![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidLast night I went to the Brandeis production of The Who's Tommy, a rock opera*. I'd heard Pinball Wizard before, but that was it.
It's an interesting story, if a bit depressing at moments. A young boy witnesses violence that makes him shut down his senses. Later bad things happen, until he finds he can play pinball, and his life changes to the center of positive attention. Until it all falls apart.
The show was in the main theater, which has a big stage and lots of possibilities, which was definitely taken advantage of. The set was mostly integrated with the lights, having rows of them around the stage as well as above. There was a big rectangle cutout in the middle of the stage, edged in neon, that the cast had to step over. Behind that were two halves of a rectangle with facing semicircles cut out of them. They were on wires, and could slide left/right to change the set. There was a circle that came down from above to complete it, made of some thin plastic that both reflected some and was partly transparent. Behind that was something else opaque that could move to show the band sitting behind. All the non-moving parts of the set had bars of lights around them. The stage itself was slightly canted, which made me just the tiniest bit worried when women in extremely high heels were dancing about.
The musicians were great, and that made the show work (I've been to musicals where the musicians were inadequate, and it was painful.). Most of the main characters ranged from decent to quite good voices for their parts, notably the narrator and the mother. The worst part about the show was that the tech working the mikes wasn't on the ball, especially in the second half, when far too many singers came in partway through their first line. They weren't missing their cues, but their voices didn't balance the music without the mikes turned on.
The other major minus for me was the choreography, which was rather blah, feeling forced at times. There was a lot to coordinate, but sometimes it felt more like disorganization than fully choreographed pieces.
Other than that, though, a good production. The actors were talented, especially the boy, woman, and man who played Tommy (in different aspects), who were all quite excellent. The music, the acting, the singing, the lights, the set, all came together, though sometimes it felt like the set was more upscale than the rest of the production (According to the program, $BignameSetDesigner came up with it.)
ETA (1315)
I knew there was something I was forgetting. They decided to have the mother's lover be a woman instead of a man. Points for political correctness and all, but it didn't work, since the play was very much set in its time (WWII era, for that part of it), and they just wouldn't be getting engaged. Also, the husband wouldn't be as likely to rush into a jealous rage, since it wasn't clear from their actions when he arrived what their relationship was.
* Why "rock opera", not "rock musical"?
It's an interesting story, if a bit depressing at moments. A young boy witnesses violence that makes him shut down his senses. Later bad things happen, until he finds he can play pinball, and his life changes to the center of positive attention. Until it all falls apart.
The show was in the main theater, which has a big stage and lots of possibilities, which was definitely taken advantage of. The set was mostly integrated with the lights, having rows of them around the stage as well as above. There was a big rectangle cutout in the middle of the stage, edged in neon, that the cast had to step over. Behind that were two halves of a rectangle with facing semicircles cut out of them. They were on wires, and could slide left/right to change the set. There was a circle that came down from above to complete it, made of some thin plastic that both reflected some and was partly transparent. Behind that was something else opaque that could move to show the band sitting behind. All the non-moving parts of the set had bars of lights around them. The stage itself was slightly canted, which made me just the tiniest bit worried when women in extremely high heels were dancing about.
The musicians were great, and that made the show work (I've been to musicals where the musicians were inadequate, and it was painful.). Most of the main characters ranged from decent to quite good voices for their parts, notably the narrator and the mother. The worst part about the show was that the tech working the mikes wasn't on the ball, especially in the second half, when far too many singers came in partway through their first line. They weren't missing their cues, but their voices didn't balance the music without the mikes turned on.
The other major minus for me was the choreography, which was rather blah, feeling forced at times. There was a lot to coordinate, but sometimes it felt more like disorganization than fully choreographed pieces.
Other than that, though, a good production. The actors were talented, especially the boy, woman, and man who played Tommy (in different aspects), who were all quite excellent. The music, the acting, the singing, the lights, the set, all came together, though sometimes it felt like the set was more upscale than the rest of the production (According to the program, $BignameSetDesigner came up with it.)
ETA (1315)
I knew there was something I was forgetting. They decided to have the mother's lover be a woman instead of a man. Points for political correctness and all, but it didn't work, since the play was very much set in its time (WWII era, for that part of it), and they just wouldn't be getting engaged. Also, the husband wouldn't be as likely to rush into a jealous rage, since it wasn't clear from their actions when he arrived what their relationship was.
* Why "rock opera", not "rock musical"?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 08:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 09:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 09:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 09:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 10:02 am (UTC)Old Pete
Date: 2004-12-10 10:10 am (UTC)(I saw the mid-90s Toronto Production, but missed the star-studded revivals that happened around that time.)
I'm really glad he is finally working on Lifehouse, which sounds like the most inspired and uplifting of his rock operas. (Quadrophenia was pretty downer too.)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 10:18 am (UTC)There really isn't a difference between opera and musicals. If one makes a distinction, it is often based on how "formal" the music is perceived. Some music is considered more formal, belonging more to a classical idiom. But then there are composers like Sondheim, who really straddle the line between formal and non-formal music. Many consider American musicals to really be American opera. Only, most (non-Sondheim, non-Weill) musicals lack the musical complexity (in form, harmony, etc.) of most opera.
Operas also tend to have a larger scope -- musically, vocally, dramatically -- than musicals, but that is becoming less and less the case. It is in many respects a snobbish distinction. It could be that, in calling Tommy and others of its genre rock operas rather than rock musicals, the producers wish to appeal to that perception of expansiveness and power that the term opera conveys. I think it's appropriate, as rock operas like Tommy and Jesus Christ Superstar possess that frenetic, powerful energy characteristic of much opera.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 10:24 am (UTC)The only fault with the musical, IMO, is that the second act feels like a letdown when compared to the first act. Same thing happened with Ragtime. The first act is so perfect in so many ways, it built up expectation too high; so when the second act wasn't as high-pitched and exciting, it felt like a letdown.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 10:36 am (UTC)I've not seen Ragtime, so I don't know about the comparison. Still, I can see your point. It wasn't as glaring to me, though, as it was with Into the Woods, for instance.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-10 08:19 pm (UTC)I agree about the female lover. This just wouldn't have been a reality in that time period, and I found it distracting.
By the way, you didn't mention the guy who plays the Narrator/Superstar Tommy is so hot! <wink>
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 03:49 pm (UTC)Actually, I was thinking that the Narrator was a bit plastic (did you look at his bio?) until the curtain call, when he had a great smile that was obviously himself rather than the character.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-14 03:45 pm (UTC)it's very good music to cook to, i've discovered. which freaked out