★★ REVIEW: Aspects of Love (Revival) | Andrew Lloyd Webber West End musical starring Michael Ball
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- Join my channel to gain access to exclusive content:
/ @mickeyjotheatre
•
OHMYGOD HEY!
Last week I was invited to attend the opening night of the new revival of ASPECTS OF LOVE at the Lyric Theatre in the West End.
The show, which features a score by Andrew Lloyd Webber, Charles Hart and Don Black, currently stars Michael Ball, Laura Pitt-Pulford, Jamie Bogyo, and Danielle de Niese.
Check out today's brand new review for all of my thoughts on this polarising new production...
•
SUBSCRIBE to My Channel: @MickeyJoTheatre
#westend #show #theatre 
Развлечения
“Everyone applauds for this impromptu moment of lesbianism” is definitely the best sentence I’ve heard this week
There's always a Mickey Jo-ism in every video I want on a t-shirt. This is the one from this video.
it’s true i was there clapping
I, a lesbian often applaud my impromptu moments so l can relate!
Never audibly gasped so many times at a synopsis 😂
RIGHT?! 😂
It was the ‘shes 18. In *this version*’ for me
Oh, for sure! Every time I thought I had the plot figured out it got worse!🥲
Gotta love how no one in the show can resist Alex, the man who shot a woman and then groomed a 12-year-old. Truly he bristles with sexual charisma.
Maybe you should look up what the word grooming actually means because that isn't what happens at all.
He did 33 years ago. Odd show for an odd time. ALW and Sarah were getting divorced. Andrew could be seen in clubs especially one not far from Phantom. He likes odd plays. Sunset boulevard, Jeeves, Woman in White a personal fave. It's ALW
@@DDTC73 Forming a relationship with someone underage so you can have a romantic relationship/sex with them? In the original version she's 15 when they get together, and here she just became legal when they got together after years of him building a close relationship with her.
@@morley364 Have you even seen this version? Or is it just some fantasy of yours?? Alex does not form a relationship so he can have sex with her. Nothing even close to that happens. He quite clearly meets her as cousins, and they continue in the same manner over the next few years. It is very clearly a 1 sided infatuation from Jenny to Alex. At no point, until that very last scene does he have thoughts of kissing her, and even then he knows it's wrong, he knows why it's wrong and he doesn't kiss her!
But even if they DID kiss, why shouldn't it be in there? Live theatre is meant to evoke a response, whatever that might be. Disgust, curiosity, happiness, sadness. It should make you ask questions, to learn something. Aspects of Love is about real emotions, adult feelings and adult responses. Real life. This isn't Cats or Starlight Express. It's responses like ick or your false statement above, or whatever negativity you want to throw at it, that gets shows and productions a bad name, then people don't go and then producers don't take chances on shows because people are so bloody easily offended. I strongly suggest you don't go and see The Pillowman when it opens.
To be fair, she kind of "grooms" him, not the other way around, which you can argue is probelematic from a writing perspective, but I would say he was just being normal and she became infatuated, at which point he saw it as an opportunity to hurt his ex and uncle, hence the "my fault" line after it ends tragically.
Random observation: RUclips auto-generated subtitles turned "Andrew Lloyd Webber" into "Antelope Webber" and later "Android Webber", which made me laugh.
because his shows have as much emotional depth and psychological insight into the human condition as an android
I’ve worked in his shows over the years and a lot of my colleagues refer to him as Mr Potato Head 🥔🥔🥔🥔.
The way my jaw dropped when he shot her, then my mouth just kept opening wider and wider with an expression ever-growing in concern as Mickey ezplained the plot 😮
"If you have wine nearby, I suggest drinking it now." - I have never regretted my decision to not drink alcohol more than in this moment.
I saw Aspects of Love on the West End in 1989. I remember two things: I couldn’t get “Love Changes Everything” out of my head for months, and I left the theater thinking, “What did I just watch?” I’m glad to know that I didn’t hallucinate seeing that show and how bonkers the story was.
The Forbidden Broadway parody of this show isn't necessarily one of their strongest, but the last line makes it worth it. To the tune of "Love Changes Everything", they sing "I Sleep With Everyone", culminating in "And if you're in the audience, then you'll sleep too!"
The fact I assumed the plot ended, only for it to be the end of the first act. 😂
Thank god it wasn't just me... the hell?
