ASPECTS OF LOVE

"Aspects of Love", the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical that critics have rated better than "Cats" and "Phantom of the Opera" is on at the Playhouse this week from Wed 31st July (the preview - a fundraiser for Anglicare) to Sat 3rd August.

See "What's on" for further details.

This is the first time that Aspects has been performed in WA and the feedback from rehearsals is that it is going to be FANTASTIC.

Tickets from BOCS or on 9442 1584 (limited tickets).

Brigida
Friends of Midnite

Went and saw ASPECTS on friday night. Overall a good production but felt it was out of the realm of a youth theatre group. I felt that midnite perhaps bit of a little more than it could chew. There were some stand out features including the set, the actress who played big Jenny and Rose's song 'Anything but Lonely'. It was good however to see a full production of one of my favourite ALW shows.

Hi Luc,

Thanks for the feedback - much appreciated. Has anyone else got any comments?

Look, I thought the young cast performed as well as they could, but I have to dispute your dubious claim that 'Aspects' is a great musical. It just isn't. The story plods, the score is predictable and incredibly repetitive, and spends its best song in the opening. I went along out of curiosity for his follow up to Phantom, and left shaking my head - not at the young talent on display, but the sheer fact that Lloyd Webber probably still gets some royalties from that load of garbage. Vitriolic? Sure. Frustrated? Definitely. Impressed with the young cast? Of course.

The young lady playing Rose and the gentleman playing Alex (I'm sorry, no programme - which is rare for me!) were outstanding - both products of the Academy-Con system, I believe, which showed. There was a distinct step down from there - but of course that is due to the age of many of the performers - most still at school. I thought they acquitted themselves very well and did what they could with an appalling script. However, I was moved almost to disbelieving shudders of laughter during the big show-stopping 'eulogy' dance number - too many kids on stage, and incredibly inappropriate choreo, made what could have been a memorable scene into a farce.

Apologies for being blunt, but that's what I do. I enjoyed the performance, and like 'Cats' and 'Phantom' - but Lloyd Webber should be flayed for this one.

j


*****

[%sig%]

Justin Hammond wrote:
>
> Look, I thought the young cast performed as well as they
> could, but I have to dispute your dubious claim that
> 'Aspects' is a great musical. It just isn't. The story
> plods, the score is predictable and incredibly repetitive,
> and spends its best song in the opening.

I severely disagree. It is a very good musical, one of the best ever written. The story is beautiful and the music is the gorgeous and appropriately suited to such an intimate setting - when it is done well. I don't know what you classify as a "great musical" - probably tripe like 42nd Street and The Music Man, but musically wise - this at least has some credibility. It is just unfortunate for you that this production was not up to the scratch it should have been. Seems to me Justin that this show was slightly intellectually out of your reach.

> The young lady playing Rose and the gentleman playing Alex
> (I'm sorry, no programme - which is rare for me!) were
> outstanding - both products of the Academy-Con system, I
> believe, which showed.

That in itself is a load of rubbish. Has anyone noticed the quality of so called graduates from WAAPA these days? Very very poor and very very disappointing. And what makes it worse is the ATTITUDE these graduates have (not to mention some of the staff). The best last years gradutates could do was get chorus parts in Mamma Mia - which is rather sad. Anyway, back to Aspects, I though Shai was as boring as watching paint dry. Beautiful voice, but with this type of musical you actually need to ACT and show SOME sort of changing emotion. He got upstaged by virtually everyone. Ok, he can sing, nicely, safely (*shudder*), but some differing reaction would have been nice. He didn't even belt the final notes of "Love Changes Everything". VERY disappointing.

Erin (playing Rose) did very well considering what she was playing against. She did far better in the second act than she the first. Maybe thats because she wasn't playing opposite Alex (then again, who she was playing opposite was a complete joke - I don't think its particularly convincing having an 18yo playing (very badly too) as 70+yo - someone much older should have been hired for that part). "Anything but lonely" was very good.

Praises should go to Jaia Henderson. She was AMAZING - finally someone who was appropriately cast. She WAS Jenny. Well done.

And to Mark Desebrock, bravo. "Perfect Leading Lady" was very very nice and mature for someone so young.

The rest leave a lot to be desired. I'm sure there were lots of people under 25 that could have played those roles, but anyway. One thing I will agree on is the "Hand Me The Wine and the Dice" scene. That was a complete shamozzle. And very amusing to see the conductor struggle. Haha - I'm such a sadist.

And to the set designer - great set, though the scene changes could have been slicker rather than vamping music aimlessly until it was set.

