Man of La Mancha
Fri, 3 Aug 2001, 12:03 amToby12 posts in thread
Man of La Mancha
Fri, 3 Aug 2001, 12:03 amI'm not really sure where this post will lead, as I have a large number of ideas and arguments racing around in my head.
I went into Man of La Mancha somewhat hopeful - I knew that the score and script were strong, and that the director, Joe McCabe, was quite experienced with and enthusiastic over said script and score.
I emerged disappointed and confused - I was baffled over some of the choices made, but more importantly, I was astonished that such a wonderful story could be so mercilessly butchered by little more than what seemed almost exactly the WRONG venue for such a show. I am expecting protests and complaints, but if you want to send them, email them to me and I will respond in kind. I think the Old Mill is a nice little theatre - and I can see how many of the melodrama-style plays displayed in the foyer from over the years might have succeeded so well in there. It is a cosy, intimate space, and would be perfect for such things as Stoppard for example. I would LOVE to see 'The Real inspector Hound' or 'After Magritte' in that space!!
However. By putting on a show like 'Man of La Mancha' in such a small space, the action is cramped into tiny, convoluted groups on the stage, and such things as fight scenes (I was LONGING for an Andy Fraser touch in the few very poor fight scenes there were) were so limited by space they might as well have not happened, for the effectiveness of it all. Worst of all, however, was the fact that space limitations forced the elimination of an orchestra of any kind, and not only were they not replaced with an almost-passable piano backing, but became a tinny, horrible 'porn-film-sounding' tape of a dodgy old casio keyboard. Often levels of the casio were too high for the actors to sing over, and to make matters worse, the audience was cruelly teased with two instances of the Broadway cast recording underscoring the action. This turned what might have been a nice show into a bit of a mess.
Of the show - there were some bright spots - Hywel Williams was, as always, very strong as Don Quixote, and Danny Ellefsen was an entertaining and refreshing Sancho. The girl playing Dulcinea was in well over her head, and although she was just recovering from Laryngitis (so the grapevine told me after the show) she looked petrified at taking on such a gutsy role. The chorus were enthusiastic and took on their few opportunities with a gusto that is sadly rare in many choruses. However, strengths were overshadowed by such problems as shaky lighting, dodgy sound, and a curtain call that gave me a real giggle - which I don't think was the intention.
Look - I feel bad about saying so many negative things about the show, but I also feel that if this cast had have put on the same show at, say, the Quarry, or even Hackett Hall (as small as THAT is, Playlovers generally have strong MDs with strong orchestras behind them), with a full orchestra, they may have given 'Man of La Mancha a little more of a shake. The question I want to raise, however, is that of suitable spaces. I am not really interested in getting bagged about "you'rewrongIthoughttheshowwasbrilliantkeepyouropinionstoyourselfwearen'tinthisbusinesstogetcriticisedyouknow" (I believe I did read a ssimilar comment in a review reply last year!!) - by all means, I am interested to hear what others think, and of course am inviting extra opinions. I feel that the Old Mill bit off more than they could chew with 'MOLM', and am apprehensive about what they will do with 'A Chorus Line' in similar circumstances. Another rumour I hear is that a grant has fecilitated renovations, meaning that a pit will be added for a future opera season. Forgive my skepticism, but having seen 'play with music' have such trouble in such limited facilities, I must admit I have doubts.
I just feel that if you try to jam a square peg into a circular hole you will have greater trouble than if you realise that circular pegs are the ones you are after - and from the Old Mill's durability in drawing room drama (from what I gather by the foyer ads) - I imagine that they have found a nice niche doing the things that the theatre is best suited for. Trying to produce large musicals in a space smaller than my very tiny flat's very tiny lounge room seems like an avoidable folly. And while I am not saying that the Old Mill should not attempt diversification - I am sure that the company has done musical theatre in the past and will again - I would suggest (if $ allow, and the way theatre is these day, I doubt they will, but it's nice to pontificate) looking into what other companies regularly do - look for a larger venue for a single show, more suited to the show you have chosen. You couldn't do 'Guys and Dolls' in the Blue Room but you could conceivably try 'the Fantasticks' in there - it's just a matter of realising what you have to play with and being realistic, or it might reflect poorly.
This might sound insincere - (it's not) - but I do wish the cast and crew the best for the rest of the season. As I have said, I have a feeling that the problems came partly from infrastructure, and there was some enjoyable signs. I like Joe McCabe - he is a sincere guy and has a lot of talent and enthusiasm for what he does. I am just wishing he had have put it on in the carpark outside, even, with even a tiny orchestra, because I think those little touches might really have given 'Man of La Mancha' the grunt it needed.
Yours, expecting backlash, controversy and a minimum of abuse,
Toby
I went into Man of La Mancha somewhat hopeful - I knew that the score and script were strong, and that the director, Joe McCabe, was quite experienced with and enthusiastic over said script and score.
I emerged disappointed and confused - I was baffled over some of the choices made, but more importantly, I was astonished that such a wonderful story could be so mercilessly butchered by little more than what seemed almost exactly the WRONG venue for such a show. I am expecting protests and complaints, but if you want to send them, email them to me and I will respond in kind. I think the Old Mill is a nice little theatre - and I can see how many of the melodrama-style plays displayed in the foyer from over the years might have succeeded so well in there. It is a cosy, intimate space, and would be perfect for such things as Stoppard for example. I would LOVE to see 'The Real inspector Hound' or 'After Magritte' in that space!!
However. By putting on a show like 'Man of La Mancha' in such a small space, the action is cramped into tiny, convoluted groups on the stage, and such things as fight scenes (I was LONGING for an Andy Fraser touch in the few very poor fight scenes there were) were so limited by space they might as well have not happened, for the effectiveness of it all. Worst of all, however, was the fact that space limitations forced the elimination of an orchestra of any kind, and not only were they not replaced with an almost-passable piano backing, but became a tinny, horrible 'porn-film-sounding' tape of a dodgy old casio keyboard. Often levels of the casio were too high for the actors to sing over, and to make matters worse, the audience was cruelly teased with two instances of the Broadway cast recording underscoring the action. This turned what might have been a nice show into a bit of a mess.
