CHESS
Wed, 21 Sept 2005, 10:25 pmWalter Plinge44 posts in thread
CHESS
Wed, 21 Sept 2005, 10:25 pmwhat about WAAPA's CHESS? it was amazing. everything 10/10. but i just love chess. so any one else?
dan
dan
Walter PlingeWed, 21 Sept 2005, 10:25 pm
what about WAAPA's CHESS? it was amazing. everything 10/10. but i just love chess. so any one else?
dan
dan
Walter PlingeWed, 21 Sept 2005, 11:54 pm
Re: CHESS
Yeh, everything was 10/10 until they danced, and then it turned into a 4/10...but hey that's just me. And the diction was slop city. But Christina O'Neill as Florence was superb, apart from her forced mannerisms like constantly tugging at her jacket. That didn't work. But I still feel she needs to replace Rachel Beck and be the lead in everything.
And the orchestra were distracting, but that is a fault of the architecture.
...and Svetlana's wig was unfortunate.
end.
And the orchestra were distracting, but that is a fault of the architecture.
...and Svetlana's wig was unfortunate.
end.
jassepThu, 22 Sept 2005, 05:53 am
Re: CHESS
Yes.
I've been trying to decide whether I'd put my 2-cents in here about this rather disappointing production. (A production I'd been looking forward to all year, I have to say!)
Well, "it", you've prompted me into action! I agree with most of your comments -- except I regarded almost nothing about the evening 10/10.
In fact, even though the venue was filled to the brim, I had the *distinct* feeling the ensemble were waiting for the "real" audience to arrive. Frankly, I've been to dress rehearsals in empty theatres with more life than this.
I think I understand what the M.O. of the director was: he seemed to be trying to present the "austerity" of this cerebral world through the stillness and static-ness of the playing. But all he seemed to end up doing was "strait-jacketing" his talent. The delivery just did not work, overall.
(Forgive me here, but I did not get a program, so for some I'm going to have to use character names)
The American was cast WAAAAY out of his vocal comfort zone -- he's a goddamned baritone! And he was given a role with passages that hit stratospheric heights! And, for all his good works (and I actually think he did *very* well from an acting point of view), casting-wise he was let down by his director. This performer could probably never sing the role... so the blame for casting him falls sqarely on the directors shoulders, I'm afraid.
Nick Christo (The Russian); well, I've known Nick for a fair while. Sounded wonderful -- vocally, a marvel. And *I* know he can act... I've seen it plenty of times. BUT, this "stylistic approach" really hurt him. I could not understand his character visually or motivationally. Nor could I understand why he would have such a powerful effect on the two key women in his life... his characterisation exuded no excitement, little energy... and certainly no mystery. (If you're reading this, Nick, I think you are a wonderful performer. I blame the ham-strung style of the direction, frankly).
Molokov: Strong, both vocally and physically. Tremendous presence and grounding. A very real sensation of power and back-room control. A great constrast from the last role I saw him in (A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum). Very impressed by this actor.
Florence: Mysterious, sexy, strong. Great voice... but a little too 'low key' in the early parts of the night, which meant that even with radio mic, I couldn't understand her. But she came good vocally and was, hands down, the most intriguing characterisation of the night. Hidden depths were evident -- and this was a palpable sensation while watching her. (Though, again, several 'directorial decisions' -- or lack thereof -- really threatened her. Mountain Duet was one such scene. It got so 'broad' at one point, she could have been singing to/about her pet dog!)
Svetlana: Well, yes, the wig *was* unfortunate. Somehow, I don't think Soviet-era house-fraus (even ones attached to Soviet heros) would be glam'd up quite so much. If anything, a bare, plaintive look would have helped her make her KGB-inspired 'case' far better. Overall, did quite well with a 'nothing' role. Sounded lovely, though. And 'Someone Else's Story' sounded wonderful... but something seemed lost in telling the 'story' of the song...
The chorus were wonderfully proficient. Executionally, they did the job well. But, again, the 'spark' was absent -- going through the motions, no matter how well done, it dead. (Notable exception, the civil-servants scene. The most energised scene of the night. But you can probably attribute that to the 'terror' of potentially stuffing it up!)
Technically, a dogs breakfast as far as the sound goes. Radio mic's are all very well, but when performers are totally reliant on them to get across "key" emotional moments, something is very wrong. And the mixing was dreadful!! If this was a one-off, I'd let it go -- but this is the SECOND big musical I've seen at WAAPA where the sound has been a major weakness -- which for a musical is death!
The orchestra players should be given harsh lessons in being HEARD and not SEEN, as several of them decided they were bored enough to mime along with the performers or chew gum! Very, VERY distracting! Worst offender; 1st flute/piccolo. And worst of all, she didn't seem up to the task, musically! She was probably distracted by all her 'arseing about', though.
Lighting was quite good. Some places were severely underlit, which contributed to a general 'lacklustre' feeling. (An aside: I would have liked the chess-playing scenes to have been lit like the inside of a boxing ring -- that "bright canvas in a dark arena effect". It may have helped with the camerawork too... which was a nice touch.)
Overall; some nice ideas. But executionally disappointing, nonetheless... I think they would have been better off presenting this 'concert' version as a traditional Oratorio, with chorus, soloists, and orchestra all sharing the stage (black tie formal) -- at least then, the 'austerity' the director was shooting for would have worked.
Regards,
Jason Seperic
I've been trying to decide whether I'd put my 2-cents in here about this rather disappointing production. (A production I'd been looking forward to all year, I have to say!)
Well, "it", you've prompted me into action! I agree with most of your comments -- except I regarded almost nothing about the evening 10/10.
In fact, even though the venue was filled to the brim, I had the *distinct* feeling the ensemble were waiting for the "real" audience to arrive. Frankly, I've been to dress rehearsals in empty theatres with more life than this.
I think I understand what the M.O. of the director was: he seemed to be trying to present the "austerity" of this cerebral world through the stillness and static-ness of the playing. But all he seemed to end up doing was "strait-jacketing" his talent. The delivery just did not work, overall.
