Tuesday, June 14, 2011
baby pictures
This has to be said people, BABIES ARE NOT CUTE, they are ugly, I can tolerate baby pictures in small doses, but ultrasound pictures!!! What is wrong with you people? They are ugly enough when they come out, I don't want to see them squished up inside your guts. Think of me! I do. What comes next people? Photos of the sperm fertilizing the egg? I draw the line if its not breathing; I don't want to see it. Honestly, think about it, do you like staring at fifty million pictures of someone else’s brat with its snot nosed face pushed up against something. Of course you don’t, but you smile and say, “Oh isn’t he cute.” Because you don’t want to be seen as a selfish prat, even though you are. It’s nothing to be a shamed of, we all are selfish prats. This woman showing you pictures of little Johnny wetting himself for the first time doesn’t care about you; she just wants you to praise her on her achievement. Well done lady, you forgot to use protection and now look at the little money trap you’re stuck with for the rest of your life.
I have been subjected to pictures of these little money-sucking leeches for most of my life, from pretty much right after I stoped being one, and we don’t care people. Your children are ugly, mine would be too, and that’s why I’m doing the world a favour and not breeding. Then we have to sit there and listen to you talk like a baby to your child. How is it supposed to master the language if you can’t bloody do it? Tell me that. No wonder children are going backward.
Now Facebook, yes that great social network, gives people the ability to plaster millions of pictures of your little birth defect all over the internet, so that millions of strangers can watch little Johnny roll in his own filth. I’m sure the paedophiles love this new craze, but for us law abiding citizens it’s boring people, and the kid usually looks the same in every picture. Not only that, they are all starting to look the same to me, yes they are all ugly, but they used to have unique ugliness, not anymore.
With that being said, you can imagine my disgust to log on to facebook and find ultrasounds of someone’s child everywhere. I don’t want to see ultrasounds from someone I know, and I don’t even know these people. I have an ultrasound. It’s of my gall bladder filled with gallstones. Took me ages to grow those little buggers thill they reached the point of nearly killing me so that I had to have them cut out. I’m proud of them. Do you want to see that? I still have them in a jar; I’ll move it round the back yard and chronicle its life, just like you’ve done with little Johnny. They can watch each other grow. Okay, maybe I’m going a bit far, but so are you people. Think of others and stop showing us pictures of your insides.
Unless you happen to have something weird stuck in there, like a bottle of alcohol or something. That’s something I would want to see.
I have been subjected to pictures of these little money-sucking leeches for most of my life, from pretty much right after I stoped being one, and we don’t care people. Your children are ugly, mine would be too, and that’s why I’m doing the world a favour and not breeding. Then we have to sit there and listen to you talk like a baby to your child. How is it supposed to master the language if you can’t bloody do it? Tell me that. No wonder children are going backward.
Now Facebook, yes that great social network, gives people the ability to plaster millions of pictures of your little birth defect all over the internet, so that millions of strangers can watch little Johnny roll in his own filth. I’m sure the paedophiles love this new craze, but for us law abiding citizens it’s boring people, and the kid usually looks the same in every picture. Not only that, they are all starting to look the same to me, yes they are all ugly, but they used to have unique ugliness, not anymore.
With that being said, you can imagine my disgust to log on to facebook and find ultrasounds of someone’s child everywhere. I don’t want to see ultrasounds from someone I know, and I don’t even know these people. I have an ultrasound. It’s of my gall bladder filled with gallstones. Took me ages to grow those little buggers thill they reached the point of nearly killing me so that I had to have them cut out. I’m proud of them. Do you want to see that? I still have them in a jar; I’ll move it round the back yard and chronicle its life, just like you’ve done with little Johnny. They can watch each other grow. Okay, maybe I’m going a bit far, but so are you people. Think of others and stop showing us pictures of your insides.
Unless you happen to have something weird stuck in there, like a bottle of alcohol or something. That’s something I would want to see.
