Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
It was a very short preview period by today's standards, but keep in mind that this one-man show had already been running in the UK. Not to say that the previews were unnecessary -- it's 15-20 minutes shorter than it was 10 days ago.
In the good old days, there were shows that had one preview (Come Blow Your Horn, Milk and Honey), or two (Irma La Douce, Under the Yum-Yum Tree), etc. Other shows opened without any previews at all.
I'm very curious to see how the reviews will be. I predict very mixed-- from raves to pans, as that has been the experience just among my friends and colleagues. We shall see.
Well of course it was no surprise as he raved about it after he saw it in London. Your snark was also no surprise. Same old same old, heavy emphasis on old
"
CZJ at opening night party for A Little Night Music, Dec 13, 2009.
^ "completely predictable raves" because this show is fantastic, I hope you mean. I saw it (heard it?) in the West End and there's nothing like it in mainstream theatre, at all. It's ingenious and challenging and special and it should get raves if reviewers enjoy it as much as the majority of audiences here did. What he's doing up there is amazing.
"completely predictable raves" because this show is fantastic, I hope you mean"
You hope wrong. I suggest you read the comments on the show by the posters here in the previews thread. They found it anything but fantastic.
Which made it all too predictable that the critics would rave about their latest darling to come down the pike. They sure are enamored of their British bores! I guess that's why they keep getting imported here. But, really, it's so unnecessary. We have enough bores of the home-made variety right here. Perhaps not as overpowering as this one, but bad enough, just the same!
This is not a live audio book... stop calling it that. A live audio book does not have visuals. No projections, no choreography. It would be someone in a chair reading a book. This is not that.
I saw this last night, and I guess I am in the minority since I thought it was spell-binding. I enjoyed the initial introduction to the technology and found the sound effects effective and neither phony nor intrusive, but I didn't want to see a demonstration of loop and binaural heads and lighting effects. I only really watched what was on stage when the story turned to the bedtime conversations with his daughter, which were a tremendous relief from the intensity of the main story: a photographer lost in the Amazonian jungle in the company of a primitive tribe. When the story became Logan McIntryre's, I closed my eyes and let the story telling take over. I thought McBurney was brilliant at that. Sometimes what was being presented on stage was not as startling as what I was seeing with just his words. But it is NOT an audiobook because so much of the story is not what happened but how Logan experienced it. This was interactive theater for me because I couldn't just sit there and let it flow over me, and I think some of my fellow audience members just wanted to be spoon-fed pablum. I would not have missed this for anything.
I suppose that an examination of the nature of time, the empathy of human communities and the effect of physical possessions isn't really worth examining, in your opinion. And the characters of Barnacle and Red Cheeks and Cambio weren't real enough for you. It isn't really a question of the material being worthwhile as much as the personal taste of audience members to think about what they are hearing.