(Forgive me here, but I did not get a program, so for some I'm going to have to use character names)
The American was cast WAAAAY out of his vocal comfort zone -- he's a goddamned baritone! And he was given a role with passages that hit stratospheric heights! And, for all his good works (and I actually think he did *very* well from an acting point of view), casting-wise he was let down by his director. This performer could probably never sing the role... so the blame for casting him falls sqarely on the directors shoulders, I'm afraid.
Nick Christo (The Russian); well, I've known Nick for a fair while. Sounded wonderful -- vocally, a marvel. And *I* know he can act... I've seen it plenty of times. BUT, this "stylistic approach" really hurt him. I could not understand his character visually or motivationally. Nor could I understand why he would have such a powerful effect on the two key women in his life... his characterisation exuded no excitement, little energy... and certainly no mystery. (If you're reading this, Nick, I think you are a wonderful performer. I blame the ham-strung style of the direction, frankly).
Molokov: Strong, both vocally and physically. Tremendous presence and grounding. A very real sensation of power and back-room control. A great constrast from the last role I saw him in (A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum). Very impressed by this actor.
Florence: Mysterious, sexy, strong. Great voice... but a little too 'low key' in the early parts of the night, which meant that even with radio mic, I couldn't understand her. But she came good vocally and was, hands down, the most intriguing characterisation of the night. Hidden depths were evident -- and this was a palpable sensation while watching her. (Though, again, several 'directorial decisions' -- or lack thereof -- really threatened her. Mountain Duet was one such scene. It got so 'broad' at one point, she could have been singing to/about her pet dog!)
Svetlana: Well, yes, the wig *was* unfortunate. Somehow, I don't think Soviet-era house-fraus (even ones attached to Soviet heros) would be glam'd up quite so much. If anything, a bare, plaintive look would have helped her make her KGB-inspired 'case' far better. Overall, did quite well with a 'nothing' role. Sounded lovely, though. And 'Someone Else's Story' sounded wonderful... but something seemed lost in telling the 'story' of the song...
The chorus were wonderfully proficient. Executionally, they did the job well. But, again, the 'spark' was absent -- going through the motions, no matter how well done, it dead. (Notable exception, the civil-servants scene. The most energised scene of the night. But you can probably attribute that to the 'terror' of potentially stuffing it up!)
Technically, a dogs breakfast as far as the sound goes. Radio mic's are all very well, but when performers are totally reliant on them to get across "key" emotional moments, something is very wrong. And the mixing was dreadful!! If this was a one-off, I'd let it go -- but this is the SECOND big musical I've seen at WAAPA where the sound has been a major weakness -- which for a musical is death!
The orchestra players should be given harsh lessons in being HEARD and not SEEN, as several of them decided they were bored enough to mime along with the performers or chew gum! Very, VERY distracting! Worst offender; 1st flute/piccolo. And worst of all, she didn't seem up to the task, musically! She was probably distracted by all her 'arseing about', though.
Lighting was quite good. Some places were severely underlit, which contributed to a general 'lacklustre' feeling. (An aside: I would have liked the chess-playing scenes to have been lit like the inside of a boxing ring -- that "bright canvas in a dark arena effect". It may have helped with the camerawork too... which was a nice touch.)
Overall; some nice ideas. But executionally disappointing, nonetheless... I think they would have been better off presenting this 'concert' version as a traditional Oratorio, with chorus, soloists, and orchestra all sharing the stage (black tie formal) -- at least then, the 'austerity' the director was shooting for would have worked.
Regards,
Jason Seperic
Bass GuyFri, 23 Sept 2005, 01:11 am
Re: CHESS
Jason Seperic wrote:
"Overall; some nice ideas. But executionally disappointing, nonetheless... I think they would have been better off presenting this 'concert' version as a traditional Oratorio, with chorus, soloists, and orchestra all sharing the stage (black tie formal) -- at least then, the 'austerity' the director was shooting for would have worked."
I've always thought that Chess is flawed as a theatre piece- it's essentially a concept album adapted for the stage. A "recital" version would still work (and better), and probably focus the audience's attention to the often excruciatingly witty libretto.
The version of Chess I was involved in ten-or-so years ago suffered in its staging as essentially every time Freddie or Florence (or Molokov and the Russian et al) had a scene together there was nothing for them to do onstage except stand at either end of the stage singing at each other. Just like a recording studio. Not really the director's fault- the "show" doesn't lend itself to action in the traditional musical sense.
I mean, really; how exciting and theatrical CAN you make a plot about the world's most static sport where the lyrics are essentially dialogue about the Cold War? Without technology, pyrotechnics, extreme choreography and a budget for all of this, it's a hard ask. I can just see the sequel; "Smiley's People- The Musical" Music by Elton John, lyrics by Tim Rice- adapted from the insomnia cure by John Le Carre...
El
"Overall; some nice ideas. But executionally disappointing, nonetheless... I think they would have been better off presenting this 'concert' version as a traditional Oratorio, with chorus, soloists, and orchestra all sharing the stage (black tie formal) -- at least then, the 'austerity' the director was shooting for would have worked."
I've always thought that Chess is flawed as a theatre piece- it's essentially a concept album adapted for the stage. A "recital" version would still work (and better), and probably focus the audience's attention to the often excruciatingly witty libretto.
The version of Chess I was involved in ten-or-so years ago suffered in its staging as essentially every time Freddie or Florence (or Molokov and the Russian et al) had a scene together there was nothing for them to do onstage except stand at either end of the stage singing at each other. Just like a recording studio. Not really the director's fault- the "show" doesn't lend itself to action in the traditional musical sense.
I mean, really; how exciting and theatrical CAN you make a plot about the world's most static sport where the lyrics are essentially dialogue about the Cold War? Without technology, pyrotechnics, extreme choreography and a budget for all of this, it's a hard ask. I can just see the sequel; "Smiley's People- The Musical" Music by Elton John, lyrics by Tim Rice- adapted from the insomnia cure by John Le Carre...
El
Walter PlingeTue, 27 Sept 2005, 10:04 am
Re: CHESS
The only thing that really bothered me about Chess was Andrew Conaghan's (spelling?) constantly breaking voice. Aside from that, hooray for everything about the show. Loved the chorry.