Love Never Dies - a Critique
WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS
Viewed at the Adelphi Theatre, London, 14/7/10
The problem with any sequel is how to live up to the expectations set by the first. The first in this case being, 'The Phantom of the Opera', which will hereafter be referred to as 'Phantom' and 'Love Never dies' as 'LND'. 'Phantom' was such a phenomenal success that there really was no way to live up to it, Webber adapted the story of 'Phantom' to make a fantastical musical with music so moving it will stand the test of time. 'LND' he wrote himself, I've no doubt that he is a brilliant composer and writes brilliant musicals, but sadly 'LND' was not quite right.
'LND' also had phenomenal music to equal that of 'Phantom', not as dark though, and in some places it really should have been, but the music is still in my head and no doubt will be forever. It truly is that powerful and the actors did a marvellous job of performing it, so there is no questioning its brilliance. There was a slight revival of the music for the song Prima Donna, from 'Phantom', the latter appearance of it in 'Phantom' not the over the top singing appearance. The soft and sweet one as sung by Christine in the chapel on the night of the kidnapping. Just enough to tie the two musicals together, not over the top at all.
The main problem I found with the musical was that the characters were not accurate representations of who they were in part one, I know 10 years had past, but the back-story was wrong.
The back-story goes that, on the night before she was wed Christine hunted down the phantom for an act of infidelity. This does not fit because in 'Phantom', she was not in love with him, she was mesmerised by him, but she was in love with Raoul. It was made clear that she bared no love for the phantom, only pity and compassion. Yet here we find she not only slept with the Phantom, but would also have stayed with him had he not run off before the dawn. I didn't quite understand why he ran off before the dawn, he stated that he was ashamed, of what I do not know, I was sitting in the gods so could not quite interpret that portion of the song.
Ten years later we find the Phantom in Coney Island, America. A very tacky setting for any musical, but I was willing to overlook that and hope for greatness all the same. The American accent has always bothered me, hearing them sing in that tone; American drawl I call it, I find it excruciating, but it was a fitting set for a freak to hide among other freaks (I do not feel the Phantom or any of the others were freaks, it's how they described themselves in 'LND'. I do not mean to offend any Americans, but knowing I have, I apologise and move on.)
The set; the smoke with horses in it was superb, and mystifying. The screen I loathed, a little of it would not have been so bad, but it was relied upon too much and made it feel as if I were in a cinema and not a theatre. Also anyone wearing black, which included a lot of the main characters, had the projection, which was meant for the screen appear on them. It made them appear almost ghost like, in some places this might have been the point, but in others it did not look right and took ones focus away from the telling of the story. The revolving stage was genius, I've seen these used before and they always go down a treat. It best portrayed the backstage/stage area of Christine's main musical number. I do not believe there was a better way of doing that. Minimal props were used, this seemed rather odd to me, I am not saying clutter the stage, but the best way to show who someone is, is by the things they surround themselves with. Show, don't tell as it were, and there was a lot of telling in it. The moving hair and mouths on one of the props in the Phantoms room was brilliant, I had to look twice thinking I must have imagined it the first time.
Costume. The Phantom as always in his theatrical attire, I could imagine him in nothing else, but thought it rather odd for the weather of Coney Island. Americans were, at the time wearing similar clothes, but in lighter shades. The costumes worn briefly by Meg in the beach scene were spectacular, it wasn't till the third or forth change that I realized how it was done. Brilliant. Shame I couldn't stand the American accent, but I am sure others won’t have that issue. Christine’s dress in her major performance was absolutely stunning, it reflected so well that it glimmered around the entire audience; yes the glimmer even blinded those seated in the gods. Gustave, Christine’s son, wore the same outfit the entire time. At one point he took his jacket off and remained without it for the remainder of the musical. Madame Giry's outfit looked as dismal as it did in 'Phantom', but this felt rather apt for her. Raoul wore a white suit for all but his final scene, which was set at the opera so naturally he would switch to black. No problems there.
The story. A lot of the time is spent unfolding the back-story, it is rather obvious that Gustav is the Phantoms son. This I find tacky. It is a tale that has been done to death. From, 'The Count of Monte Cristo', to 'Starwars'. It seems to be older than a dead metaphor now.