Sorry to bitch "but thats what I do". Flawed as it was, I'm glad to have finally seen one of my favourite musicals on stage.

Erik.



Thou villainous weather-bitten maggot-pie!

Just reread Justin's email.

You like Cats??

Enough said.

Hmmm.

Okay. Now let's qualify things. Firstly, how dare you attack me and my opinion without uttering one word in rebuttal other than 'naa, you're wrong'. I never articulated my standpoint on Cats or Phantom - I merely questioned how this play could possibly claim to be 'great' as one of 'the best ever written'. Incidentally, I have not very much time for Andrew Lloyd Webber at all, apart from a fondness for Phantom as I heard it so much growing up (with a mum obsessed for a period!). The 'tripe' I enjoy? Sondheim's 'Assassins', 'Sweeney Todd', 'Into the Woods', 'Sunday in the Park with George'; Schmidt/Jones' 'The Fantasticks'; Schwartz's 'Godspell'; and Bernstein's 'West Side Story' to name a few favourites. Compared with this list, in my opinion, 'Aspects of Love' is a diabolical failure. There was very little to 'Aspects' - Lloyd Webber was trying far too hard to create an epic for his dear wife and out-smarted himself by trying to create the most technically difficult show possible, but succeeds in doing little more than confirming what most in musical circles already know. Lloyd Webber is considered nothing but a hack in musical circles, enhanced by his posturings to be a major composer who has had a serious impact on twntieth century works. He has done little more than add to the canon of lightweight, Disney style musicals that are about as satisfying as a Chinese dinner - not too bad at a pinch but you want another one later to fill that nagging gap. A little too intellectual for me? I hold two degrees, including a Bachelor of Music and am currently working towards a Ph.D. Watch your mouth before you start flinging statements like that around.

As for your statement about the Academy-Con system. Well, well. Sounds like someone's a little bit bitter that they were never accepted over in Mount Lawley... Sigh. The Academy produces a consistently high calibre of performer, but of course they will never be to the satisfaction of people like yourself. I'm not sure if you have any part in the industry, but very few performers come straight from an institution and walk right into work. It just doesn't happen, because there aren't that many jobs out there. You could say the same for NIDA and VCA - all three are great institutions, but none guarantee you work - something which all three would confirm for you immediately if you asked. What they do is assist in training your instruments - Erin and Shai (thankyou for names) both had pleasant voices due to their training there - and in assisting contacts and networking. Just because you might have met a snobby WAAPA graduate before or couldn't get your head around something that one of the excellent staff at the institution told you, doesn't mean that they are of a poor standard. And as for Chorus Parts in Mamma Mia? I could name thousands of out of work actors who would love to be in that position. Get off the bitter train, mate - it's your attitude that's sad. Speaking of bitter - laughing at the misfortune of the conductor struggling? Less a sadist as a small small person to laugh at such an incredibly talented person as Justin Freind - perhaps it's just the realisation that he has a long career ahead of him? And went to the con? Gasp!

Shai as Alex: didn't say he set my world on fire, but stated that he was excellent as he seemed to carry the role off with more confidence than most. And bagging a young kid for not having the technical prowess yet to pull off a large role? How petty are you? I thought, for his age, he was just fine. Someone older would have been nice, but that's what youth theatre companies are for: giving young actors a chance to play older roles. I wouldn't cast him in that role in a professional adult production, but he did well enough in this show. Incidentally, if anyone catches me mounting a professional adult production of this show, assume the frontal lobotomy went as planned.