I saw Aspects of Love during the Broadway run with Michael Ball in the early 90's. None of the plot bothered me at the time, but I was in high school and 'love' was pretty abstract to me at the time. Toxic relationships weren't on my radar either. I do remember my mom being aghast that she took us to see this show.
my first trip to London in my teens I knew I wanted to see a play on the west end. somehow I ended up choosing aspects of love. it was so bad and I couldnt admit to myself that I had wasted my one chance to see a play and paid so much to see something so awful that I lied whenever anyone asked about it. I told people it was good. I still feel guilty.
You must be living a truly angelic life if you still feel guilty about being a less than honest teenage reviewer. Don't be so hard on yourself!!
@@williamevans9426 lol, thank you. I just wish we all had seen better plays
@@lisa-lisa-lisa At least you where one of the few that actually saw it.
The plot is so convoluted and incestuous makes me run in the opposite direction. And that's without considering the production itself. Who decided is a good idea to revive it in 2023?
I saw the original Broadway cast in the 90s, just a week or so after it opened in NY. To answer your question about how we as an audience processed the young age of Jenny in context, I think Americans just thought, rightly or wrongly, "well, that's Europeans for you." My elderly grandmother went to see the subsequent American tour with me and her reaction was "holy Toledo, that's his cousin!"
The Alex/Jenny relationship in the novel is even more problematic because there are sizable hints that Alex and not George could be her father.. the show does discuss love in all its different forms but the downfall is when jealousy enters the love it signals a downfall
This is a very generous interpretation of the show. Jealousy is a perfectly normal feeling and very common. For a normal feeling to somehow trigger a "downfall" speaks a lot to the emotional immaturity of the creators of this show.
@@cuatez2 Andrew Lloyd Weber? Emotionally immature? Well I NEVER 🤣
Oh my God, why?
It isn't "problematic." YOU have a problem with it. That's fine. Obviously a lot of people in this thread do, and that's fine, too. But it's an exploration of a particular bohemian group and their sallies with living an erotic life. Absolutely nothing in the material is new or even really "transgressive" by the standards of the era and milieu it covers. Reading a lot of these comments (and watching the video) reminds me uncomfortably of the Victorian era response to 18th century comedy.
How are so many, what I'd consider sophisticated theater-goers, so bug-eyed over the material here? We're talking of an era where Freud was revered, where it was assumed common knowledge that Oedipal and Elektra (Eleketracal? lol) feelings were imbedded in all human beings, and when, with a very nascent sexual revolution (long before that of the 1960's) much that had been taboo could be considered, at least within the confines of art and literature.
It's positively weird to read comments that make me wonder if anything beyond the level of Oliver! and The Sound of Music can pass moral muster. Surely a lot of people here disturbed by this work must, at other points in their lives, have been fans of The Rocky Horror Show? (Granted, Rocky Horror takes place in a fantasy world, whereas Aspect is clearly the real world of France circa early-to-mid-20th century.)
@@cuatez2 Jealousy is certainly a downfall, often enough. The theme of the show is essentially that "Life goes on, love goes free" is an ideal the characters only infrequently can live up to. And a lot of the jealously in the show is childish--and meant to be so, not some act unawares by the "creators" (whether you are considering the author of the original novel in this, I can't tell). Should Alex really be SO outraged at Rose taking up with George when she was just a crush he spent a few nights with? Giulietta is something of a quiet rebuke to the others, as she can live the free life the others constantly talk about, and she does it without all the talk and philosophizing.
I will say one thing that is missing from the musical that is much clearer in the book is that different characters are embodying different roles as they pass through life. Alex "becomes" George. Rose "becomes" (probably) Delia. Jenny "becomes" the Alex of the early part of the book. I've often wondered if it would have worked better if Lloyd Webber had created signature motifs that were passed from one character to the next, as they age and step into roles previously occupied by others.
One "yes" vote from me for a review round-up for this show.
Jenny’s age this Jenny’s age that, but does anyone wanna talk about Jenny’s conception happening after Alex and Rose’s hookup when she’s been with George for years and apparently never fallen pregnant in that time and never since?
I just can’t shake the feeling that I really WANT them to be first cousins because my hindbrain is screaming he’s her biological father.
Does it help at all that they're only cousins by marriage?
Another Jenny/Alex "ick" factor - there's a strong possibility he's her father, not George.
And they've aged Alex by a year in the first act. He was 17 in the original (Rose sang "seventeen...." during the train journey).
He is not the father because the text and the play say George is the father. There’s no confusion about it. There is no evidence to support your assertion.
