibility - but no decorations."

now that we are on the subject, which box exactly in the Paris Opera is box 5?

I found some pics online of the cut away model of the opera house, but I am never sure which of the actual boxes is it.
right next to the stage there are 4 one on top of each other, at the bottom there is a really tiny one at stage level, then the nice big one, then one above that but still in the arch of the big one then one above all of that.
then next to that set there is another column of 5 boxes coming down. so thats 9 boxes on each side.

I was at the production on saturday evening, and my thoughts were mixed. The cast was fantastic, but the staging was... meh. Some things I disliked, others were interesting. I'm writing a big review at the moment. It may take a while, but I will post it when I'm done. Some little points for now, apologies if they have already been mentioned:
1.) I was actually pretty pleased with the chandelier 'crash'. The chandelier does indeed spray fake glass everywhere. In fact, I was hit by it several times! I collected several shards in my bag. It was like a weird, brittle, transparent rubbery thing. Hard to explain, but quite realistic.
2.) The phantom has a fedora! He just doesn't use it when needed. He wears it once when he overseas the letter-reading in notes.
3.) Operafantomet, i got quite a good view of Christine's Elissa dress. I'm not sure if it is a twin of Carlottas though. Do you have a picture of christines I could compare with?
4.) The thigh slip thingy in PONR thing is bigger than previously described. I'm pretty sure that the black/gold fabric in the middle is pretty much gone, and is replaced with a larger apron, allowing lots of 'thigh slipping'. I sort of miss the subtle sensuality of the original PONR, as they go FULL OUT in the newbie. I mean, at one point she was lying on the table, thighs on full display and the phantom feeding her strawberries!
5.) I got a good view of the deformity too!
6.) Buquet does have his trousers on. It looked to me like the trouserless man was a ballet girl's boyfriend, who was shouting at Buquet to shut up, essentially. I also believe that he wasn't nude. I think they were just skin-coloured tights!
OG

I have plans for Edinburgh or Dublin. I would like to combine London and Edinburgh or a special trip to Dublin.
It should be a Phantom week with the original, UK Tour, Sweeny Todd and maybe with Wicked if Gina Beck is in that time Glinda.

This is the first time i am reading about a pantless person, what's that all about?

the deformity, whats it like? are they using the LND deformity to go with the LND mask?

thephanfullerton wrote:
3.) Operafantomet, i got quite a good view of Christine's Elissa dress. I'm not sure if it is a twin of Carlottas though. Do you have a picture of christines I could compare with?

I assume Christine's version of the skirt is identical or very similar to the one Sierra Boggess wore in the RAH concert. Just because that is the newest type coming out of the costume workshops, and the one Katie Hall wore in West End. It looks like this:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/reiseaudun/designhannibal/ukboggess25concert.png

The old ones, matching the one Angela Caesar wears in the tour, would look more like these - with a muted palette, more gold tones, and the red and green fringes:
https://2img.net/h/i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu101/potocostumes/elissa/uklisahull.jpg
https://2img.net/h/i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu101/potocostumes/elissa/ukcurlett1.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/reiseaudun/designhannibal/ukwalkerelissa.jpg

It's not a big deal as such. I just like it when Christine's skirt is a true copy of Carlotta's. But I love the various Elissa costumes out there, matching or not. I'll take 'em all!

Glad you enjoyed the tour version overall! Looking forward to read your review.

As for the four pictures published so far, it seems like that's what we get...? I don't understand the marketing department. But I hope they have a plan. Anyhow, I'm following the UK tour on Facebook, and they've credited the pictures to alternately Michael Le Poer Trench (as I suspected) and Robin Savage. All four pictures are credited with both names - I assume the mods either didn't know who took what, or that the pics are so photoshopped they contain elements from both photographers.

Found this on poto.com: http://www.thepublicreviews.com/phantom-of-the-opera-palace-theatre-manchester/

I take issue with quite a bit of this paragraph. Below the quote, get ready for some major grumpiness. I thought for sure on day three of cutting out coffee and caffeine I'd be feeling better, but I think I'm getting grumpier as the week goes on...

Throwing caution to the wind, Connor has changed almost every part of this epic musical’s staging, for all those minute plot holes that hung around the original’s neck are here delt with logical direction and precision, the characters that populate this production feel more rounded, more grounded and above all more believable because of it, the journey to the Phantom’s lair being of one particular highlight. Add to the already heady mix, a set design which quite frankly dwarfs the London original, it firmly places us deep within the structure of Paris’ Opera Populaire; from the stage, dressing rooms and damp, dark and mysterious catacombs far below ground level Paul Brown’s rotating set is a perfect centrepiece to anchor all the action. In honour of the late Maria Bjornson her costume designs are vividly realised in a bright array of stunning attire, that add another dimension to this staggering production. Paule Constable creates a deliciously eerie atmosphere with her striking lighting design, whilst Lloyd Webbers soaring and emotional score is powerfully commanded by the able hand of Anthony Gabrielle.

...Plot holes? If they were minute, then most people have not noticed them, and that probably includes me.

'logical direction and precision?' Wha--? Hal Prince isn't that good of a director, huh?

Set that dwarfs the London original...? So this was supposed to be a LIGHTER, EASIER TO TRAVEL Phantom, yet it dwarfs the original? Oh, and it has a turntable. Ironic. Les Miz got rid of the turntable, yet Phantom adds it. *shakes head*

It irks me when they refer to the Palais Garnier as the Opera Populaire. As far as I can tell this was never the name of it..not until the freakin' MOVIE!

Maria Bjornson's costumes are VIVIDLY REALISED?! So what have they been doing all these years?! Bland and unattractive? WTF?!

*goes back to her corner in a huff*

ETA: But on a happy note:

BALLOONS! From Press night! WANT! (to pop them that is)


Taken from wanderingchild.tumblr.com/ blog

PhantomsGhost wrote:Found this on poto.com: http://www.thepublicreviews.com/phantom-of-the-opera-palace-theatre-manchester/
(...)

Highly worthy of its standing ovation all I can say is “Brava! Brava!”

If that's all the reviewer can say, he is only praising one of the female leads (brava = feminine singular).

again, any word on if they have a new deformity or if they are using the below LND deformity to go with the LND mask?

Hadn't ever seen that before. Kind of reminds of the Brazilian one.

justin-from-barbados wrote:again, any word on if they have a new deformity or if they are using the below LND deformity to go with the LND mask?

I read somewhere the tour deformity was made by the guy making stuff for.... Dr. Who? I think it was Dr. Who. I got the impression it was a newly designed one - unless this guy also did the LND deformity?