Now: where was I? Ah yes, the music and story - 'beautiful' and 'best ever'. Right. Your beautiful story is about a guy whose girlfriend marries his uncle, and then he fools around with his uncle and ex-girlfriend's daughter (15 years old, mind) and ends up going off with his uncle's ex. Hmm. 'Beautiful'? Well, the phrase 'creepy incest' comes to my mind more than anything. I have no idea whether this was an original story, or was adapted from somewhere, but myself and my wife (Oh, and we are both in our twenties, in case I was going to be accused of 'old fashioned ideas') were mildly uncomfortable with the whole set-up, and more importantly, unengaged with the story. The characters were badly drawn, springing from Black and Hart's shocking lyrics (Lloyd Webber should never have let Tim Rice go...) which had to develop the entire story but just never got around to it. I didn't care when George died. I didn't care when Jenny was dumped by Alex. I didn't care when Rose was shot. I just didn't care. It was supposed to be about love, it was supposed to glamorise the bohemian world of France, but George and Alex are so remarkably unenaging that it all seems like a long and drawn out subterfuge to distract us from the fact that they are related but Alex is wanting to sleep with his first cousin. Eek. I got no sense through the lyrics why Rose ever fell for George - and the large chorus numbers seemed tacked on and uninspired. Musically. Right. Lloyd Webber, as I said, is not a composer who is taken seriously in the music world - he just isn't. He got away with JCS and Joseph because he was riding on Tim Rice's coattails, and Cats and Phantom can be accredited to TS Eliot and Gaston Leroux for coming up with the stories which distracted us from the repetitive, sterile nature of his work. Aspects, sadly, had no text to hide behind. Lloyd Webber's musical theatre cred is about at the same level as Elton John's Lion King stuff - catchy, but don't you dare mention him in the same breath as Sondheim or Bernstein... In Aspects, he was trying to write an opera - and his reliance on this specific artform meant that he didn't get a chance to stick in enough of his catchy tunes, which is what he is known for - instead we were subjected to a lot of uninspired recitative-like music. We could argue all day about 'leitmotifs' and the rest, but it just comes down to the fact that I was not inspired. Nor, I might add, was one of the leads (a friend) who reiterated, post show, most of what I have just said. And worse.

Now, you all might think this was a long post as rebuttal and affected no-one but 'Erik' and myself. I agree. I would have just emailed it, but I couldn't - little 'erik' decided to bag me and my opinions, along with his own opinions (see - I never said yours were wrong, just differed from mine - democracies are lovely things, aren't they?) under what I assume is a pseudonym, and no email address to attach any feedback to. tsk tsk. Pretty gutless, methinks. Now, erik, if you want to continue this, click on the name 'Justin Hammond' above and it will connect to my email account. Then write those things down and we won't have to continue boring the nice ITA people with your 'nah, you're wrong so there' trash.

Apologies everyone else for this rant - 'erik' has niggled me and I don't like being bagged. It just makes me want to bag back. And that's not polite.

J

[%sig%]

Justin Hammond wrote: A HUGE ESSAY!!!


> Okay. Now let's qualify things. Firstly, how dare you
> attack me and my opinion without uttering one word in
> rebuttal other than 'naa, you're wrong'.

I never said that. I think I said that I disagreed.

> The 'tripe' I enjoy? Sondheim's
> 'Assassins', 'Sweeney Todd', 'Into the Woods', 'Sunday in the
> Park with George'; Schmidt/Jones' 'The Fantasticks';
> Schwartz's 'Godspell'; and Bernstein's 'West Side Story' to
> name a few favourites. Compared with this list, in my
> opinion, 'Aspects of Love' is a diabolical failure.

Well - it did only run for 3 years, which is twice to three times as long as most Sondheim shows. Not that I'm bagging Sondheim, I love him dearly.

>There was very little to 'Aspects' - Lloyd Webber was trying far
> too hard to create an epic for his dear wife

Wasn't that Phantom? Lloyd Webber was on the verge of divorcing Sarah when this was written so I hardly think that.

>A little too intellectual for me? I hold two degrees, including a >Bachelor of Music and am currently working towards a Ph.D. Watch >your mouth before you start flinging statements like that around.

Wow - I have a Bachelor of Music too. Small world, huh?

> As for your statement about the Academy-Con system. Well,
> well. Sounds like someone's a little bit bitter that they
> were never accepted over in Mount Lawley... Sigh.

Ah...lucky for me, I never auditioned for WAAPA and don't intend to.

> Shai as Alex: didn't say he set my world on fire, but stated
> that he was excellent as he seemed to carry the role off with
> more confidence than most. And bagging a young kid for not
> having the technical prowess yet to pull off a large role?
> How petty are you? I thought, for his age, he was just
> fine.

For his TRAINING I thought he was boring. Age has nothing to do with it. Look at Mark Desebrock. He's in the school and at least portrayed his character with some depth. Again, well done Mark.

Incidentally, if anyone catches me mounting a
> professional adult production of this show, assume the
> frontal lobotomy went as planned.

Judging by your opinions, I assumed it had already. ;-)

> Now: where was I? Ah yes, the music and story - 'beautiful'
> and 'best ever'. Right. Your beautiful story is about a guy
> whose girlfriend marries his uncle, and then he fools around
> with his uncle and ex-girlfriend's daughter (15 years old,
> mind) and ends up going off with his uncle's ex. Hmm.
> 'Beautiful'? Well, the phrase 'creepy incest' comes to my
> mind more than anything. I have no idea whether this was an
> original story, or was adapted from somewhere, but myself and
> my wife (Oh, and we are both in our twenties, in case I was
> going to be accused of 'old fashioned ideas') were mildly
> uncomfortable with the whole set-up, and more importantly,
> unengaged with the story.

