bostonman

I believe that this production is being done by the same team that did the production of Satyagraha some years back - and that was a true visual feast. So inventive, and so interesting and exciting to watch - and such an intriguing complement to the Glass score. But I also came into that production knowing the music to Satyagraha quite well, and I don't know the score of Akhnaten much at all. So this will feel like a new experience to me. What's great is that, since I also try to catch the weeknight broadcasts from the Met on Sirius XM, there will be a few broadcasts before the HD happens, so I'll get to know the score better through those, before I see the production.

Since I don't get much of a chance to get to NYC, I do have to say I'm extremely happy that there is now a new movie theatre a block away from me (so cool), and they're doing the Met HD's. So I will happily see the transmission of Akhnaten in November from a cozy movie theatre seat for around $25 and feel quite happy with that. Sure, it would be more fun to be in-house, but since I can't, it's the next best thing to being there...

It seems fitting for a show where the leading male tries to bilk a community for things like band instruments that no one really learns to play well, etc. I'm sure many Jackman fans will shell out the bucks. And if the show gets great reviews, more will do the same. I'll wait for the tour and be happy with cheap seats (but still full view ones, like the ones I got for the Dolly tour recently) at the Boston Opera House, lol. (I have already told my story about my friend who unwittingly got cheated out of a lot of money for seats to Mouin Rouge in Boston by going to the wrong ticket site. I do wish I had offered to get seats - I think I could have gotten them for much cheaper.)

Guy_Fawkes advised me that my original post did indeed count as a review. Understood. What follows is a quick summary, and an actual review (a short version of my original post) will appear sometime soon. Basically, I had a chance encounter with Brian Kevin, who is a member of this community (though he hasn't posted in a while) - but it wasn't an escort session, rather, as I reached out to him as a longtime acquaintance and friend, he responded with his vast heart and soul and helped me deal with a bad emotional time that I've been going through. He was on his way out of town, but came back to help. He went out of his way (and time) to meet, suggest some holistic alternatives to my prescriptions (something I knew nothing about at all), step me through it all, and to stay in touch with me as he traveled on to his next destination, making sure I was doing ok. I've seen Brian a number of times, but never quite experienced his caring soul in such a magnanimous way before. He is simply an amazing human being, regardless of his job. I really just want to thank him publicly for his friendship beyond the norm. Escorts are people too, and his willingness to truly take the time to care for me yesterday was both a surprise and a godsend. I wish I could say more here, but the review will say more.

The BSO made a whole weekend out of Die Walkure this past July - Act I on Saturday night, Act II Sunday afternoon, Act III Sunday evening. But then they broadcast the whole thing as one that Sunday night. I suppose some people treated it as a chance to have a mini weekend festival lol. Had it been a fully staged production I think momentum would have suffered a lot - as a concert presentation it was probably ok. I tend to think that Ariadne is most usually done with an intermission between the Prologue and the "Opera" - but it would be interesting to see it done in one big chunk.

Yes, but keeping one's ego in check is the trick. Though often when we accuse performers of having too much ego, the behavior we see is actually coming from a place of insecurity, not overconfidence.

I think a very important distinction is missing here. I would say: "A Chorus Line, conceived by director-choreographer Michael Bennett and featuring a score by Marvin Hamlisch and Edward Kleban, navigates the high-energy and heartbreaking process of auditioning for THE CHORUS OF a Broadway musical, informed by the accounts of the performers who first brought the show to life." (Spoilers below, even though I have to imagine that everyone in this discussion knows the plot...) The whole essence of the show is that they are merely auditioning to be the faceless backup dancers in the show. The fact that the audition process is done in such a personal way and is so cutthroat only serves to remind us how much these performers are sacrificing. It drives Cassie's entire subplot - that Zach rightfully considers her overqualified for the job. It informs Paul's story as it pertains to his injury - that he has lost the chance for this gig, and who knows when he will have his next shot. And of course the end of the show, we see what all of the fuss was about, as the cast comes out in their identical costumes, dancing in precision for their very lives, but ironically indistinguishable. "One" is a joyous, fun song, yet the situation always gives me chills. So I think it's important not to forget that they are, in reality, only auditioning for the faceless ensemble - and yet, that is one amazingly coveted job to these dancers.

I hope you're right. After all, I have seen my share of strange productions already lol. I played in the pit for one years ago where the set was supposed to resemble a birthday cake (tiered white platforms) and all of the drinks - be it bourbon, orange juice, or whatever - were blue liquid. Luckily, the performers were quite good.

In the original news on this that I saw, it didn't seem clear if they were really planning on a 20-year span of filming - but I guess they really are. I hope to be around to see it (I'll be 75 if they really stick to schedule), but you know, it better be damn good - or better than that. I don't like waiting 20 years for a movie. If it doesn't live up to the hype, I'm going to be very bummed.

Several years ago, Sondheim participated in a reading of a proposed version of the show with a gay theme, dealing with gay marriage, etc, but ultimately didn't give permission to let it go forward. I wonder if that's what's being referred to here. I haven't listened to the new recording of the London production yet - I know I will eventually, but I've been hesitant because I've seen a lot of opinions that the recording didn't come out well (mostly that it doesn't match the energy and tone of the onstage performance). I do have to say that I'm not all that interested in the idea of the update, but as a huge fan of Company in general, I'll still be interested to see what they do.