Of the show - there were some bright spots - Hywel Williams was, as always, very strong as Don Quixote, and Danny Ellefsen was an entertaining and refreshing Sancho. The girl playing Dulcinea was in well over her head, and although she was just recovering from Laryngitis (so the grapevine told me after the show) she looked petrified at taking on such a gutsy role. The chorus were enthusiastic and took on their few opportunities with a gusto that is sadly rare in many choruses. However, strengths were overshadowed by such problems as shaky lighting, dodgy sound, and a curtain call that gave me a real giggle - which I don't think was the intention.
Look - I feel bad about saying so many negative things about the show, but I also feel that if this cast had have put on the same show at, say, the Quarry, or even Hackett Hall (as small as THAT is, Playlovers generally have strong MDs with strong orchestras behind them), with a full orchestra, they may have given 'Man of La Mancha a little more of a shake. The question I want to raise, however, is that of suitable spaces. I am not really interested in getting bagged about "you'rewrongIthoughttheshowwasbrilliantkeepyouropinionstoyourselfwearen'tinthisbusinesstogetcriticisedyouknow" (I believe I did read a ssimilar comment in a review reply last year!!) - by all means, I am interested to hear what others think, and of course am inviting extra opinions. I feel that the Old Mill bit off more than they could chew with 'MOLM', and am apprehensive about what they will do with 'A Chorus Line' in similar circumstances. Another rumour I hear is that a grant has fecilitated renovations, meaning that a pit will be added for a future opera season. Forgive my skepticism, but having seen 'play with music' have such trouble in such limited facilities, I must admit I have doubts.
I just feel that if you try to jam a square peg into a circular hole you will have greater trouble than if you realise that circular pegs are the ones you are after - and from the Old Mill's durability in drawing room drama (from what I gather by the foyer ads) - I imagine that they have found a nice niche doing the things that the theatre is best suited for. Trying to produce large musicals in a space smaller than my very tiny flat's very tiny lounge room seems like an avoidable folly. And while I am not saying that the Old Mill should not attempt diversification - I am sure that the company has done musical theatre in the past and will again - I would suggest (if $ allow, and the way theatre is these day, I doubt they will, but it's nice to pontificate) looking into what other companies regularly do - look for a larger venue for a single show, more suited to the show you have chosen. You couldn't do 'Guys and Dolls' in the Blue Room but you could conceivably try 'the Fantasticks' in there - it's just a matter of realising what you have to play with and being realistic, or it might reflect poorly.
This might sound insincere - (it's not) - but I do wish the cast and crew the best for the rest of the season. As I have said, I have a feeling that the problems came partly from infrastructure, and there was some enjoyable signs. I like Joe McCabe - he is a sincere guy and has a lot of talent and enthusiasm for what he does. I am just wishing he had have put it on in the carpark outside, even, with even a tiny orchestra, because I think those little touches might really have given 'Man of La Mancha' the grunt it needed.
Yours, expecting backlash, controversy and a minimum of abuse,
Toby
TobyFri, 3 Aug 2001, 12:03 am
I'm not really sure where this post will lead, as I have a large number of ideas and arguments racing around in my head.
I went into Man of La Mancha somewhat hopeful - I knew that the score and script were strong, and that the director, Joe McCabe, was quite experienced with and enthusiastic over said script and score.
I emerged disappointed and confused - I was baffled over some of the choices made, but more importantly, I was astonished that such a wonderful story could be so mercilessly butchered by little more than what seemed almost exactly the WRONG venue for such a show. I am expecting protests and complaints, but if you want to send them, email them to me and I will respond in kind. I think the Old Mill is a nice little theatre - and I can see how many of the melodrama-style plays displayed in the foyer from over the years might have succeeded so well in there. It is a cosy, intimate space, and would be perfect for such things as Stoppard for example. I would LOVE to see 'The Real inspector Hound' or 'After Magritte' in that space!!
However. By putting on a show like 'Man of La Mancha' in such a small space, the action is cramped into tiny, convoluted groups on the stage, and such things as fight scenes (I was LONGING for an Andy Fraser touch in the few very poor fight scenes there were) were so limited by space they might as well have not happened, for the effectiveness of it all. Worst of all, however, was the fact that space limitations forced the elimination of an orchestra of any kind, and not only were they not replaced with an almost-passable piano backing, but became a tinny, horrible 'porn-film-sounding' tape of a dodgy old casio keyboard. Often levels of the casio were too high for the actors to sing over, and to make matters worse, the audience was cruelly teased with two instances of the Broadway cast recording underscoring the action. This turned what might have been a nice show into a bit of a mess.
Of the show - there were some bright spots - Hywel Williams was, as always, very strong as Don Quixote, and Danny Ellefsen was an entertaining and refreshing Sancho. The girl playing Dulcinea was in well over her head, and although she was just recovering from Laryngitis (so the grapevine told me after the show) she looked petrified at taking on such a gutsy role. The chorus were enthusiastic and took on their few opportunities with a gusto that is sadly rare in many choruses. However, strengths were overshadowed by such problems as shaky lighting, dodgy sound, and a curtain call that gave me a real giggle - which I don't think was the intention.
