CCBB

[DofB5]

Posted: 7/21/03 at 9:13pm

Just got/saw the "Making of CCBB" and all I can say is: WOW! What a wonderful show--now I really hope it comes across the pond with Mr. B at the wheel.

The vid can't do something this justice--you would have to see it in person. And if you think it's a "kiddie" show -- your WRONG--unless you’re the Baron or Baroness!

D Updated On: 7/22/03 at 09:13 PM

[PigletH13]

Posted: 7/21/03 at 10:16pm

You absolutely have to see it in person. The show is just so much fun...and the audience just claps along. I really loved the show and also hope the show comes to NYC!

[PJ]

Posted: 7/21/03 at 10:26pm

I'll be damned. I couldn't for the life of me think of what DofB5 was talking about. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang of course...

[sharon1]

Posted: 7/21/03 at 10:57pm

It would be very nice if it made the trip.

[kec]

Posted: 7/22/03 at 5:37am

I have to agree . It's a wonderful experience. I wasn't sure what to expect when I saw it for the first time a year ago in London, but I came out of the theatre very pleased with what I saw -- and I got a bonus in that I "discovered" Michael Ball. I enjoy theatre that encourages audience participation, and this musical was full of that -- from clapping along in time to the music to the booing and hissing of the Child Catcher -- played so very well by Richard O'Brien. In later visits the booing was also done whenever the spies came out.

The video/DVD is a wonderful introduction to the show, with the background as to how the show came about and all the hard work getting it ready on time. The DVD offers a bonus of five of the musical numbers. I had heard a rumor that a similar video would be done if/when the show goes to Broadway.

[jo]

Posted: 7/22/03 at 7:09am

It's amazing how one show can bring such big grins on people's faces when they come out of the theatre -- it's a great fun show for everyone!

I miss it already - the DVD brings back memories ( especially the five bonus scenes) of the show - but I would like to see it again - on Broadway this time... And there are already rumours that the car is going to fly higher and more across the audience in the Broadway version. The best moment in the show will make your heart lurch - waiting for CHITTY to show her stuff and soar into the skies

Hurry -- and fly across the pond, Bang bang chitty chitty bang bang!

Sorry for the exhuberance


jo

[sharon1]

Posted: 7/22/03 at 11:29am

Our fine
Four=fendered
Friend

Bang Bang
Bye the Bye Bring MB with you

[DofB5]

Posted: 7/22/03 at 6:39pm

And I'm not ashamed to say, after seeing that DVD--I'm excited!

They didn't show the part with the childcatcher and the net. He has a pretty scary "fly over" as well! LOL!

I also liked the part with the dogs--when Mr. B made the one howl. *chuckle* I want Bear to try out for one of the ten dog spots in the show. I'm sure there's a part for our "mascot"/favorite board dog--Rex--as well. :)

D

Posted: 7/22/03 at 8:25pm

Broadway's "clap-along" musical! I can't wait!!

Tell me, again please, why do we, the audience, feel we have to participate? YIKES!

Yes, it may very well sell many, many tickets. Yes, it an audience favorite. Yes, Yes, Yes. But sorry folks, the song cuts I heard on Mr. Ball's website were dreadfull. Where has sophisticated theatrical entertainment gone? Must every musical be reduced to mass media's lowest common demoninator? I'm weeping already.

Yours for an intelligent Broadway!

Slapping line starts on my left for those who must.

[jo]

Posted: 7/22/03 at 8:30pm

Something interesting came up on another forum re CHITTY ( as everybody calls it in London, CCBB being too much of a mouthful ) --

That the idea of the audience singing along whenever the title song comes up ( as well as the hissing of The Childcatcher) will not catch on with Broadway audiences, if and when the show comes over. I think it wasn't actually meant to be that way when the show first previewed at the West End, inspite of what people say of the "quasi- panto" ( a children's show Christmas tradition in London) quality of the show. It was just a spontaneous reaction from the audience when the orchestra started playing the exhuberant title song ( remembered by many from their CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG childhood movie days) and had become almost a tradition in the London musical.