Aw... Sounds like someone's been a little too sheltered. VIVA THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL.

> I didn't care when George died. I didn't care when Jenny was >dumped by Alex. I didn't care when Rose was shot. I just didn't
> care.

Yes, well....that I agree with. I was YEARNING for George to die. Put the audience of our misery. And the other things are to do with time and music, neither of which happened well.

> It was supposed to be about love, it was supposed to
> glamorise the bohemian world of France, but George and Alex
> are so remarkably unenaging that it all seems like a long and
> drawn out subterfuge to distract us from the fact that they
> are related but Alex is wanting to sleep with his first
> cousin. Eek.

Oh dear...ditto...how sheltered we are. Don't forget that the Egyptians (and some members of our society) sleep with their siblings!

> Apologies everyone else for this rant - 'erik' has niggled me
> and I don't like being bagged. It just makes me want to bag
> back. And that's not polite.

Diddums.

Oh - I'm bored with this.....

*Erik disappears forever in a cloud of smoke waiting for the next show to haunt*

Thou warped swag-bellied boar-pig!

I'm not going to join the review of "ASPECTS OF LOVE" specifically, as I haven't seen the show and probably won't get around to it.

Rather, this is a brief review of "Aspects of War", the ongoing debate between Justin and Erik.


Justin opened with a blunt disputation about Brigida's original publicity blurb claiming ASPECTS to be better than CATS or PHANTOM. He was quite careful in not bagging anyone in the cast, gave well justified reasons for the few things he disliked, and stressed that he appreciated the performances. The bulk of his post was a severe bagging of Lloyd Webber, giving "predictable", "repetitive", "plods", and "repetitive" as his arguments.
Not too long, and a strong supported opinion.


Erik severely disagreed. On all counts. He claims that the musical IS one of the best ever written, but that the performance itself was severely lacking.
Unfortunately, most of the justification for both of these arguments came not from introducing strong supportive material of his own, but by slinging off at anything Justin had said and making disparaging remarks about his competance and intellect. Perhaps with this personal vendetta in mind, all of his comments about the show also became disparaging and vindictive and somewhat cruel. He also made a large generalisations about Academy training that seemed based more on contradicting Justin than being supported by any concrete examples.
Disappointing content, but lively energy.
(Dance 10, looks 3).


As a post script, he tried to be clever and get another dig at Justin by insinuating that liking CATS is evidence alone of incompetent opinion.

To me, this seemed contradictory and hurt his own argument more than he realises. One, it was a petty, unnecessary addition to his previous post, which made me question his objectivity and conclude that he was just being "catty". Two, it insulted my intelligence a little, because it was heavily reiterating a theme he had already expressed quite well - insinuating perhaps that I, the reader, hadn't "got it". And three, by denigrating CATS he seems to be supporting Justin's statement that Andrew Lloyd Webber is overrated....something that rather contradicts his own assertions about ASPECTS.


The second act is where it really heats up.

Justin returns, with a long essay of rebuttal. He seems (rightly so) to be affronted by this personal attack, and heroically throws himself wholeheartedly into his justification, which perhaps becomes his tragic flaw.
He begins by reasserting his original stance on Lloyd Webber, with some even stronger opinions than before. He also asserts his own qualification to make these statements by giving examples of "highbrow" musicals that he DOES enjoy, and of his intellectual achievements.
He then goes on the offensive against some of Erik's generalisations about the Academy, and about Erik's seemingly bitter attitude.
He makes sure to revisit the original argument, and defends the performers of the production in question.
He finishes with a long tirade about the music and storyline of ASPECTS, pointing out why he finds it not to his liking.
At the end of all this, I noticed that while attacking the character of Erik, he still has a respect for his audience, and apologises for the rant he ha subjected us to. (Little does he suspect how we all love to watch someone else's rant). He shows restraint, in suggesting that any further argument should continue in private, if only "Erik" would be brave enough to attach an email address to his posts.

Naturally, Erik won't take this lying down. He decides to belittle and take the piss out of everything Justin has said. He starts by denying that he ever made the attack Justin has just defended. He uses his facts cleverly when he can, to correct small details Justin has asserted. He plays a status game, making light of revealing his own BA Degree, and showing his disdain of auditioning for WAAPA, in order to take Justin off his intellectual pedestal.
In response to Justin's distaste at the subject matter of ASPECTS, Erik makes a rather dubious connections about Egyptians (I assume he meant ANCIENT Egyptians, and not his politically incorrect assertion) having slept with siblings....as if this is a justification. Does he mean that therefore, the material should no longer be distasteful? His comparison to The Bold And The Beautiful really only seems to trivialise his argument, drawing it down to that lowest-denominator of television soap. Is he saying that that is a GOOD standard to compare to? In the scope of an argument about Lloyd Webber, I would have hoped for a more convincing comparison. Unfortunately, that only reconfirmed my own opinion about Lloyd Webber, and rather sealed Justin's argument.