Look - I feel bad about saying so many negative things about the show, but I also feel that if this cast had have put on the same show at, say, the Quarry, or even Hackett Hall (as small as THAT is, Playlovers generally have strong MDs with strong orchestras behind them), with a full orchestra, they may have given 'Man of La Mancha a little more of a shake. The question I want to raise, however, is that of suitable spaces. I am not really interested in getting bagged about "you'rewrongIthoughttheshowwasbrilliantkeepyouropinionstoyourselfwearen'tinthisbusinesstogetcriticisedyouknow" (I believe I did read a ssimilar comment in a review reply last year!!) - by all means, I am interested to hear what others think, and of course am inviting extra opinions. I feel that the Old Mill bit off more than they could chew with 'MOLM', and am apprehensive about what they will do with 'A Chorus Line' in similar circumstances. Another rumour I hear is that a grant has fecilitated renovations, meaning that a pit will be added for a future opera season. Forgive my skepticism, but having seen 'play with music' have such trouble in such limited facilities, I must admit I have doubts.
I just feel that if you try to jam a square peg into a circular hole you will have greater trouble than if you realise that circular pegs are the ones you are after - and from the Old Mill's durability in drawing room drama (from what I gather by the foyer ads) - I imagine that they have found a nice niche doing the things that the theatre is best suited for. Trying to produce large musicals in a space smaller than my very tiny flat's very tiny lounge room seems like an avoidable folly. And while I am not saying that the Old Mill should not attempt diversification - I am sure that the company has done musical theatre in the past and will again - I would suggest (if $ allow, and the way theatre is these day, I doubt they will, but it's nice to pontificate) looking into what other companies regularly do - look for a larger venue for a single show, more suited to the show you have chosen. You couldn't do 'Guys and Dolls' in the Blue Room but you could conceivably try 'the Fantasticks' in there - it's just a matter of realising what you have to play with and being realistic, or it might reflect poorly.
This might sound insincere - (it's not) - but I do wish the cast and crew the best for the rest of the season. As I have said, I have a feeling that the problems came partly from infrastructure, and there was some enjoyable signs. I like Joe McCabe - he is a sincere guy and has a lot of talent and enthusiasm for what he does. I am just wishing he had have put it on in the carpark outside, even, with even a tiny orchestra, because I think those little touches might really have given 'Man of La Mancha' the grunt it needed.
Yours, expecting backlash, controversy and a minimum of abuse,
Toby
I went into Man of La Mancha somewhat hopeful - I knew that the score and script were strong, and that the director, Joe McCabe, was quite experienced with and enthusiastic over said script and score.
I emerged disappointed and confused - I was baffled over some of the choices made, but more importantly, I was astonished that such a wonderful story could be so mercilessly butchered by little more than what seemed almost exactly the WRONG venue for such a show. I am expecting protests and complaints, but if you want to send them, email them to me and I will respond in kind. I think the Old Mill is a nice little theatre - and I can see how many of the melodrama-style plays displayed in the foyer from over the years might have succeeded so well in there. It is a cosy, intimate space, and would be perfect for such things as Stoppard for example. I would LOVE to see 'The Real inspector Hound' or 'After Magritte' in that space!!
However. By putting on a show like 'Man of La Mancha' in such a small space, the action is cramped into tiny, convoluted groups on the stage, and such things as fight scenes (I was LONGING for an Andy Fraser touch in the few very poor fight scenes there were) were so limited by space they might as well have not happened, for the effectiveness of it all. Worst of all, however, was the fact that space limitations forced the elimination of an orchestra of any kind, and not only were they not replaced with an almost-passable piano backing, but became a tinny, horrible 'porn-film-sounding' tape of a dodgy old casio keyboard. Often levels of the casio were too high for the actors to sing over, and to make matters worse, the audience was cruelly teased with two instances of the Broadway cast recording underscoring the action. This turned what might have been a nice show into a bit of a mess.
Of the show - there were some bright spots - Hywel Williams was, as always, very strong as Don Quixote, and Danny Ellefsen was an entertaining and refreshing Sancho. The girl playing Dulcinea was in well over her head, and although she was just recovering from Laryngitis (so the grapevine told me after the show) she looked petrified at taking on such a gutsy role. The chorus were enthusiastic and took on their few opportunities with a gusto that is sadly rare in many choruses. However, strengths were overshadowed by such problems as shaky lighting, dodgy sound, and a curtain call that gave me a real giggle - which I don't think was the intention.
Look - I feel bad about saying so many negative things about the show, but I also feel that if this cast had have put on the same show at, say, the Quarry, or even Hackett Hall (as small as THAT is, Playlovers generally have strong MDs with strong orchestras behind them), with a full orchestra, they may have given 'Man of La Mancha a little more of a shake. The question I want to raise, however, is that of suitable spaces. I am not really interested in getting bagged about "you'rewrongIthoughttheshowwasbrilliantkeepyouropinionstoyourselfwearen'tinthisbusinesstogetcriticisedyouknow" (I believe I did read a ssimilar comment in a review reply last year!!) - by all means, I am interested to hear what others think, and of course am inviting extra opinions. I feel that the Old Mill bit off more than they could chew with 'MOLM', and am apprehensive about what they will do with 'A Chorus Line' in similar circumstances. Another rumour I hear is that a grant has fecilitated renovations, meaning that a pit will be added for a future opera season. Forgive my skepticism, but having seen 'play with music' have such trouble in such limited facilities, I must admit I have doubts.
I just feel that if you try to jam a square peg into a circular hole you will have greater trouble than if you realise that circular pegs are the ones you are after - and from the Old Mill's durability in drawing room drama (from what I gather by the foyer ads) - I imagine that they have found a nice niche doing the things that the theatre is best suited for. Trying to produce large musicals in a space smaller than my very tiny flat's very tiny lounge room seems like an avoidable folly. And while I am not saying that the Old Mill should not attempt diversification - I am sure that the company has done musical theatre in the past and will again - I would suggest (if $ allow, and the way theatre is these day, I doubt they will, but it's nice to pontificate) looking into what other companies regularly do - look for a larger venue for a single show, more suited to the show you have chosen. You couldn't do 'Guys and Dolls' in the Blue Room but you could conceivably try 'the Fantasticks' in there - it's just a matter of realising what you have to play with and being realistic, or it might reflect poorly.