The Phantom we see much more of this time, part of the magic is in the mystery I'm afraid, and that is lost by revealing too much of him. His homicidal tendencies seem to have been completely forgotten by everyone. And in the end we find him as the voice of reason trying to talk Meg out of killing herself. It is out of character.
Raoul's character has been dragged through the mud, he is now a penniless gambler that shows little to no affection for Christine and what he thinks is his son. I am aware that people change over time, but both Raoul and Christine seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. It just doesn't seem accurate. It feels as if the Phantom wrote the musical and he is telling you what he would have liked to have happen, because it just doesn't feel like an accurate portrayal.
Given the back story Christine’s initial reaction to the Phantoms appearance make sense, although we are not aware of the back story at that point so it seems wrong, but then again, so does the back story.
Raoul and the Phantom make a bet as to whom will get Christine, she is never told of this bet, and never actually gets to choose either as she dies in the final scene. So it all seems rather pointless. It is also quite sad.
The character of Madame Giry has had a full role reversal. In 'Phantom', she instigated the goings on of the Phantom and Christine, she was the only one who could have stoped it and yet she watched and did nothing. My original assumption of her logic was this, better he go after Christine than my daughter Meg. However 'LND' shows her and Meg smuggling the Phantom out of Paris and supporting him in his new rise to stardom. Giry seems eager to have the two join, as does Meg, but that is similar to Meg in 'Phantom', so we wont go into it, suffice to say that Meg's character was the only one that ran true. How can Madame Giry be so opposed to something in 'Phantom', and yet so willing for it in ‘LND’? I just don't understand.
Do not misunderstand me, I did enjoy the musical, I just don't believe it should have been a sequel. Give the characters new names and let it stand-alone, it has enough back-story in it to do so. Sadly as a sequel it was missing. Missing the heart, the passion and soul of what it could have been.
The Phantom sang it best at the end of the original, 'It's over now, the music of the night'. If only Andrew Loyd Webber had listened.
Viewed at the Adelphi Theatre, London, 14/7/10
The problem with any sequel is how to live up to the expectations set by the first. The first in this case being, 'The Phantom of the Opera', which will hereafter be referred to as 'Phantom' and 'Love Never dies' as 'LND'. 'Phantom' was such a phenomenal success that there really was no way to live up to it, Webber adapted the story of 'Phantom' to make a fantastical musical with music so moving it will stand the test of time. 'LND' he wrote himself, I've no doubt that he is a brilliant composer and writes brilliant musicals, but sadly 'LND' was not quite right.
'LND' also had phenomenal music to equal that of 'Phantom', not as dark though, and in some places it really should have been, but the music is still in my head and no doubt will be forever. It truly is that powerful and the actors did a marvellous job of performing it, so there is no questioning its brilliance. There was a slight revival of the music for the song Prima Donna, from 'Phantom', the latter appearance of it in 'Phantom' not the over the top singing appearance. The soft and sweet one as sung by Christine in the chapel on the night of the kidnapping. Just enough to tie the two musicals together, not over the top at all.
The main problem I found with the musical was that the characters were not accurate representations of who they were in part one, I know 10 years had past, but the back-story was wrong.
The back-story goes that, on the night before she was wed Christine hunted down the phantom for an act of infidelity. This does not fit because in 'Phantom', she was not in love with him, she was mesmerised by him, but she was in love with Raoul. It was made clear that she bared no love for the phantom, only pity and compassion. Yet here we find she not only slept with the Phantom, but would also have stayed with him had he not run off before the dawn. I didn't quite understand why he ran off before the dawn, he stated that he was ashamed, of what I do not know, I was sitting in the gods so could not quite interpret that portion of the song.
Ten years later we find the Phantom in Coney Island, America. A very tacky setting for any musical, but I was willing to overlook that and hope for greatness all the same. The American accent has always bothered me, hearing them sing in that tone; American drawl I call it, I find it excruciating, but it was a fitting set for a freak to hide among other freaks (I do not feel the Phantom or any of the others were freaks, it's how they described themselves in 'LND'. I do not mean to offend any Americans, but knowing I have, I apologise and move on.)