Walter PlingeTue, 27 Sept 2005, 03:43 pm
Re: CHESS
well, i saw the closing night of chess, and his voice held up amazingly! for such a huge sing (and at the end of the run), i thought he did really well. pity the child was soul stirring! and i couldn't fault his performance, vocally or dramatically.
i thought everyone in the show did a great job (even though they were just polishing a turd really).
i thought everyone in the show did a great job (even though they were just polishing a turd really).
Walter PlingeTue, 27 Sept 2005, 06:50 pm
Re: CHESS
I've seen Andrew in other things and obviously know him to be a very fine singer, but his voice didn't suit the role. It sounded like he should have been singing lower.
Yes, it was a huge sing and at the end of the run, but he was still a lead and they ususally sort themselves out vocally before the event. You know...normal procedure and all that.
Florence was awesome.
Yes, it was a huge sing and at the end of the run, but he was still a lead and they ususally sort themselves out vocally before the event. You know...normal procedure and all that.
Florence was awesome.
Walter PlingeWed, 28 Sept 2005, 11:57 am
Re: CHESS
Andrew (is that his name?) the freddy guy did really well. It's such a bitch of a sing. Were the composers laughing like evil villians, rubbing their hands together with villianous glee when they wrote this. I liked the American TV guy, Walter and the blonde european chick. She wore this hot red dress.
Walter PlingeWed, 28 Sept 2005, 11:59 am
Re: CHESS
he probably should have been singing lower, but as jason said, it was the director and the heads of the academy who cast him in the role. i don't doubt that he did his homework and preparation before the show. i'm actually certain he did a great deal of preparation.
anyway, i still maintain that he was fantastic on the final night and i'm very impressed.
anyway, i still maintain that he was fantastic on the final night and i'm very impressed.
Walter PlingeFri, 30 Sept 2005, 07:59 pm
Re: CHESS
i would love to know where your qualification comes from jason to be so smart to rip apart this show. please enlighten me!!!
Walter PlingeFri, 30 Sept 2005, 08:04 pm
Re: CHESS attn Jason
when i see you get up there and sing those notes and play those parts then mabye i will listen to you.
Don't you think we should be supporting the next generation of music theatre talent in australia rather than putting them down.
Don't you think we should be supporting the next generation of music theatre talent in australia rather than putting them down.
jassepSun, 2 Oct 2005, 10:17 am
Re: CHESS attn Jason
Nate wrote:
> when i see you get up there and sing those notes and play
> those parts then mabye i will listen to you.
OK. Fair enough. Actually, I believe I have done my share of 'difficult' musical theatre roles. Whether I've done them well... that's up to the audience! :o)
> Don't you think we should be supporting the next generation
> of music theatre talent in australia rather than putting them
> down.
I believe in supporting *excellence*, no matter what its age. And if you actually read my review, you'll note that I put the 'blame' for this (IMHO) failed production squarely at the feet of the production crew -- especially the director.
NOTE: I saw many of the CHESS performers in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. In terms of energy and performance skill, the difference was like night and day. So I know these people have ability, talent and skill. Which is why, fundamentally, I'm asking the question -- why was CHESS so damned unsatisfying?
Oh, and before you ask... I have directed a bit, too.
Sincerely,
Jason S
> when i see you get up there and sing those notes and play
> those parts then mabye i will listen to you.
OK. Fair enough. Actually, I believe I have done my share of 'difficult' musical theatre roles. Whether I've done them well... that's up to the audience! :o)
> Don't you think we should be supporting the next generation
> of music theatre talent in australia rather than putting them
> down.
I believe in supporting *excellence*, no matter what its age. And if you actually read my review, you'll note that I put the 'blame' for this (IMHO) failed production squarely at the feet of the production crew -- especially the director.
NOTE: I saw many of the CHESS performers in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. In terms of energy and performance skill, the difference was like night and day. So I know these people have ability, talent and skill. Which is why, fundamentally, I'm asking the question -- why was CHESS so damned unsatisfying?
Oh, and before you ask... I have directed a bit, too.
Sincerely,
Jason S
jassepSun, 2 Oct 2005, 10:23 am
Re: CHESS
manwell wrote:
>
> i would love to know where your qualification comes from
> jason to be so smart to rip apart this show. please enlighten
> me!!!
I would hope my qualification as an educated theatre-goer would be enough. Enough to at least express an opinion, thoughfully and intelligently, on a *public* board which *encourages* the expression of such opinions.
And, again, (see reply to your other pseudonym, below) I do not feel I 'ripped apart' this show... merely pointed out how damned disappointed I was in a show which *should* have been far better -- and tried to figure out why I was so disappointed.
Once again, people like you try to discourage the use of this board as any more than a 'flatter-fest' -- which degrades it's value significantly, IMHO.
Sincerely,
Jason S.
>
> i would love to know where your qualification comes from
> jason to be so smart to rip apart this show. please enlighten
> me!!!
I would hope my qualification as an educated theatre-goer would be enough. Enough to at least express an opinion, thoughfully and intelligently, on a *public* board which *encourages* the expression of such opinions.
And, again, (see reply to your other pseudonym, below) I do not feel I 'ripped apart' this show... merely pointed out how damned disappointed I was in a show which *should* have been far better -- and tried to figure out why I was so disappointed.
Once again, people like you try to discourage the use of this board as any more than a 'flatter-fest' -- which degrades it's value significantly, IMHO.
Sincerely,
Jason S.
crgwllmsSun, 2 Oct 2005, 05:44 pm
Re: An unqualified comment
manwell wrote:
>
> i would love to know where your qualification comes from
> jason to be so smart to rip apart this show. please enlighten
> me!!!
G'day Manwell
You do seem to need enlightening, as that was a rather unenlightened comment.
No one actually needs a qualification to act, direct, or otherwise participate in any artform, so why are you under the impression that you need a qualification to have a valid opinion?
Whether or not you agree with that opinion is open to debate. Please feel free to put forward your own case for an opposing point of view.
Whether you praise it or not, and whether I agree with you or not, I promise I won't question your intelligence simply for having an opinion.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> i would love to know where your qualification comes from
> jason to be so smart to rip apart this show. please enlighten
> me!!!