This might sound insincere - (it's not) - but I do wish the cast and crew the best for the rest of the season. As I have said, I have a feeling that the problems came partly from infrastructure, and there was some enjoyable signs. I like Joe McCabe - he is a sincere guy and has a lot of talent and enthusiasm for what he does. I am just wishing he had have put it on in the carpark outside, even, with even a tiny orchestra, because I think those little touches might really have given 'Man of La Mancha' the grunt it needed.
Yours, expecting backlash, controversy and a minimum of abuse,
Toby
MarcFri, 3 Aug 2001, 06:34 am
RE: Man of La Mancha
Toby,
Where was this performed? State? Town? And which company produced it?
Marc.
Where was this performed? State? Town? And which company produced it?
Marc.
SidselFri, 3 Aug 2001, 12:33 pm
RE: Man of La Mancha
Hi Marc, Man of La Mancha was put on by The Old Mill Theatre (community theatre) in South Perth, WA. Regards Sidsel
Walter PlingeFri, 3 Aug 2001, 11:32 pm
RE: Man of La Mancha
I saw the MOLM opening night. I thought the script was very funny, although the audience seemed oblivious to the fact that they could laugh. I found myself holding back my own laughter, then thought.. bugger it.. it's funny I'm laughing. The audience loosened after about halfway point. I overheard many people as they exited the old mill ( I was smoking outside.. hahah) and they ALL said they thoroughly enjoyed the show.
I thought the HORSES were fantastic and although the audience would never know who it was that enabled those horses to "Come to life" I do know who they were!
As for the Leading Man... I thought he was quite weak, we actually heard his prompts from the audience!!!!
Aldonza was good, although she didn't sing, she was put under pressure at the last minute to MIME her own songs to another singer. Of which she and stand-in singer (Antonia), did a fantastic job!
My favourite cast members were: The Padre, The Barber,Sancho, Antonia and Aldonza.
The MOLM Is set in a prison?? Therefore I don't understand the comments previous regarding theatre size. Not totally professional, but a fun show with a great cast.
I thought the HORSES were fantastic and although the audience would never know who it was that enabled those horses to "Come to life" I do know who they were!
As for the Leading Man... I thought he was quite weak, we actually heard his prompts from the audience!!!!
Aldonza was good, although she didn't sing, she was put under pressure at the last minute to MIME her own songs to another singer. Of which she and stand-in singer (Antonia), did a fantastic job!
My favourite cast members were: The Padre, The Barber,Sancho, Antonia and Aldonza.
The MOLM Is set in a prison?? Therefore I don't understand the comments previous regarding theatre size. Not totally professional, but a fun show with a great cast.
TobySat, 4 Aug 2001, 09:26 am
RE: Man of La Mancha
>The MOLM Is set in a prison?? Therefore I don't understand the >comments previous regarding theatre size.
Granted, but the issue that I was raising had more to do with the fact that in using such a small space, there was no room for an orchestra, which detracted incredibly from the effect of the show. Many of the scenes were directed well around the smaller space, and I think they just about succeeded in convincing me that the small space was necessary for the setting of the play. However, scenes that needed to be powerful, such as the rape of Aldonza or Quixote's defeat of his many enemies in the pub came across as cluttered.
As I said, there were encouraging signs, and the only real problem I had was the size of the space and lack of orchestra. Does anyone have any thoughts to contribute about the idea of performing in perhaps inappropriate spaces for the play chosen? Is it a design issue or a directorial issue to MAKE a show fit?
T
Granted, but the issue that I was raising had more to do with the fact that in using such a small space, there was no room for an orchestra, which detracted incredibly from the effect of the show. Many of the scenes were directed well around the smaller space, and I think they just about succeeded in convincing me that the small space was necessary for the setting of the play. However, scenes that needed to be powerful, such as the rape of Aldonza or Quixote's defeat of his many enemies in the pub came across as cluttered.
As I said, there were encouraging signs, and the only real problem I had was the size of the space and lack of orchestra. Does anyone have any thoughts to contribute about the idea of performing in perhaps inappropriate spaces for the play chosen? Is it a design issue or a directorial issue to MAKE a show fit?
T
Walter PlingeSun, 5 Aug 2001, 11:35 am
RE: Man of La Mancha
WELL TOBY
YOU MUST BE DEAF DUMB & BLIND!!
Are you sure you were at Old Mill Theatre on the night in question or cloud cuckoo land!!
You are obviously biased because your wife was originally cast as Aldonza but then after not turning up for more than 2 rehersals opted out of the part. Karen Smith played a brilliant Aldonza to Hywell's poor 'Donkey Hoatie' performance. His singing & timing left much to be desired and he was also prompted loudly. He's obviously a friend of yours.
All other performers were well cast and the venue & set perfect for this 16th century play.
An announcement was made at the begining of the performace to say that Karen had laryngitis..... and for your information she had contracted it only 2 days before. Maybe you were outside smoking when the announcement was made or may be you just had selective hearing!!
The cast & crew of MOLM should be proud of their performance and not listen to one eyed critics.
Yours
Mdme Mouse
YOU MUST BE DEAF DUMB & BLIND!!
Are you sure you were at Old Mill Theatre on the night in question or cloud cuckoo land!!
You are obviously biased because your wife was originally cast as Aldonza but then after not turning up for more than 2 rehersals opted out of the part. Karen Smith played a brilliant Aldonza to Hywell's poor 'Donkey Hoatie' performance. His singing & timing left much to be desired and he was also prompted loudly. He's obviously a friend of yours.
All other performers were well cast and the venue & set perfect for this 16th century play.
An announcement was made at the begining of the performace to say that Karen had laryngitis..... and for your information she had contracted it only 2 days before. Maybe you were outside smoking when the announcement was made or may be you just had selective hearing!!