Rather than finish on a fiery high, he proclaims his own boredom and disappears in a cloud of smoke (along with his argument), once again showing disdain for the audience he could have so easily been entertaining.



I have to say, on a personal note, that I do side with the Anti-Lloyd-Webbers. I loved JC SUPERSTAR, but have been most disappointed by other Rice/Webber collaborations like EVITA. I can hum along with CATS, but I'm not impressed by it as a musical. PHANTOM was a spectacular production, but I can only think of one song that grabs me. What I find clever in JCSS - his continuous underpinning of about three basic riffs - bores me in most of his later work.

Unlike the protagonists in this little argument, I have NO degree, musical or otherwise. I just think I know a lot.

Apologies for butting in on someone else's argument, disecting it, disputing it, and taking the piss out of it in a dry, witty way, but "that's what I do."



Cheers,
Craig

If ever any evidence were required to show that gainful employment is hard to come by in the h'acting profession in Perth, one need only look as far as Craig's carefully considered and immaculately written post on the Aspect of Hate debacle. Such erudition cannot be acheived from the rehearsal room of a theatre.

:-p. No "dig" intended, just an observation about someone with an obviously fair chunk of time on their hands.

El (who is back to being the wage-slave of an Evil Conglomerate)

Thankyou, Craig, for your wonderful response - I always have so much time for what you contribute to this board.

I feel I have no need now to rebut Smoky 'Erik's puerile response - I came back the first time as I was concerned that I was the only one to notice the drivel that he affronted me with, but now that it is clear that it is plain, I step back.

Glad to have debated, Erik - although I just checked, and there were no emails from you on the topic. I'm not sure anyone else around here sees your juvenile attempts at flaming as anything more than what it is - ill-informed tripe that has not shifted my perceptions of that particular play one jot. I was kind of hoping you would come back with something that would. What a pity.

Cheers,
Justin
(Clear points winner on the Craig Williams scorecard...)

[%sig%]

El wrote:
>
> If ever any evidence were required to show that gainful
> employment is hard to come by in the h'acting profession in
> Perth, one need only look as far as Craig's carefully
> considered and immaculately written post on the Aspect of
> Hate debacle. Such erudition cannot be acheived from the
> rehearsal room of a theatre.
>
> :-p. No "dig" intended, just an observation about someone
> with an obviously fair chunk of time on their hands.
>
> El (who is back to being the wage-slave of an Evil
> Conglomerate)


G'day El

Fair observation, I'd say. Having been fortunate enough to have had a large chunk of work that kept me super busy, it's now famine time for a month or so, and so I guess I'm making up for lost time.

But it's also from working in this industry that I've developed my nocturnal working habits, and discovered my most productive hours continue til about 3am...plenty of time to take over while it's quiet and dominate this board!


Cheers,
Craig

(And hey, you must still have a reasonable amount of discretionary time....not only have you picked up your posting rate here, but you admitted to going the whole distance in the IQ test....! )

Well, I have skipped through all the trivia on this show and just couldn't resist putting in my thoughts.

The show was a little disappointing but having been on stage only once in my 55 years, I have a lot of time for anyone prepared to put in the blood, sweat and tears to put a production together. I have been going to the theatre (preferably musicals but now opera as well) for a long time and I go purely for enjoyment and entertainment. Not to analyse. I honestly think that ALW lost it with this one but nevertheless my daughter and I still enjoyed the show and had a lot to talk about on our way home.

Perhaps all of you who critique through this page should consider the fact that a lot of people just go along for enjoyment. Not to analyse. Perhaps you are all a little too close to the action to be able to just enjoy or perhaps you all just want to show "what you know". Well, that's not what I think a performance is all about. If the actors have done their best, if the set is well done, and if the orchestra don't drown out the singing, then what more can I ask for. I didn't pay megabucks to see this show and I felt I got good return for my money.

Good luck to all performers who are prepared to get out there and give it a go.

I was just reading the interesting dialogue between yourself and Erik and noticed that you enjoy 'The Fantasticks'. If so I urge you to see the current Roleystone production. It's only on tonight and tomorrow night. I sure you will enjoy it.