G'day Manwell
You do seem to need enlightening, as that was a rather unenlightened comment.
No one actually needs a qualification to act, direct, or otherwise participate in any artform, so why are you under the impression that you need a qualification to have a valid opinion?
Whether or not you agree with that opinion is open to debate. Please feel free to put forward your own case for an opposing point of view.
Whether you praise it or not, and whether I agree with you or not, I promise I won't question your intelligence simply for having an opinion.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
NimrodSun, 2 Oct 2005, 08:45 pm
Re: CHESS attn Jason
In my experience I find that noone ever learnt anything by having metaphorical smoke blown up their metaphorical ass all the time. Now, I haven't seen this production but if I was in a play and I didn't give a worthy performance I would want to know about it...wouldnt you? Or would you rather be left in the dark and continue unchanged.
Even if I did not ultimately agree with the criticism i would still repect it and take it into account. But then you can't please everyone can you...wouldn't that be boring!
Even if I did not ultimately agree with the criticism i would still repect it and take it into account. But then you can't please everyone can you...wouldn't that be boring!
Bass GuySun, 2 Oct 2005, 10:09 pm
Re: CHESS attn Jason
Nate nattered:
> "when i see you get up there and sing those notes and play those parts then mabye i will listen to you. Don't you think we should be supporting the next generation of music theatre talent in australia rather than putting them down."
Nate; sadly you know not of whom you chastise. Jason has the most PHENOMINAL vocal range you have heard. Imagine Ivan Rebroff on steroids fronting a metal band. The you may get HALF the picture.
Assuming, of course, you know you Ivan Rebroff is.
Jason can EASILY piss in the role of Freddie in Chess. Pity The Child is a walk in the park for him; I've heard him with my own ears bust this mutha to the ground. The fact he hasn't played this role is testimony to the fact that IT'S TOO EASY FOR HIM. The man with the purest Wagner-tenor voice in Perth's community theatre opts for more significant challenges. To whit; Booth in Sondheim's "Assassins".
That's right; my tenor Samoan Attorney taking on a low baritone role- and pulling it off superbly.
So. What have YOU done, Nate?
El
> "when i see you get up there and sing those notes and play those parts then mabye i will listen to you. Don't you think we should be supporting the next generation of music theatre talent in australia rather than putting them down."
Nate; sadly you know not of whom you chastise. Jason has the most PHENOMINAL vocal range you have heard. Imagine Ivan Rebroff on steroids fronting a metal band. The you may get HALF the picture.
Assuming, of course, you know you Ivan Rebroff is.
Jason can EASILY piss in the role of Freddie in Chess. Pity The Child is a walk in the park for him; I've heard him with my own ears bust this mutha to the ground. The fact he hasn't played this role is testimony to the fact that IT'S TOO EASY FOR HIM. The man with the purest Wagner-tenor voice in Perth's community theatre opts for more significant challenges. To whit; Booth in Sondheim's "Assassins".
That's right; my tenor Samoan Attorney taking on a low baritone role- and pulling it off superbly.
So. What have YOU done, Nate?
El
Bass GuySun, 2 Oct 2005, 10:15 pm
Re: CHESS
Hobbes hastily harped:
> "Andrew (is that his name?) the freddy guy did really well.
> It's such a bitch of a sing. Were the composers laughing like
> evil villians, rubbing their hands together with villianous
> glee when they wrote this."
No they didn't. Ulvaeaus/Andersson & Rice wrote the role with a specific voice in mind (Murray Head's in fact) FOR AN ALBUM!!!
Please bear in mind that CHESS was only a "show" after the album version shifted considerable units in the charts. Kinda sorta like JCSS.
El
> "Andrew (is that his name?) the freddy guy did really well.
> It's such a bitch of a sing. Were the composers laughing like
> evil villians, rubbing their hands together with villianous
> glee when they wrote this."
No they didn't. Ulvaeaus/Andersson & Rice wrote the role with a specific voice in mind (Murray Head's in fact) FOR AN ALBUM!!!
Please bear in mind that CHESS was only a "show" after the album version shifted considerable units in the charts. Kinda sorta like JCSS.
El
Walter PlingeSun, 2 Oct 2005, 11:25 pm
Re: CHESS attn Jason
well thats grest for Jason.
i hope he has a happy community theatre carrear.
i've done alot of pro stuff in sydney before comming here to study but no need to compete and compare. i'd love to hear jason sing as i love to hear a good voice.
xoxoxoxox
Nate
i hope he has a happy community theatre carrear.
i've done alot of pro stuff in sydney before comming here to study but no need to compete and compare. i'd love to hear jason sing as i love to hear a good voice.
xoxoxoxox
Nate
Walter PlingeMon, 3 Oct 2005, 12:18 am
Re: CHESS attn Jason
Nate wrote -
"i've done alot of pro stuff in sydney before comming here to study but no need to compete and compare."
Nate, Nate, NATE!! But you just did! One of the biggest problems with someone learning the trade is that they find it very difficult to take constructive criticism. At times they believe they are the centre of the artistic universe and void from criticism!! I am making the assumption that you are attending WAAPA studying something, Acting or Musical Theatre or something else. Very few people make it big Nate and I dare say with some of them they don't make it because they believe they know everything there is to know which is a wrong. Jason has simply given his worthy opinion and put it very well I might add. I in fact saw the show on the same night as he and believe it to be not the best show I have seen at WAAPA but I am not even going to try and critique the show. So Point No. 1:- Nate is IF you are doing the course at WAAPA don't fall into the trap of believing your way (or WAAPA's) is the best way as you may find that you'll spend a great deal of time out of work or heaven forbid keeping your hand in by doing Community Theatre!! If someone's opinion differs from yours get over it and move on. Maybe try and see their side and if you believe it still to be not what you think get over it and move on! At least listen and try and make sense of it for one day it may have some relevance for YOU.
Note - I did enjoy the immigration scene and the way they used the cameras to project the game scenes in Chess.