It need not be part of the show -- but I must admit that it made for a more fun show with that happening.

Who knows - maybe Broadway audiences may have also stored cherished memories of the movie in their memory banks, to be awakened when the flying car starts hovering over the skies of Manhattan


jo

[DofB5]

Posted: 7/22/03 at 8:59pm

Darn! I was on the RIGHT side AGAIN! Left side, left side, left side! That's the other right, right?

More on point--and just asking, what, in your opinion, IS "sophisticated theatrical entertainment"?

D

[jo]

Posted: 7/22/03 at 9:14pm

Hi Bulldog -

We meet again

I understand your concern about Broadway's future ( your slogan says it all) but I like variety in my Broadway fare. And I have been going to see shows on Broadway for a long, long time now even if I live somewhat far away ( Southeast Asia).

I think what's important is the quality of the staging of the production - it may not have the intellectual quality of an Arthur Miller play or the angst of a Tennessee Williams or a John Steinbeck drama or the highbrow elegance of a Sondheim musical( which is an acquired taste for many) but if the two hours or so one pays for leave someone thinking deeply about what he has seen or feeling uplifted or adding to his musical enjoyment or just having a big grin on my face - I am all for it.

I do agree that not everyone has the same tastes - but I think there should be room for others' preferences ( especially if we are talking of a large portion of the theatre-going public). You may be surprised with my rather catholic tastes - as I am as passionate about the theatre as I am with Formula One motor racing ... But then again, I am also a daily follower of what's happening in the financial markets. And I do have some working ( not expert, enough for me to enjoy them) knowledge not just of the performing arts - but other branches of the arts as well ( Europe being my favourite place for lessons in history and the visual arts)... So, being sophisticated doesn't have anything to do with simply sticking to one type of interest, as far as I am concerned.

Maybe what we should be is to be more open-minded about new shows before it opens on Broadway (I don't mean any offense but I sometimes find the West End to be more liberal minded when it comes to new theatre fare) - then when it comes along and we do not think it deserves to be on stage, perhaps that's when we should spread the word of mouth.

Hope you will change your mind about CHITTY - if and when it comes over!

jo

Updated On: 7/22/03 at 09:14 PM

Posted: 7/22/03 at 9:14pm

DofB5,

If you're unable to discern a sophisticated theatrical entertainment, there's more work to be done. Let me ask you...what is the most sophisticated musical you've experienced in any media, live on stage, CD, DVD, film. That's gotta be tough when one can't discern left from right, LOL.(It's a joke, don't get offended...but my question is serious.)

Yours for a better Broadway!

[sharon1]

Posted: 7/22/03 at 9:33pm

Mr Bulldog. Just jumping in here. What does it mean? "Better Broadway" One Noel Coward play won't keep Broadway going. One Tennessee Williams play won't either. One Gershwin Musical. I look thru my old books about the theatre on Old Broadway and I see references being made to a very "broad" spectrum of theatre and performers. Mae West, Gertrude Lawrence, Barrymore Family. I am sorry but they are a motley and diverse group. Eddie Cantor, Al Jolson. All great performers in great shows. Some sophisticated, some slapstick, some musicals, some serious. Some good , some bad. All on Broadway. Some loved, some hated. I remember being New York one summer and seeing a Noel Coward play one night, and Cats the next. I like being given the choice. Chitty may be light entertainment in the same vein as Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, but you know what it'll will bring people to the theatre and then bring them back to see more. Then they'll try something different. That's what it is all about. Getting people to love theatre as much as we do. Sorry for the rambling.

[DofB5]

Posted: 7/23/03 at 7:54pm

Sorry it took me so long to answer--I saw your last post, Bulldog but it was my bedtime and I knew this would be a long post.

I guess I could be coy and say I asked you first, Bulldog, but I will do this the best I can.

First I think we should define exactly what “sophisticated theatrical entertainment” means. I was hoping to have your view first so I could offer a comparison to what my idea of it is.