The cast & crew of MOLM should be proud of their performance and not listen to one eyed critics.
Yours
Mdme Mouse
TobySun, 5 Aug 2001, 05:04 pm
RE: Man of La Mancha
Madame Mouse, is it?
Well - I really don't know where to begin in responding to this. I had nothing to gain from writing my critique, and considered not posting it at all, or using an ingenious 'Anon E Mouse' (Oh - I get it - Anon y mous - that's fantastic!) pseudonym such as you did, but I, along with many other people on this site, have the courage of my convictions to say what I thought - yes, that's right, I am allowed my opinion!!
It's true - my wife was cast in the role, a role she was forced to regretfully decline a short time into rehearsal because (and this is none of your business) we were having great difficulty in the half hour drive to rehearsal three times a week, having only one car, which we had to share. It was in no way reflecting Meg's brief involvement in the show with the comments I made about the lady playing Aldonza. I am an actor, not a singer, not a dancer, so the area that I commented on referred to her actoing, which I found to be sadly lacking - it's a brilliant, gutsy role, which was hampered by a disconnected performance (and considering I saw the show - a week after opening, where she sang her entire role and there was NO announcement made - laryngitis can hardly excuse what I saw as inadequate line delivery. Before you ask - yes, I believe my wife could have done the role better, but that influenced my review in no way.
What else? Yes, I had heard that Hywell had had trouble with his lines, and I have worked with him before, but I enjoyed his portrayal of the character (again, as a non-singer, you will find I did not mention his vocal work in the show, and incidentally, I did find it to be the weakest part of his interpretation) - he is a strong actor who has an excellent stage presence, and I ENJOYED IT. (Note: in our democracy, people are STILL allowed their own opinions! Anonymity, however, is cowardice, when criticising others. Take note, Ms Mouse.)
In conclusion (I can't believe I have wasted ten minutes of my life responding to this rubbish) - I would like to know who you are. Obviously you have some idea who I am, knowing who I am married to (again, none of your business) and perhaps you also know I worked with Hywell in 'Much Ado' a few years ago, and yes, I do know Danny (the other person I so discriminately complemented in my review) from 'HMS Pinafore'. You might note that my review was not especially negative (and if I wanted to dwell on the faults, believe me, I could have been scathing) - I tried to focus on the positives and highlight the points which I felt detracted from the show's effectiveness - and my words are not gospel, nor do I think my constructive review (he probably won't like me mentioning this, but Joe McCabe emailed me personally and thanked me for a well-balanced review...) deterred prospective ticket holders.
I will stop now. I don't mind being contracted on a review, and I would have left this lie if you had not been so gutless as to reply anonymously - especially since you appear to know me and feel that it is your business to mention my personal life on here. Email me at home, will you Ms Mouse? My email address is right above - just cllick on my REAL name, and it will give you my REAL email address. Maybe you'll have the guts to tell me your real name - although if you were cristened 'Anon E Mouse' then I will stand corrected.
I will reiterate what I said in my first review. I wish the cast and crew of MOLM my best for the rest of the season, and hope they continue to sell so well. My review is nothing more than my opinion, unbiased at that (you note I didn't say in my first review 'Aldonza wasn't as good as the girl she replaced' - and I really hope it wasn't Karen who wrote this response - I really do) as is yours. But I feel readers have the right to know who is writing such reviews, and you will get no respect from me if you continue to do so.
Cheers and best of luck for the rest of your ghostwriting career,
TOBY MALONE (and christened as such, June 1978)
Well - I really don't know where to begin in responding to this. I had nothing to gain from writing my critique, and considered not posting it at all, or using an ingenious 'Anon E Mouse' (Oh - I get it - Anon y mous - that's fantastic!) pseudonym such as you did, but I, along with many other people on this site, have the courage of my convictions to say what I thought - yes, that's right, I am allowed my opinion!!
It's true - my wife was cast in the role, a role she was forced to regretfully decline a short time into rehearsal because (and this is none of your business) we were having great difficulty in the half hour drive to rehearsal three times a week, having only one car, which we had to share. It was in no way reflecting Meg's brief involvement in the show with the comments I made about the lady playing Aldonza. I am an actor, not a singer, not a dancer, so the area that I commented on referred to her actoing, which I found to be sadly lacking - it's a brilliant, gutsy role, which was hampered by a disconnected performance (and considering I saw the show - a week after opening, where she sang her entire role and there was NO announcement made - laryngitis can hardly excuse what I saw as inadequate line delivery. Before you ask - yes, I believe my wife could have done the role better, but that influenced my review in no way.
What else? Yes, I had heard that Hywell had had trouble with his lines, and I have worked with him before, but I enjoyed his portrayal of the character (again, as a non-singer, you will find I did not mention his vocal work in the show, and incidentally, I did find it to be the weakest part of his interpretation) - he is a strong actor who has an excellent stage presence, and I ENJOYED IT. (Note: in our democracy, people are STILL allowed their own opinions! Anonymity, however, is cowardice, when criticising others. Take note, Ms Mouse.)
In conclusion (I can't believe I have wasted ten minutes of my life responding to this rubbish) - I would like to know who you are. Obviously you have some idea who I am, knowing who I am married to (again, none of your business) and perhaps you also know I worked with Hywell in 'Much Ado' a few years ago, and yes, I do know Danny (the other person I so discriminately complemented in my review) from 'HMS Pinafore'. You might note that my review was not especially negative (and if I wanted to dwell on the faults, believe me, I could have been scathing) - I tried to focus on the positives and highlight the points which I felt detracted from the show's effectiveness - and my words are not gospel, nor do I think my constructive review (he probably won't like me mentioning this, but Joe McCabe emailed me personally and thanked me for a well-balanced review...) deterred prospective ticket holders.