Point No. 2:- You and Jason have been involved with Theatre and you both obviously have a passion for it BUT the only difference between you both is that Jason does it for the love of while you have been paid to do it!! That one single difference does not maketh the man/woman. I have a number of friends who have been through WAAPA or are currently going through WAAPA who all started in Community Theatre and some now are coming back to it. That doesn't make them any less talented than people working professionally in the industry or make them any less knowing than people working professionally in the industry. So chill out and don't chastise people, in what ever level of theatre, for having an opinion that may differ to yours.
Anyway, all the best Nate for the rest of your course and good luck when you graduate and move back to Sydney or Melbourne or London ....
Alex
"i've done alot of pro stuff in sydney before comming here to study but no need to compete and compare."
Nate, Nate, NATE!! But you just did! One of the biggest problems with someone learning the trade is that they find it very difficult to take constructive criticism. At times they believe they are the centre of the artistic universe and void from criticism!! I am making the assumption that you are attending WAAPA studying something, Acting or Musical Theatre or something else. Very few people make it big Nate and I dare say with some of them they don't make it because they believe they know everything there is to know which is a wrong. Jason has simply given his worthy opinion and put it very well I might add. I in fact saw the show on the same night as he and believe it to be not the best show I have seen at WAAPA but I am not even going to try and critique the show. So Point No. 1:- Nate is IF you are doing the course at WAAPA don't fall into the trap of believing your way (or WAAPA's) is the best way as you may find that you'll spend a great deal of time out of work or heaven forbid keeping your hand in by doing Community Theatre!! If someone's opinion differs from yours get over it and move on. Maybe try and see their side and if you believe it still to be not what you think get over it and move on! At least listen and try and make sense of it for one day it may have some relevance for YOU.
Note - I did enjoy the immigration scene and the way they used the cameras to project the game scenes in Chess.
Point No. 2:- You and Jason have been involved with Theatre and you both obviously have a passion for it BUT the only difference between you both is that Jason does it for the love of while you have been paid to do it!! That one single difference does not maketh the man/woman. I have a number of friends who have been through WAAPA or are currently going through WAAPA who all started in Community Theatre and some now are coming back to it. That doesn't make them any less talented than people working professionally in the industry or make them any less knowing than people working professionally in the industry. So chill out and don't chastise people, in what ever level of theatre, for having an opinion that may differ to yours.
Anyway, all the best Nate for the rest of your course and good luck when you graduate and move back to Sydney or Melbourne or London ....
Alex
crgwllmsMon, 3 Oct 2005, 01:49 am
Re: CHESS - Check Nate !
Excellent, Alex. Well said.
crg
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeTue, 4 Oct 2005, 06:44 am
Re: CHESS
Good point! I fail to understand the huge fuss these people are making over Chess. It was a recording that was quite successful. Because of this every man and his dog thought it would work on stage as well. Despite this, and umpteen attempts at rewriting the book in UK, USA and Europe, it has never been a commercial success on stage anywhere. Let's stick to musicals that are proven winners, there are enough of those around to keep us all happy! One or two good songs on an album aren't enough to sustain a quailty evening of theatre.
Sorry to deflate those who worship this show!
Tickles
Sorry to deflate those who worship this show!
Tickles
Walter PlingeTue, 4 Oct 2005, 08:45 am
Re: CHESS
"Let's stick to musicals that are proven winners, there are enough of those around to keep us all happy!"
That would be a bit boring if we only stuck to proven winners!
jassepTue, 4 Oct 2005, 09:29 am
Re: CHESS
tickles wrote:
>
> Good point! I fail to understand the huge fuss these people
> are making over Chess.
I fail to understand the huge fuss "these people" make/made over Rent. Or Godspell. Or even Cirque du Soleil.
Does that mean they have no merit?
Fact is, for me, I would take an afternoon watching a production (or listening to the album) of Chess over free tickets to any one of these commercial successes.
But it's simply a matter of personal choice. I like the show. I saw it. I was disappointed. So it goes... big deal -- move on.
> Let's
> stick to musicals that are proven winners, there are enough
> of those around to keep us all happy! One or two good songs
> on an album aren't enough to sustain a quailty evening of
> theatre.
So, in your estimation, CATS, EVITA, JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR and even LES MISERABLES would never have had a chance? Decent concept albums, but because "every man and his dog" decided it was a good idea -- don't even try to do it??
> Sorry to deflate those who worship this show!
Alas, you have deflated nothing. You haven't even added a half-way decent thought to the proceedings.
Jason (Yes, my ACTUAL name...)
>
> Good point! I fail to understand the huge fuss these people
> are making over Chess.
I fail to understand the huge fuss "these people" make/made over Rent. Or Godspell. Or even Cirque du Soleil.
Does that mean they have no merit?
Fact is, for me, I would take an afternoon watching a production (or listening to the album) of Chess over free tickets to any one of these commercial successes.
But it's simply a matter of personal choice. I like the show. I saw it. I was disappointed. So it goes... big deal -- move on.
> Let's
> stick to musicals that are proven winners, there are enough
> of those around to keep us all happy! One or two good songs
> on an album aren't enough to sustain a quailty evening of
> theatre.
So, in your estimation, CATS, EVITA, JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR and even LES MISERABLES would never have had a chance? Decent concept albums, but because "every man and his dog" decided it was a good idea -- don't even try to do it??
> Sorry to deflate those who worship this show!
Alas, you have deflated nothing. You haven't even added a half-way decent thought to the proceedings.
Jason (Yes, my ACTUAL name...)
Walter PlingeTue, 4 Oct 2005, 06:20 pm
Re: CHESS attn Jason
I would still love to know where i can hear this wonderfull voice of Jasons.
I love a good voice
xoxoxooxox
Nate (real Name)
I love a good voice
xoxoxooxox
Nate (real Name)
Walter PlingeTue, 4 Oct 2005, 06:29 pm
Re:ATTN Alex
Thankyou soooo much for the advice Alex,
i really apreciate it.
xoxox
Nate
i really apreciate it.
xoxox
Nate
Walter PlingeThu, 6 Oct 2005, 05:56 pm
Re: CHESS - Do you have a life? Any of You??
Are you serious people??