To be honest, at this point, I don’t really think I can define what it means. To me, theater is simply is entertainment or not depending on the show. If a show touches me in some way, be it with laughter or tears or makes me sing the songs all the way to the car and for days beyond that than then it is a good show. If I walk out and before I even get into the car, I’m thinking about my grocery list, it wasn’t a very good show (IMHO). Being sophisticated or not doesn’t enter the picture one way or the other.

I can not define what it is about a show that touches me or not. I can only say as a contrast that I saw Miss Saigon but I can’t tell you a thing about it. It left me so untouched that I don’t remember anything. Not how it begins or how it ends–I only have a vague memory of the helicopter being so loud I had to cover my ears and that one of the main songs sounded like an old folk tune called “Hang Down Your Head, Tom Dooley”. I can’t even say which one. Same with “Cats”. I saw it and that’s about all I can say.

On the other hand, I remember almost every detail of “POTO” and “Le Miz”.

I suppose some could call opera “ sophisticated” and I would be the first to say that if I had someone to explain it to me, I really believe that I would LOVE it. I read the plots of some of them and they are just the kind of stories I adore. I don’t think, however, they are considered childish. Which begs the question, why is it that a bunch of people screaming (which at this point is all that opera sounds like to me) is considered “sophisticated” where as a show like “Chitty” is not? A show that involves the audience to such a point that they feel the need to join in on the story is something rare and should be cherished.

Having done a little theater, I can tell you that it makes all the differece in the world if the audience is "with" you or not. There's an unspoken feeling in the air that makes the show a joy or real pain the butt. I can't speak for anyone else but I was always very aware of the mood of the crowd.

But I really think that as with all things it simply a matter of what appeals to you and there is nothing wrong with that.

Last I hope you know I’m only teasing you about the “slap”. The “Left side”–thats a joke down here in the South. Seems that when certain people make the trip down here from up North they seem to forget how to drive. They turn the right turn signal on and then turn left!

Have a good one. Long post. I'm sorry.

D Updated On: 7/23/03 at 07:54 PM

Posted: 7/23/03 at 10:33pm

Well DoB5. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I don't disagree with some of your points. Sophisticated musical entertainment can be funny or it can be serious. In my opinion what it does display is literacy, wit and intelligence in the choice of material to be musicalized, in the manner in which that is accomplished and in the manner in which it is realized on stage. The RSC's NICHOLAS NICKLEBY is sophisticated theatre, as is Stoppard's work. Sophisticated theatre can be moving but also raises the bar for the audience, stretching their thinking and perhaps their view of life. It might even cause someone in the audience to read a book related to what was seen and heard on stage. I am hard pressed to think of a any recent comtemporary musical on Broadway which I would classified as sophisticated. I walked out of CATS and LEZ MIZ and URINTOWN, found RENT and then HAIRPRAY unbearable, MILLIE's radio commercials make me grate my teeth, PHANTOM was visually interesting and the melodies I responded to displayed a hint of being written earlier by someone else. I just don't get excited about a muscial about Peter Allen, nor do I care what Sutton Foster or Marissa will do next. Unfortunately the media today has reduced legit to the lowest common demoninator, in my opinion, in the quest to sell seats at the expense of quality. Broadway no longer is the trend-setter but is instead a "Gee, I can do that!" I would pay top dollar to sit in the audience of say, THE ZIGFIELD FOLLIES OF 1936 or CABIN IN THE SKY, over a free seat to CCBB. But bless those who are buying tickets. It's just a shame very few shows are produced each season which actually ask an audience to stretch as opposed to those which are produced simply to ask an audience to stretch further into its pockets. Oh well. I'm not a complete snob about theatre, but I am, well, a snob sometimes. LOL

Yours for a better Broadway!

Posted: 7/24/03 at 5:42am

Why can we not just go to the theatre these days to have a good time?.Why does it have to have a deep and meaningful reason for being there.Years ago cinema,theatre etc was a means escapisim people went along to forget about their troubles and just be whisked away to another time or place for a few hours.Chitty is escapisim at it's very best.