I will stop now. I don't mind being contracted on a review, and I would have left this lie if you had not been so gutless as to reply anonymously - especially since you appear to know me and feel that it is your business to mention my personal life on here. Email me at home, will you Ms Mouse? My email address is right above - just cllick on my REAL name, and it will give you my REAL email address. Maybe you'll have the guts to tell me your real name - although if you were cristened 'Anon E Mouse' then I will stand corrected.
I will reiterate what I said in my first review. I wish the cast and crew of MOLM my best for the rest of the season, and hope they continue to sell so well. My review is nothing more than my opinion, unbiased at that (you note I didn't say in my first review 'Aldonza wasn't as good as the girl she replaced' - and I really hope it wasn't Karen who wrote this response - I really do) as is yours. But I feel readers have the right to know who is writing such reviews, and you will get no respect from me if you continue to do so.
Cheers and best of luck for the rest of your ghostwriting career,
TOBY MALONE (and christened as such, June 1978)
RebeccaSun, 5 Aug 2001, 06:12 pm
RE: Man of La Mancha
Hi.
As I'm involved in the production, I can't really comment from an audience perspective, but I do agree with "the observer" with regards to the size of the theatre not being a problem in this production. Sure maybe a bigger space would be nice for the "larger" scenes such as the rape and the fight scene (as you pointed out) but the lack of space, I believe anyway, reminds the audience that they are in fact watching a play within a play. At no stage in the show does the imaginary world of Cervantes become a reality, perhaps this is the largest difference between the stage show and the movie. In my opinion, some audience members may be expecting this changeover (I'm not suggesting you were) and I agree with you that if the decisions made were as such, the old mill stage would probably be too small to carry this off very effectively.
Perhaps the downside of your review is that most of it reads as though the season is already over; as the constructive critisicm that is there is aimed towards future productions, and the negative comments made about actors are not particularly constructive ones. From an actors point of view, the review reads very negatively, and is not particularly helpful; what can we do about the levels of the sound, or lack of an orchestra? I know that cast morale fell dramatically at the mention of a "bad" (negative) review.
Perhaps when reviewing future shows mid-season you could offer some suggestions or criticism aimed towards the aspects of the production that can be improved upon in future shows? You may find that readers involved with the production on various levels will be inclined to treat the review with more respect when you back up your comments with examples, and less inclined to dismiss them as one-eyed etc. etc.
In answer to your question, and on a more general note , I believe it's both a design and a directorial commitment to make a show fit. But in my experience, most directors know their venue to begin with and select the play accordingly or vice-versa.
- Rebecca
As I'm involved in the production, I can't really comment from an audience perspective, but I do agree with "the observer" with regards to the size of the theatre not being a problem in this production. Sure maybe a bigger space would be nice for the "larger" scenes such as the rape and the fight scene (as you pointed out) but the lack of space, I believe anyway, reminds the audience that they are in fact watching a play within a play. At no stage in the show does the imaginary world of Cervantes become a reality, perhaps this is the largest difference between the stage show and the movie. In my opinion, some audience members may be expecting this changeover (I'm not suggesting you were) and I agree with you that if the decisions made were as such, the old mill stage would probably be too small to carry this off very effectively.
Perhaps the downside of your review is that most of it reads as though the season is already over; as the constructive critisicm that is there is aimed towards future productions, and the negative comments made about actors are not particularly constructive ones. From an actors point of view, the review reads very negatively, and is not particularly helpful; what can we do about the levels of the sound, or lack of an orchestra? I know that cast morale fell dramatically at the mention of a "bad" (negative) review.
Perhaps when reviewing future shows mid-season you could offer some suggestions or criticism aimed towards the aspects of the production that can be improved upon in future shows? You may find that readers involved with the production on various levels will be inclined to treat the review with more respect when you back up your comments with examples, and less inclined to dismiss them as one-eyed etc. etc.
In answer to your question, and on a more general note , I believe it's both a design and a directorial commitment to make a show fit. But in my experience, most directors know their venue to begin with and select the play accordingly or vice-versa.
- Rebecca
Walter PlingeSun, 5 Aug 2001, 08:02 pm
RE: Man of La Mancha
At the beginning of this I will say that Man of La Mancha is not the most fantastic show in the world. But what I will say is that it did well given the circumstances.
I saw the show on the Opening night (which was infact the second performance) and listening to what people were saying to the reviewer from 927am, it seemed to be that people enjoyed the way in which the show was staged. Its small, intimate setting certainly left me uncomfortable during the rape scene; it hardly detracted from the show. If anything, I believe the setting made it all the more voyeristic and powerful. Sure the rape wasn't "hollywood style" but it certainly was realistic for me.
As for the critique on the fight scenes, I wish to remind Toby of the context of the show. The show isn't being performed in a Marquee on the Foreshore in the city, with a budget of millions of dollars, let alone hundreds of thousands of dollars. Old Mill is a community theatre group for those that like to act, and dedicate their own time, and I'm sure many forwent income in order to perform in the show, to add their artistical direction. Expectations for it to be an infallible glitzy and glamourous performance are a bit steep. The actors did well in a show with limited choreography (considering the omission of credit for teh part in the Programme). This is not to say that the actors didn't do well, or that they are 'second class'. As we all know, it is hard to get professional work in the field in WA, but the show still showcast some of WA's fantastic talent.
As for your singularing out only Hywel and Danny as carrying the cast? I believe that you oversaw many of the fantastic performances, such as the ones of Padre, Antonia, and ofcourse Aldonza. Hywel performed well, however, I do not think that he superseeded any of the other actors, especially considering that sitting second row from back you hear a prompt from off stage. That is hardly being strong. Aldonza did well considering she had Laryingitis and was still recovering, Antonia sung fantastically being thrown into the part; and Padre's portrayal was almost biblical.... In my opinion (which as you said we are all entitled to have).
It seems that in order to get a good review from yourself, you must work with you at some stage.
Mr Mouse...