First of all, if this is how you guys spend your days...writing about waapa musicals on message boards... (yes, even jason seperic who gets on his high horse about all this is still here, arguing it out with the rest of them...or is that just a pride thing? or perhaps an ego thing? we all love our name to be mentioned in public, don't we jason?)...what kind of life do you have?
Secondly, please! If we stick to these already proven musicals forever what will become of this art form which we all pledge our love to? It will never progress! Jesus! if everyone abided by that rule, we wouldn't be blessed with shows like oklahoma! and porgy and bess and showboat!
GOD PEOPLE! GROW UP! it's not all about you. nor is it about your petty little arguments.
i'm sure if you didn't love the drama so much, you wouldn't be coming back here day after day to check the board!!
First of all, if this is how you guys spend your days...writing about waapa musicals on message boards... (yes, even jason seperic who gets on his high horse about all this is still here, arguing it out with the rest of them...or is that just a pride thing? or perhaps an ego thing? we all love our name to be mentioned in public, don't we jason?)...what kind of life do you have?
Secondly, please! If we stick to these already proven musicals forever what will become of this art form which we all pledge our love to? It will never progress! Jesus! if everyone abided by that rule, we wouldn't be blessed with shows like oklahoma! and porgy and bess and showboat!
GOD PEOPLE! GROW UP! it's not all about you. nor is it about your petty little arguments.
i'm sure if you didn't love the drama so much, you wouldn't be coming back here day after day to check the board!!
Walter PlingeThu, 6 Oct 2005, 06:15 pm
Re: CHESS
oh, hi jason, noticed you were online and looking at the chess reviews AGAIN!!
jassepThu, 6 Oct 2005, 06:25 pm
Re: CHESS
Hey Sicko! :o)
All I have done on this board is:
a) Write a review (the stated aim of this particular board, no?)
b) Clear up a couple of hysterical comments from one of your cronies.
c) Punch logic holes in your/another compatriots pointless "argument".
Now, if people are NOT welcome here to write reviews that are not of the brownnosing variety, please ask the moderators to let me know -- and I will be on my way.
Here's another thought: do an analysis of my actual review and let me know where my errors lie. You obviously do not agree with my thoughts. That is fine. Spend some mental energy and talk to the issue at hand.
Best wishes,
Jason
All I have done on this board is:
a) Write a review (the stated aim of this particular board, no?)
b) Clear up a couple of hysterical comments from one of your cronies.
c) Punch logic holes in your/another compatriots pointless "argument".
Now, if people are NOT welcome here to write reviews that are not of the brownnosing variety, please ask the moderators to let me know -- and I will be on my way.
Here's another thought: do an analysis of my actual review and let me know where my errors lie. You obviously do not agree with my thoughts. That is fine. Spend some mental energy and talk to the issue at hand.
Best wishes,
Jason
jassepThu, 6 Oct 2005, 06:27 pm
Re: CHESS
Just answering your last post. See below.
And the only reason I'm here is because your messages got delivered to my email.
Jason
And the only reason I'm here is because your messages got delivered to my email.
Jason
NimrodFri, 7 Oct 2005, 04:59 pm
This IS your life?
Sick of This @!#$ wrote:
> i'm sure if you didn't love the drama so much, you wouldn't
> be coming back here day after day to check the board!!
And neither would you Mr @!#$ if that IS your real name. Don't be so hastie to criticise Sick Boy/Girl/Androgenous lifeform. You know what they say, Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
I've said it before and I'll gladly and smugly say it again; the ITA website is the funniest page on the net.
Another profound message from Nimrod
> i'm sure if you didn't love the drama so much, you wouldn't
> be coming back here day after day to check the board!!
And neither would you Mr @!#$ if that IS your real name. Don't be so hastie to criticise Sick Boy/Girl/Androgenous lifeform. You know what they say, Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
I've said it before and I'll gladly and smugly say it again; the ITA website is the funniest page on the net.
Another profound message from Nimrod
Walter PlingeSat, 8 Oct 2005, 01:32 am
Re: CHESS
I'd just like to thank Jason for his 'oh so helpful' comments on the show. One thing I cant understand is why its still being talked about when it closed nearly a month ago already.
But there were just a few things that were said that have bothered me a little. Im not gonna sit here and talk the show up, because when I was first given the score I thought it sounded kinda lame (I was in the orchestra), but if you listen to the show musically, its got some great stuff and afterall, this was its purpose was it not? I dont understand why such a fuss was made when some of the characters werent running around the stage dancing their feet off, but Jason, you say you'd prefer to see it done in a recital style - I might only be a musican that has to put on recitals quite alot, but doesnt that mean just standing there presenting the music???
Yes, there were faults in Andy's singing, but for a guy that took on extra teachers for the role to bring his voice from a bass to a high tenor I think he did a pretty fantastic job and if you're gonna make a mistake, make it big! I can tell you there were plenty made by all, actors, orchestra and techies alike. I dont get how anyone would think Christina was singing to her pet dog in the Mountain Duet, when Nick was standing right infront of her playing with her hair and singing back to her, but who knows, maybe where some people come from they sing lovely duets with their animals (I thought that sort of thing was illegal thats all). I've also seen many 'professional' shows that didnt come off perfectly that I've still loved, mistakes dont make a show a disaster. Last time I checked, a split note didnt mean you're life was over.
And as for people being too good for WAAPA haha that makes me laugh, I think thats the first time I've ever heard anyone say that they were too good for an academy or a role in a musical so they had to turn it down!! Must be tough being that good. Its nice to see that you can use all ur talent reviewing kids less great than you on a theatre forum. Way to go!! Also, last time I checked the academy didnt get its name as the greatest in this country for Musical Theatre by putting on shows that people know and love. I can garantee that this is not what the MTs are striving to do, nor what the lecturers are teaching them. If thats what you want I suggest you stick to community theatre or go to the video shop - its usually cheaper than a ticket ;-)
Im all for people having their opinion, and I think that performers can only get stronger by recieving criticism whether its constructive or not, but when all you can do is pick at people on stage and off that know what they're doing and obviously havent been picked for a role because they're a big name star and are graduating at the end of the year then clearly you havent done your research (peoples name's were not even known) and you cant possibly make accurate judgement, well informed judgement. I've had feedback from some of the lecturers that were involved in this production and some of the audience members and have heard nothing but positives. Many saying it came off better then expected.