With regards to Michael's voice,we can't all like the same people.CCBB was certainly not a hard sing for him by any streatch of the imagination.Michael has a successful recording
career outside of the theatre world,with armfuls of Gold and Platinum discs to his name.This diversity is part of the reason I give up my hard earned cash to see him as often as I can.He is able to sing almost anything he likes really,such is his range and ability but it is usually I have to confess the big powerhouse show numbers that bring the audience to their feet.

[sharon1]

Posted: 7/24/03 at 10:14am

To further this discussion. Theatre was "invented" for two reasons. 1. To convey ideas and principles. 2. To entertain. In my opinion it is still doing both. No theater or theatre, using both spellings and definitions, can survive without some sort of appeal to the masses. Most people who go to the theatre want to be entertained for a few hours. To get away from the burden of the everyday world. Escapism. Be it drama, comedy, or a musical. Again this is just an opinion. As far as MB's voice. You are correct, CCBB was no musical stretch, but it was a different role. That is what a performer should do. Try different things. It was demanding of him, but not of his voice.

[kec]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 1:24am

My two cents worth -- To me theatre, as Ria says, is a form of escapism. I don't necessarily go to have my consciousness raised, but sometimes if I see something that really grabbed my attention, I'll follow up on it. Phantom is an example... after I saw it the first time, I read the Leroux novel. Sadly I don't remember too much about it, but I do remember it being interesting. Later, when my job took me to Paris for a working visit, I made a point of visiting the Paris Opera House, which was a lovely place -- but I sure don't see how Raoul and Christine were able to stand up on the roof! I've also been to Salzburg to see where the real Von Trapps came from and it's now become one of my favorite places to visit.

As for audience participation -- I see NOTHING wrong with it. Maybe it's the hidden performer in me struggling to get out. As far as Chitty is concerned, the music gets into my blood and sets my foot or hand (sometimes both!) tapping. I have to confess the clapping at the overture surprised me at first, as I wasn't expecting it. Same with the booing and hissing at the Childcatcher. But I nonethless joined in with enthusiasm. I learned later that the cast always felt that if the audience clapped at the overture, it was a good sign that the show was going to go well. Intellectually stimulating? No, but darn good fun, and the memories of the show have stayed with me long after my last visit.

While I really love the classics of musical theatre -- Rodgers and Hammerstein's works for example and most of Lerner and Lowe (I got to see Camelot with Richard Burton at Lincoln Center several years ago), I try to be more open minded about the new types of musicals. I confess to being a bit of a snob about Les Miz though... I thought the idea of a musical based on such a serious time was crazy -- and never went to see it. However, I recently bought the 10th Anniversary concert DVD and found myself loving the music -- and now I regret not seeing it live.

Does this make me a sophisticated theatre lover? Probably not, but that has never been my goal -- my main reason to go is for enjoyment and to escape reality -- whether it be in Camelot, Siam or Southern England in 1912.

As for Michael -- something in his voice stirred my soul the night I first heard him sing in Chitty. It's something that has happened to me before, but only very rarely -- usually when my instinct tells me I'm listening to something very special. Again, I have to agree with Ria -- his diversity is amazing.

Sorry if this doesn't make much sense... I'm in the middle of move preparations and my mind it going in all directions...

[sharon1]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 3:33am

I have to agree about the diversity. I am still amazed that in one performance he can go from country, to show music, to rock n roll, to light opera. Wherever the mood wants to go,he goes. Makes for an enjoyable concert experience.

[DofB5]

Posted: 7/29/03 at 6:15pm

Well, I can understand that for some people, a play/movie/book that makes you think outside the box IS enjoyable. I think it just depends on what kind of mood your in.

For example, I really enjoy reading a good Sci Fi/Fantasy book--like "Dune". Talk about make you think! Frank Herbert is a GOD among authors IMHO. On the other hand, when I don't want to read something that "heavy", you'll catch me reading a good old smut novel. Most of them only take an hour or two to read and they're mostly "fluff" with no substance. Of course, now that I've discovered Darla Joy, I may have to change that thought. Sci Fi/Fantasy (with good story lines) and smut--what a combo!

D