By no relation to Madame Mouse
I saw the show on the Opening night (which was infact the second performance) and listening to what people were saying to the reviewer from 927am, it seemed to be that people enjoyed the way in which the show was staged. Its small, intimate setting certainly left me uncomfortable during the rape scene; it hardly detracted from the show. If anything, I believe the setting made it all the more voyeristic and powerful. Sure the rape wasn't "hollywood style" but it certainly was realistic for me.
As for the critique on the fight scenes, I wish to remind Toby of the context of the show. The show isn't being performed in a Marquee on the Foreshore in the city, with a budget of millions of dollars, let alone hundreds of thousands of dollars. Old Mill is a community theatre group for those that like to act, and dedicate their own time, and I'm sure many forwent income in order to perform in the show, to add their artistical direction. Expectations for it to be an infallible glitzy and glamourous performance are a bit steep. The actors did well in a show with limited choreography (considering the omission of credit for teh part in the Programme). This is not to say that the actors didn't do well, or that they are 'second class'. As we all know, it is hard to get professional work in the field in WA, but the show still showcast some of WA's fantastic talent.
As for your singularing out only Hywel and Danny as carrying the cast? I believe that you oversaw many of the fantastic performances, such as the ones of Padre, Antonia, and ofcourse Aldonza. Hywel performed well, however, I do not think that he superseeded any of the other actors, especially considering that sitting second row from back you hear a prompt from off stage. That is hardly being strong. Aldonza did well considering she had Laryingitis and was still recovering, Antonia sung fantastically being thrown into the part; and Padre's portrayal was almost biblical.... In my opinion (which as you said we are all entitled to have).
It seems that in order to get a good review from yourself, you must work with you at some stage.
Mr Mouse...
By no relation to Madame Mouse
TobySun, 5 Aug 2001, 11:43 pm
RE: Man of La Mancha
I've been following this "MOLM" debate quite closely and would like to put my two cents in. Look, I read and re-read Toby's initial review of the show, and I don't think that you could really classify it as a bad one - I'm not even sure that you could classify it as a proper review seeing as it was more of a critique of the space and how it (in his opinion) limited the material. Yes, he mentioned several actors and commented on their performances - 'amateur' or 'professional', all performers are subject to reviews so why is everyone getting their knickers in a bunch? People have been saying some rather snarky things which I would prefer not to dignify with a rebuttal!
I saw the show on the same night that Toby did - I take it that it was the first night that Aldonza was able to sing her part... and yes, she deserves kudos for singing under such duress! I thought the costumes were absolutely fantastic and I liked the set a lot. There were some things about the venue that really worked for the story - the small space made it easy to imagine the dungeon location. I agree with Toby's comment that the space was a bit cramped during the larger fight sequences, however. And I believe that companies should be cautious in selecting shows that fit into their space - "The Fantasticks", "You're a good man, Charlie Brown", "Nunsense", "Five guys named Moe", "Little Shop of Horrors", and "Forever Plaid" are all musicals with small casts which would fit very nicely into the Old Mill Theatre. By the same token, it is difficult to imagine 20 tap-dancers in "42nd Street" being able to simultaneously accomplish a triple time-step on that stage. Toby also mentioned the fact that the lack of orchestra was detrimental to the show. I'm not sure that's the case, but I do believe that the pre-recorded accompaniment music was. There were several instances where it appeared the performers were having trouble finding their spot in the music. And while an orchestra is not feasible in this location, a piano is (electric or acoustic). A connection between the performers and the conductor/pianist/MD is absolutely integral to the smooth-running of any musical show. Not only that, but a piano would probably give you exactly the right amount of balance for a voice within that space. Just a suggestion. I'll be the first to admit that I'm a music snob.
And yes, I did enjoy "Man of La Mancha". It's a beautiful script - and that's the bottom line. Best of luck to all for the rest of the run.
I saw the show on the same night that Toby did - I take it that it was the first night that Aldonza was able to sing her part... and yes, she deserves kudos for singing under such duress! I thought the costumes were absolutely fantastic and I liked the set a lot. There were some things about the venue that really worked for the story - the small space made it easy to imagine the dungeon location. I agree with Toby's comment that the space was a bit cramped during the larger fight sequences, however. And I believe that companies should be cautious in selecting shows that fit into their space - "The Fantasticks", "You're a good man, Charlie Brown", "Nunsense", "Five guys named Moe", "Little Shop of Horrors", and "Forever Plaid" are all musicals with small casts which would fit very nicely into the Old Mill Theatre. By the same token, it is difficult to imagine 20 tap-dancers in "42nd Street" being able to simultaneously accomplish a triple time-step on that stage. Toby also mentioned the fact that the lack of orchestra was detrimental to the show. I'm not sure that's the case, but I do believe that the pre-recorded accompaniment music was. There were several instances where it appeared the performers were having trouble finding their spot in the music. And while an orchestra is not feasible in this location, a piano is (electric or acoustic). A connection between the performers and the conductor/pianist/MD is absolutely integral to the smooth-running of any musical show. Not only that, but a piano would probably give you exactly the right amount of balance for a voice within that space. Just a suggestion. I'll be the first to admit that I'm a music snob.
And yes, I did enjoy "Man of La Mancha". It's a beautiful script - and that's the bottom line. Best of luck to all for the rest of the run.
CatSun, 12 Aug 2001, 01:36 pm
RE: Man of La Mancha
I saw MOLM last night (closing night) and enjoyed it. Yes there was the odd hitch but I thought the staging was great especially the stairs being raised and lowered. Loved the horses and the chess moves. I was a little surprised at how many of the lines were delivered with the actors back to the audience but I had no trouble hearing them. I was a little disapionted with the music or rather the sound of the music. I know the person who produced the backing music and I heard it before it was handed over. What I heard in the theatre was not what I heard on the original tapes. My understanding is that Old Mill wanted authentic music to add to the flavour and atmosphere of the show. By authentic I mean guitar, bass, percussion, brass and winds. Not a piano belting its way through the whole score which would have gotten very boring esp. in the Moors scene. The music needs that Spanish guitar flavour to make it come alive. It also really helps place MOLM geographically. What I originally heard sounded beautifully authentic. It was produced on state of the art equipment (not a Casio, who actually do produce some pretty good gear) by a professional musician and sounded like a live, talented group doing justice to the musical intent of the composer.