All I can think of is that you've come to a 'bad' night, in a not much better mood. Or maybe its just the green-eyed monster coming out to say hello.
For those of you that liked it, Im glad you did, cause we all had a good time putting it on. For those of you that didnt, maybe next time you come, if you plan to, the next show will be up to your standard....
I just feel sorry for those unhappy few that you may have let your egos get in the way of seeing the best new talent in Oz for possibly the last time all together, afterall, they all got in for a reason right?
Or maybe this is just my opinion, and WAAPA works this way to make all their students look ridiculous - maybe its all part of a master plan....
Have fun kids xx
But there were just a few things that were said that have bothered me a little. Im not gonna sit here and talk the show up, because when I was first given the score I thought it sounded kinda lame (I was in the orchestra), but if you listen to the show musically, its got some great stuff and afterall, this was its purpose was it not? I dont understand why such a fuss was made when some of the characters werent running around the stage dancing their feet off, but Jason, you say you'd prefer to see it done in a recital style - I might only be a musican that has to put on recitals quite alot, but doesnt that mean just standing there presenting the music???
Yes, there were faults in Andy's singing, but for a guy that took on extra teachers for the role to bring his voice from a bass to a high tenor I think he did a pretty fantastic job and if you're gonna make a mistake, make it big! I can tell you there were plenty made by all, actors, orchestra and techies alike. I dont get how anyone would think Christina was singing to her pet dog in the Mountain Duet, when Nick was standing right infront of her playing with her hair and singing back to her, but who knows, maybe where some people come from they sing lovely duets with their animals (I thought that sort of thing was illegal thats all). I've also seen many 'professional' shows that didnt come off perfectly that I've still loved, mistakes dont make a show a disaster. Last time I checked, a split note didnt mean you're life was over.
And as for people being too good for WAAPA haha that makes me laugh, I think thats the first time I've ever heard anyone say that they were too good for an academy or a role in a musical so they had to turn it down!! Must be tough being that good. Its nice to see that you can use all ur talent reviewing kids less great than you on a theatre forum. Way to go!! Also, last time I checked the academy didnt get its name as the greatest in this country for Musical Theatre by putting on shows that people know and love. I can garantee that this is not what the MTs are striving to do, nor what the lecturers are teaching them. If thats what you want I suggest you stick to community theatre or go to the video shop - its usually cheaper than a ticket ;-)
Im all for people having their opinion, and I think that performers can only get stronger by recieving criticism whether its constructive or not, but when all you can do is pick at people on stage and off that know what they're doing and obviously havent been picked for a role because they're a big name star and are graduating at the end of the year then clearly you havent done your research (peoples name's were not even known) and you cant possibly make accurate judgement, well informed judgement. I've had feedback from some of the lecturers that were involved in this production and some of the audience members and have heard nothing but positives. Many saying it came off better then expected.
All I can think of is that you've come to a 'bad' night, in a not much better mood. Or maybe its just the green-eyed monster coming out to say hello.
For those of you that liked it, Im glad you did, cause we all had a good time putting it on. For those of you that didnt, maybe next time you come, if you plan to, the next show will be up to your standard....
I just feel sorry for those unhappy few that you may have let your egos get in the way of seeing the best new talent in Oz for possibly the last time all together, afterall, they all got in for a reason right?
Or maybe this is just my opinion, and WAAPA works this way to make all their students look ridiculous - maybe its all part of a master plan....
Have fun kids xx
Walter PlingeSat, 8 Oct 2005, 02:18 am
Re: CHESS attn Jason
I dont think you will hear it sadly. I think he's too good for our unworthy ears to hear.
I dont think we can bribe him with money either, as he does it purely for the love, and you Nate put in all your work just for those bits of plastic they hand you at the end of the day. Only if you're the Nathan I think you are, you wouldnt have been paid... (but I wont tell him that, so he still thinks hes right).
Maybe one day when Jason is the leading singer/actor/critic and Im sure many more things in our industry (oh I think I forgot director, my bad), we shall be bless, by what must be a voice unlike any we've heard.
So I wouldnt hold you breath for that one...
xx
I dont think we can bribe him with money either, as he does it purely for the love, and you Nate put in all your work just for those bits of plastic they hand you at the end of the day. Only if you're the Nathan I think you are, you wouldnt have been paid... (but I wont tell him that, so he still thinks hes right).
Maybe one day when Jason is the leading singer/actor/critic and Im sure many more things in our industry (oh I think I forgot director, my bad), we shall be bless, by what must be a voice unlike any we've heard.
So I wouldnt hold you breath for that one...
xx
Walter PlingeSat, 8 Oct 2005, 10:10 am
Re: CHESS
WAAPA Kid wrote:
> Im all for people having their opinion
Doesn't sound like it.
Strange that they perform their shows to the public without considering the possibility that people might not like it so much. The insolence of it all! Maybe they should have the audience sign a disclaimer, stating that they acknowledge the privelege that has been bestowed apon them by paying to see this WAAPA production and that they promise to not express an opinion that is in any way disparaging of how excellent the show is assumed to be and f*ck you, what do you know anyway?
By the way, I love the response of, "Well f*ck him, I'd like to see him try doing this". When you get out there into the big bad world, that petulant little comeback won't work so well because, sadly, quite a few audience members probably WON'T be singers and dancers. But they'll still have their own opinion. As inferior as it is in comparison to the towering majesty of the WAAPA grads almighty talent.
Imagine what's going to happen when these poor, affronted WAAPA doyens have to perform to the general public on a regular basis (if indeed that actually happens), and the audience doesn't automatically kneel down and start fellating them in the foyer after the show.
> Im all for people having their opinion
Doesn't sound like it.
Strange that they perform their shows to the public without considering the possibility that people might not like it so much. The insolence of it all! Maybe they should have the audience sign a disclaimer, stating that they acknowledge the privelege that has been bestowed apon them by paying to see this WAAPA production and that they promise to not express an opinion that is in any way disparaging of how excellent the show is assumed to be and f*ck you, what do you know anyway?