The set; the smoke with horses in it was superb, and mystifying. The screen I loathed, a little of it would not have been so bad, but it was relied upon too much and made it feel as if I were in a cinema and not a theatre. Also anyone wearing black, which included a lot of the main characters, had the projection, which was meant for the screen appear on them. It made them appear almost ghost like, in some places this might have been the point, but in others it did not look right and took ones focus away from the telling of the story. The revolving stage was genius, I've seen these used before and they always go down a treat. It best portrayed the backstage/stage area of Christine's main musical number. I do not believe there was a better way of doing that. Minimal props were used, this seemed rather odd to me, I am not saying clutter the stage, but the best way to show who someone is, is by the things they surround themselves with. Show, don't tell as it were, and there was a lot of telling in it. The moving hair and mouths on one of the props in the Phantoms room was brilliant, I had to look twice thinking I must have imagined it the first time.
Costume. The Phantom as always in his theatrical attire, I could imagine him in nothing else, but thought it rather odd for the weather of Coney Island. Americans were, at the time wearing similar clothes, but in lighter shades. The costumes worn briefly by Meg in the beach scene were spectacular, it wasn't till the third or forth change that I realized how it was done. Brilliant. Shame I couldn't stand the American accent, but I am sure others won’t have that issue. Christine’s dress in her major performance was absolutely stunning, it reflected so well that it glimmered around the entire audience; yes the glimmer even blinded those seated in the gods. Gustave, Christine’s son, wore the same outfit the entire time. At one point he took his jacket off and remained without it for the remainder of the musical. Madame Giry's outfit looked as dismal as it did in 'Phantom', but this felt rather apt for her. Raoul wore a white suit for all but his final scene, which was set at the opera so naturally he would switch to black. No problems there.
The story. A lot of the time is spent unfolding the back-story, it is rather obvious that Gustav is the Phantoms son. This I find tacky. It is a tale that has been done to death. From, 'The Count of Monte Cristo', to 'Starwars'. It seems to be older than a dead metaphor now.
The Phantom we see much more of this time, part of the magic is in the mystery I'm afraid, and that is lost by revealing too much of him. His homicidal tendencies seem to have been completely forgotten by everyone. And in the end we find him as the voice of reason trying to talk Meg out of killing herself. It is out of character.
Raoul's character has been dragged through the mud, he is now a penniless gambler that shows little to no affection for Christine and what he thinks is his son. I am aware that people change over time, but both Raoul and Christine seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. It just doesn't seem accurate. It feels as if the Phantom wrote the musical and he is telling you what he would have liked to have happen, because it just doesn't feel like an accurate portrayal.
Given the back story Christine’s initial reaction to the Phantoms appearance make sense, although we are not aware of the back story at that point so it seems wrong, but then again, so does the back story.
Raoul and the Phantom make a bet as to whom will get Christine, she is never told of this bet, and never actually gets to choose either as she dies in the final scene. So it all seems rather pointless. It is also quite sad.
The character of Madame Giry has had a full role reversal. In 'Phantom', she instigated the goings on of the Phantom and Christine, she was the only one who could have stoped it and yet she watched and did nothing. My original assumption of her logic was this, better he go after Christine than my daughter Meg. However 'LND' shows her and Meg smuggling the Phantom out of Paris and supporting him in his new rise to stardom. Giry seems eager to have the two join, as does Meg, but that is similar to Meg in 'Phantom', so we wont go into it, suffice to say that Meg's character was the only one that ran true. How can Madame Giry be so opposed to something in 'Phantom', and yet so willing for it in ‘LND’? I just don't understand.
Do not misunderstand me, I did enjoy the musical, I just don't believe it should have been a sequel. Give the characters new names and let it stand-alone, it has enough back-story in it to do so. Sadly as a sequel it was missing. Missing the heart, the passion and soul of what it could have been.
The Phantom sang it best at the end of the original, 'It's over now, the music of the night'. If only Andrew Loyd Webber had listened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