So why did it end up sounding crushed and tinny? My theory is this: The music was handed over on cassette after Old Mill had declined the offer the have it burnt to CD professionally (probably a financial choice). I think somebody then did burn it on to CD on a home computer but did a particularly poor job. A variety of factors could have been involved such as the qualtiy of the burnig software and hardware, the quality of the tape deck used and the sampling rate chosen. Two crucial areas would have been the level used when recording the music as wave files (digital recording is terminaly unforgiving about peak levels) and the quality of the analogue/digital converter used (even if you get everything else right, if you have a crappy A/D converter the end product will sound bad). Another factor is the sound system in the theatre. Was it set up correctly? Was it properly tuned to the room? Even a factory produced CD will sound like crap if a sound systems EQ is poorly handled. (To prove this point here is an excersise you can do if your home stereo has a graphic equaliser. Put your fave CD on. Now push the middle EQ slider, usually 1K, all the way up and pull all the other sliders all the way down. Hey presto! Your $$$$ home stereo now sounds like a $20 transister radio!). So there you have it. It is a pity it turned out the way it did because every one who saw the show missed out on hearing some glorious music in its true form. Another comment I have read about the music concerns the balance between music and singer. This problem can be easily solved by having someone ride the volume of the music so it balances with the singer.
The remaining point to cover is the 'live music vs recorded' question. In amatuer theatre the funds do not exist to employ professional musicians so the options are: find musicians capable of doing the job who are willing to do it gratis (very rare), find a pianist capable of playing the entire score who is willing to do it gratis or at least very cheaply (not so rare) or find someone who is willing and talented enough to create prerecorded backing tape gratis or reasonably cheaply. Now in the Old Mill theatre there is just not enough room the place a live group of musicians. There is maybe enough room to squeeze in a piano and player but this is not what they wanted. They wanted the real deal so they opted for the prerecorded backing. I have seen productions where they do have a pit and do put an amatuer orchestra together. On the whole they sound bad, wrong notes abound and nothing destroys a mood faster than squeaks from inexperienced wind players. With taped backing you get a perfect performance every night but you do give up an element of flexability. I have experienced both great and not great shows with both live and recorded backing. I guess it all comes down to money and taste. One of the bestcompromised I herad was Roleystone Theatre's "Me and My Girl" It used a combination of prerecorded and live and worked brilliantly. The music was so well created that most of the audience were convinced that a 30 piece orchestra was in the pit especially when the overture started. I guess the lesson to draw form all this is, if you are going to get someone to create backing music don't stint when burning it to CD and get someone who really knows what they are doing to set up (and preferably operate) the sound system.
One final thing, I have not mentioned the musicians name as I do not want their reputation effected by any of this. I have used a pen name so that this person will not be identified through me.
So why did it end up sounding crushed and tinny? My theory is this: The music was handed over on cassette after Old Mill had declined the offer the have it burnt to CD professionally (probably a financial choice). I think somebody then did burn it on to CD on a home computer but did a particularly poor job. A variety of factors could have been involved such as the qualtiy of the burnig software and hardware, the quality of the tape deck used and the sampling rate chosen. Two crucial areas would have been the level used when recording the music as wave files (digital recording is terminaly unforgiving about peak levels) and the quality of the analogue/digital converter used (even if you get everything else right, if you have a crappy A/D converter the end product will sound bad). Another factor is the sound system in the theatre. Was it set up correctly? Was it properly tuned to the room? Even a factory produced CD will sound like crap if a sound systems EQ is poorly handled. (To prove this point here is an excersise you can do if your home stereo has a graphic equaliser. Put your fave CD on. Now push the middle EQ slider, usually 1K, all the way up and pull all the other sliders all the way down. Hey presto! Your $$$$ home stereo now sounds like a $20 transister radio!). So there you have it. It is a pity it turned out the way it did because every one who saw the show missed out on hearing some glorious music in its true form. Another comment I have read about the music concerns the balance between music and singer. This problem can be easily solved by having someone ride the volume of the music so it balances with the singer.
The remaining point to cover is the 'live music vs recorded' question. In amatuer theatre the funds do not exist to employ professional musicians so the options are: find musicians capable of doing the job who are willing to do it gratis (very rare), find a pianist capable of playing the entire score who is willing to do it gratis or at least very cheaply (not so rare) or find someone who is willing and talented enough to create prerecorded backing tape gratis or reasonably cheaply. Now in the Old Mill theatre there is just not enough room the place a live group of musicians. There is maybe enough room to squeeze in a piano and player but this is not what they wanted. They wanted the real deal so they opted for the prerecorded backing. I have seen productions where they do have a pit and do put an amatuer orchestra together. On the whole they sound bad, wrong notes abound and nothing destroys a mood faster than squeaks from inexperienced wind players. With taped backing you get a perfect performance every night but you do give up an element of flexability. I have experienced both great and not great shows with both live and recorded backing. I guess it all comes down to money and taste. One of the bestcompromised I herad was Roleystone Theatre's "Me and My Girl" It used a combination of prerecorded and live and worked brilliantly. The music was so well created that most of the audience were convinced that a 30 piece orchestra was in the pit especially when the overture started. I guess the lesson to draw form all this is, if you are going to get someone to create backing music don't stint when burning it to CD and get someone who really knows what they are doing to set up (and preferably operate) the sound system.
One final thing, I have not mentioned the musicians name as I do not want their reputation effected by any of this. I have used a pen name so that this person will not be identified through me.