I saw A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC with a 54 piece orchestra and a turntable.

[binau]

Posted: 7/15/10 at 10:18pm

At the Sydney Opera house.

But I long for the 8-pieces and intimacy of the Walter Kerr.

Trevor Nunn, what have you done to me!!!

[alawhat]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 12:26am

Saw this production last May. Thought it was pretty great.
It uses, as aforementioned, a mammoth, mammoth turntable and row upon row of pastel green and blue gauze, translucent curtains. Very cinematic scene changes. You probably remember the details better than me but I thought it was very well directed.

Sung fantastically and great orchestrations, but mostly opera singers so the acting left a little bit to be desired. How did it fit into the Sydney Opera House? It's a pretty bland space inside.

[chewy5000]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 2:19am

I too saw this when it was here in Melbourne, and I absolutely loved it, being my introduction to the score, I was whistling 'Night Waltz' for weeks.

The whole design of the production was stunning, perfectly suited to the fluidity and mood of the show. In terms of the cast, it was a strange hybrid of opera singers, more 'contemporary' voices, and Sigrid Thornton, who carried the role very well despite what others have said.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 2:28am

Do you have any pictures of the production that include the set? I am very curious now to see how this looks!

[boyfromoz2]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 2:51am

Sorry to unfloat your boat, but there were not 54 musicians playing in that pit. Yes the Australian Opera and Ballet Orchestra has 54 players on contract, but not all play at every performance. If you had ever been in the pit of the Opera House, you would realise that there is barely room in there for 30 players.

I saw this production twice, and didn't like it either time. Yes it was gorgeous to hear the full orchestration and to see Roger Kirk's extravagant designs, but there was no thought or depth in the production - it was very superficial and shallow. The vast majority of the comedy was lost, and although the cast's vocal performance was admirable, I was let down.

Trevor Nunn's production is so much smarter than this one - I spent the entire show thinking of how much better the show as at Menier and also at the Garrick last year. A big let down

However, I don't blame Opera Australia - they were playing this one for their blue-rinse subscribers.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 3:13am

I know what you mean. I am a HUGE fan of full orchestras but find I'm usually let down if they're TOO big. My ideal would be the standard 20-25 member traditional Broadway orchestra. The sound is neither so big it swallows everything up nor so scrawny that it sounds like a whimper. It's just right.

Ultimately, how many players is not what really matters to me but the number of musicians should be proportional in relation to the space. Small, 5-member ensembles are lovely in 99 seat theatres but would probably not go over too well in a large auditorium with a large scale production and cast.

[alawhat]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 4:00am

I don't expect an opera company production to be amazingly acted; acting is a distant second to the music. Never-the-less I thought the performances were a lot more than serviceable, I certainly can't think of anyone who was bad, or even mediocre. Boyfromoz2 you seem to have pretty extreme standards, this wasn't just a throwaway production - why would they bring it to Sydney if it was?

I didn't really get Nunn's approach when I saw the revival in April. It wasn't Sondheim and Wheeler's aspiration to create a Chekhov musical. I found Nunn's insistance to the contrary contrived. Pretty sure he copy and pasted his concept from his RSC Seagull onto ALNM.

EDIT: Definitely not 54 player orchestra btw, just the original Broadway orchestrations.
Updated On: 7/16/10 at 04:00 AM

[chewy5000]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 4:37am

But probably with an expanded string section.

The 'set' consisted of strategic pieces of all white furniture etc. which, through the use of the revolve and all the curtains were moved on and off, creating different locations. The Armfeldt mansion appeared at the upstage behind, at first, the transparent curtains. Occasional items (The theatre proscenium etc.) were simply flown in. While these items were all white, the curtains were all pinks and purples.

[binau]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 5:08am

Mmm I was suspect that 54 couldn't fit in the pit but the program discriminated between the full orchestra and "the little night music" orchestra, with 54 coming from the latter. So I just assumed...

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 3:34pm

"It wasn't Sondheim and Wheeler's aspiration to create a Chekhov musical."

Maybe not in 1973. But now that Sondy takes his place alongside Chekhov and Ibsen in theatrical history (and deservedly so), have you heard him complain?

"I found Nunn's insistance..."

Absolute bollocks. Sondheim knew full well what was being done.

And I can still manage to spell insistence after a bottle of 15% Carmenere.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 3:42pm

I can't even spell Carmenere.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 3:53pm

You don't need to spell it, just try drinking it.

With someone desirable.

No seduction technique necessary.

(Alta Tierra, 2007 Carmenere, Elqui Valley)

Madame Armfeldt would surely have it in her cellar.

[alawhat]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 12:13am

'Absolute bollocks. Sondheim knew full well what was being done.'

I don't get what you're trying to say? I don't know if Sondheim approves of Nunn's version, neither do you. I do know Nunn made ALNM plodding and dull.

Directing it like Uncle Vanya is pseudo-intellectual and dumb: it isn't a dark show. It's more farcical than profound. There is some Chekhov-esque depth there, but it's not the focus at all, and overemphasising it turned the show into a dirge.

'And I can still manage to spell insistence after a bottle of 15% Carmenere.'

I wouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction even after a bottle of bread-strained 98% methylated spirits.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 12:31am

"It wasn't Sondheim and Wheeler's aspiration to create a Chekhov musical."

From the chapter on ALNM in Hal Prince's book Contradictions: "We wanted to do a kind of Chekhovian musical."

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 12:33am

Sondheim has publicly stated he loves the Chekhovian undertones in the production.
If Sondheim was not pleased with the production, it would not have transferred. It's as simple as that.

[chewy5000]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 2:20am

http://thefoolandtheopera.blogspot.com/2009/05/fool-and-opera-reviewer-paul-williamson.html

(Not my review)

[binau]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 2:33am

(For those don't know, note that Anthony Warlow was cast as Fredrick when the production moved to Sydney from Melbourne {Which is when the review was written above}}).

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 7/17/10 at 3:51am

And here's another Hal Prince quote, this one from Sondheim & Co.:

"The whole time we worked on it in Boston, we didn't really think it was going to be that popular. I was really quite convinced that it couldn't be. Mostly because of the beginning . . . it takes its own good time to get started. Everyone kept saying, 'Why don't we get started sooner?' and I felt that if we did, we should never have done the play. I said it's Chekhov in style, let's stick to Chekhov and they've got to go with us. The only reason for doing it was we wanted to do this kind of musical. If we gave them a wham-bam opening number so that they felt comfortable, we would, in the long run, fail. And we stuck to our guns, and we were popular."

Let me just add that this doesn't mean I'm saying that Nunn's production is good. But the show is intentionally somewhat Chekhov-like in style.

Of course, Chekhov always insisted that this plays were comedies and got annoyed when Stanislavsky made his plays into tragedies full of weepy characters.