I'm not disagreeing with anything. I was only pointing out the difference between a 51-year-old "woman with children" onstage vs. the main discussion in the thread currently, which is a woman in her 70's playing the same role in a film. Why you brought Merman into this discussion I don't know, except it seems that you wanted to bring up her age in context of the current discussion. The 1960's version of Annie Get Your Gun turned out popular enough that it was made the standard performing edition of the show - which it essentially still is. I don't think that anyone really cared what age Merman was - she was a star reprising one of her most iconic roles. But notice that the film role went to younger Betty Hutton (and first, to younger Garland). There was no way that Merman was going to play that role (or Madame Rose) on film, much as Streisand won't play Madame Rose on film either. This has nothing to do with my feelings about the 60's. Good night.

Your response seemed to fit with the debate as to whether or not Streisand was being considered too old to play the role ON FILM.

But we're talking about film. Close-ups, etc. A very different thing. Merman was also entirely too old to play the teenage Annie Oakley - even moreso when the show was revived 20 years later in 1966. But onstage in huge theatres there tends to be more of a suspension of disbelief.

If paper towels had been around back then, I assume they would have used Brawny.

Ironic, though. Laurents was not known for pulling punches, but it sounds like he was being very uncharacteristically polite here lol. If indeed that's what he actually said. A woman in her 70's would not have biological children as young as Baby June and Louise. And even if they could play film tricks, I'm not sure youthening Streisand would be all that credible. But it's a moot point at this rate anyway.

Probably 2 ply.

Yup, that's picky lol. Technically, as the show takes place in the present (THAT's your suspension of disbelief...), they indeed are all ex-wives.

I saw it today in Boston. And yes, the pre-show music is indeed very clever - as is the whole show, IMO. Really fun. Had a great time, and really recommend this show for everyone. You don't even have to know that much about the Tudor history to understand what's going on - they do a great job of explaining the important stuff. But knowing it already does add to the fun. The lyrics are full of wonderful puns and rhymes, and the music is also a fun mixture of various rock styles (the "Haus Of Holbein" number is a scream, lol). Also fun that the 4-piece band is onstage, spread across the stage, right there with the cast (I have a friend in the Boston band). The bass and guitar players (at least) play the show for memory, as they're right out near the playing space for the actors. And even though they don't truly participate as actors themselves, they are very much part of the show. So glad I saw this. I may try to go again.

Perhaps...but Laurents had already passed away by the time that she did that concert, so it's not like it was an ersatz audition for him. And I don't know if it would have been clear to the audience that Laurents had felt that way. Seems to me the controversy publicly discussed at the time is that she simply was too old for the role.

True, but isn't the "classic" idea - probably still done by any number of youngsters - to have a sock for this express purpose hidden under the mattress or in another "secret" spot? BTW - Bounty does indeed still make full sheet rolls, but it seems they're a bit harder to find. I still prefer those, just because I'm not a fan of the whole select-a-size thing. But I don't use them for j/o

I don't mean to burst your hyperbolic bubble, and Burstein is quite good as Zidler - but no, this is not his theatre history moment. This isn't Joel Grey in Cabaret. The show will be most remembered for its design, choreo, and the 2 leads - not for the MC. Speaking of the 2 leads, I do wonder who might take over for Tveit and Olivo, should it run long enough for replacements - which I feel is a possibility.

Clearly they never saw Montserrat Caballe as Mimi, lol.

And of course anyone who has also seen Luhrmann's Boheme will recognize the use, again, of a lighted "l'Amour" sign in Moulin Rouge. Still, I really did enjoy the show. I do understand your opinion, though, and I think I can see why it would leave some people cold despite the cast/choreo/design. Frankly, that's The Lion King for me - beautiful, with stunning stagecraft, but ultimately a snooze fest. Chacun a son gout...

The other thing is - I've always tended to call myself a "sensualist" - which to me means that I can actually be happy having an encounter that doesn't involve orgasm. I love exploring a guy's body (some fetishes etc) and being close and intimate - but sometimes it's totally fine if that doesn't include cock play and/or orgasm. I mean, orgasm is awesome, and I love cum lol - but that's only one aspect of being intimate. I actually feel fortunate that I came out just when AIDS was first discovered, and "safe sex" became a term. Because even though sure, I love traditional getting off, I've also always felt that there can be so much more to sex. Unfortunately, I still meet too many guys that just really want to get off and that's it.

I used to meet up occasionally with a guy who said he loved getting blown but was never able to cum that way - except when I sucked him. So that was an ego boost for sure, and it was always hot to get that load from him. :D:D:D I think honestly is always best. If a guy knows he tends to have trouble getting off, if he's willing to say something, that's always better. (Likewise, in full disclosure, I very often get off way too fast, and I will tell guys that - often that means we save my orgasm for last, which is usually totally fine.) What I tend to hate are encounters that turn into nothing more than a guy's selfish effort to get off (often just jerking off as I try to make him feel good in other ways), and to be honest, it gets B-O-R--I-N-G real fast. I had one of those a few weeks ago. We were having fun until it was clear that he wasn't getting there, and it turned into exactly what I just said - him furtively working at himself to try to get off as I tried to help by stimulating him other ways. Problem is that there's only so far that goes - and although I really didn't want to break the mood, I finally found a way to gently suggest that I didn't mind if he didn't get off. Frankly, it was a relief to end it there. And it's too bad, because we otherwise did have a nice time.