By the way, I love the response of, "Well f*ck him, I'd like to see him try doing this". When you get out there into the big bad world, that petulant little comeback won't work so well because, sadly, quite a few audience members probably WON'T be singers and dancers. But they'll still have their own opinion. As inferior as it is in comparison to the towering majesty of the WAAPA grads almighty talent.
Imagine what's going to happen when these poor, affronted WAAPA doyens have to perform to the general public on a regular basis (if indeed that actually happens), and the audience doesn't automatically kneel down and start fellating them in the foyer after the show.
Walter PlingeFri, 21 Oct 2005, 07:04 pm
Re: CHESS attn Jason
Yes i admit...i have never looked at, or read, any material on this site until today. As it happens, i have stumbled across this section of material on a production of Chess which i happened to see. Yes...im well acquainted with the work of these said third year students and have seen them in a number of productions over the last 2 years. However with as much objectivity as i can summons, i must say that its rather sad to see some schmuck (yes thats you Jason incase your not intelligent enough to realise!?!) pull apart the production of a Musical that has been less succesful in the professional world then this production featuring a cast of 18 very talented up and comings.
Inspite of your need to spread rot about this production Jason,it would appear that every student in that year lever (hence that production) has been selected for a reason...furthrmore if they have managed to succesfully complete 3 years at WAAPA their progress must fairly be deemed acceptable (or certainly they would not still be there?) Let's let the REAL people judge their performance. No doubt they will move on shortly to bigger and better things, while you Jason, will be left at your keyboard writing about the next WAAPA production you see...and no doubt secretly envy! Jealousy is certainly a curse?
Inspite of your need to spread rot about this production Jason,it would appear that every student in that year lever (hence that production) has been selected for a reason...furthrmore if they have managed to succesfully complete 3 years at WAAPA their progress must fairly be deemed acceptable (or certainly they would not still be there?) Let's let the REAL people judge their performance. No doubt they will move on shortly to bigger and better things, while you Jason, will be left at your keyboard writing about the next WAAPA production you see...and no doubt secretly envy! Jealousy is certainly a curse?
Walter PlingeFri, 21 Oct 2005, 07:06 pm
Re: CHESS attn Jason
You're a loser Alex....a sad, sad loser!
xo
xo
jassepSat, 22 Oct 2005, 01:47 am
Re: CHESS attn Jason
OK, OK, OK... I cry "Uncle!" I give in... capitulate... whatever you want, kids.
Can we just let this subject die now?
I'm, frankly, sorry I ever dared express an opinion on this production. It won't happen again... promise!
No more WAAPA reviews. Final!
Happy now?
(Dang! I was so looking forward to being able to write something about King Lear, which I'm seeing later today... matinee performance, if anyone wants to have a face-to-face discussion afterwards? No? Thought not.)
Take care in the profession, children! With skins *this* thin, you're gonna need all the help you can get. Or at least healthy doses of Prozac! :o)
Sincerely,
Jason (Oh, yeah... once again, my *real* name!)
Can we just let this subject die now?
I'm, frankly, sorry I ever dared express an opinion on this production. It won't happen again... promise!
No more WAAPA reviews. Final!
Happy now?
(Dang! I was so looking forward to being able to write something about King Lear, which I'm seeing later today... matinee performance, if anyone wants to have a face-to-face discussion afterwards? No? Thought not.)
Take care in the profession, children! With skins *this* thin, you're gonna need all the help you can get. Or at least healthy doses of Prozac! :o)
Sincerely,
Jason (Oh, yeah... once again, my *real* name!)
Walter PlingeSun, 23 Oct 2005, 12:42 am
Re: CHESS attn Jason
Well Fondheim of Sondheim
I'm sad to say that we both share something in common. I'm a big fan of Sondheim as well and if that makes me a sad loser then then yes I'll confess to that. BUT a 'loser' for having an opinion different to yours heaven forbid. All I will say to that is grow up, get out from behind that pseudonym of yours and get some maturity. Out in the real world with a skin that thin you'll get chewed up and spat out OR maybe when it happens you'll simply write to the newspaper critic and call them a sad sad loser!!
All the best in your chosen career Fondheim.
Alex Mc (My real name!)
I'm sad to say that we both share something in common. I'm a big fan of Sondheim as well and if that makes me a sad loser then then yes I'll confess to that. BUT a 'loser' for having an opinion different to yours heaven forbid. All I will say to that is grow up, get out from behind that pseudonym of yours and get some maturity. Out in the real world with a skin that thin you'll get chewed up and spat out OR maybe when it happens you'll simply write to the newspaper critic and call them a sad sad loser!!
All the best in your chosen career Fondheim.
Alex Mc (My real name!)
Walter PlingeTue, 25 Oct 2005, 09:20 pm
Re: CHESS
Hello
i saw chess also and thought however it was an exceelent show
the actors were superb and i thought overall a job well done
however i do believe the AV and lighting was over utilised and the technicals in my opinion dominated the show, allowing me to be distracted with the technicals and forgetting to watch the show, which is a pity
overall congrats to them :)
i saw chess also and thought however it was an exceelent show
the actors were superb and i thought overall a job well done
however i do believe the AV and lighting was over utilised and the technicals in my opinion dominated the show, allowing me to be distracted with the technicals and forgetting to watch the show, which is a pity
overall congrats to them :)
Walter PlingeSat, 19 Nov 2005, 06:32 pm
Re: This IS your life? looks like it its nov.
looks like THIS IS MY LIFE cause its been 3 months and i was missing the third years cause i saw them every day from the SOCA sculpture studio + LOVE music theatre (auditioning, no chance in hell)....(yay) so i came back to READ THIS....... what a loser!!
and if ANYONE replys to this i have only one thing to say: hello friend.
and if NO ONE ever replys i can COME BACK in 2 months and have a different name and reply TO MYSELF and believe i am TOTALLY COOL.
this is embarrassing. time to PISS OFF/read this forum again.
(uni's finished alread bored)...................................................
Walter PlingeMon, 14 Aug 2006, 02:10 am
i thought the sound was
i thought the sound was good