I didn’t realize that this show even had a plot and I wish I could go back to that time.
ALW must be a glutton for punishment to roll this revival out right on the heels of Bad Cinderella's closure.
Love Changes Everything was my Go To audition song for years, this and Close Every Door from Technicolor Dreamcoat... But only because here in Brazil people don't know these ALW musicals... As most of his theater, one or two good songs in a cornucopia of storytelling. - Love your channel, greeting from Brazil
I so agree with everything you’ve said! Despite that I did enjoy the show 🤣 but I’m SO glad you were honest about the performances… I read all the reviews the next day and not ONE acknowledged the poor performance and the fact that it illicited a huge laugh at the pinnacle tragic moment 😳 have they all been paid off?! What’s going on!
I haven't seen/read about this one, but I find that to be the case with like 90% West End plays, particularly if there's a famous person in it. I didn't like Norton in A Little Life. Praised to heavens. Saw Seagull with Emilia Clarke. Couldn't even hear her + during the MATINEE several people were snoring. Indira Varma clearly stole the show. Best thing since sliced bread? Emilia and this play. It's riduclous, stopped reading reviews a long time ago.
They've cut the "It's my fault" line. Saw the matinee today. I was sat there waiting for it 😂
Thanks I saw it this week and didn't remember it
Thanks for the thoughtful review! I enjoyed your review more than any of the others I've seen/read, but I also would say I liked this show a lot more than you did. I'll go into some detail and address some of your questions from your video. Also I'll discuss the music itself more, since there is a lot more going on in the score than it appears in your review. I'm a huge musical fan, and fell in love with the original Aspects cast recording when I was in high school. With another Aspects fan friend of mine, I've visited the train station at Montpelier (from the original, cut from this production) and traveled to Pau to see the Pyrenees and the area where George's villa was, etc., and driven across the French countryside in a rented car singing along with the soundtrack, making the scenes from the show feel more real. Musical tourism! So I'm a super-fan of this show, but until now I never had a chance to see it, so I flew all the way from the US to London for opening weekend (last Saturday) (My only other trip to London in my life was a similarly urgent trip to see the OLC of Martin Guerre, coincidentally also set in southern France). Also, yes, I agree the set in Act 1 was too much forest, not enough mountains. Really that was my main disappointment.
There wasn't any laughter in the dramatic moments when I saw it, so I'm really surprised. Not sure what was different from a couple nights earlier, unless it was a lack of theatre critics in the house waiting to make their mark. Who knows, maybe they adjusted the delivery slightly. I was mostly shocked because Jenny sees George die, which doesn't happen in the original.
You asked what people are supposed to get from the show or feel about it afterwards. I've always taken the plot at face value: it's literally a bunch of "Aspects", treating a wide range of relationship scenarios, and I've always liked that about it! A small set of characters that illustrate a range of complex emotions orbiting around love (including lust, jealousy, parental love, etc.) For me it seems quite raw and real, and better than an all puppies-and-rainbows love story. And despite a lot of various couples hooking up, there seems to be plenty of reasonable commentary; Alex at least tries to push Jenny away many times in Act 2 ("Our bodies must not rule our minds", etc.), and George's gorgeous song "Other Pleasures" seems to be his character maturing to embrace his parental love as more important than previous carnal pleasures (flesh/food/wine/love etc). I guess that song is why I don't hear "First Man You Remember" as creepy at all -- we already have seen that George is simply a doting father. That song only gets a romantic-love aspect once Jenny sings it to Alex in the little reprise afterwards.
I think the show does a great job portraying the overly desperate adolescent lust of Alex, the more mature Rose/George relationship, the parental love for Jenny, the infatuation of Jenny for Alex, and Alex's confusion (and bad decisions) of gradually falling for her while trying to resist. The latter is a bad situation, but I think the show does it justice, in the same way that Sweeney Todd does justice to the concept of baking murder victims into pies, even though that's frowned upon in civilized society. It even touches on open relationships/polyamory (with the George/Rose/Giulietta threesome and Rose's lover Hugo), which again isn't my cup of tea but I appreciate its treatment in the show. In a similar way I'm moved to tears by Angel and Tom's relationship in Rent even though I'm not gay -- I can empathize deeply with Tom/Angel or with Alex/Rose or even Alex/Jenny, etc. and this is a crucial thing that art can do for us -- seeing the world through another's perspective. Indeed, as a teenager it was one of my first exposures to these topics in a serious way, and it was eye-opening, even if not for me. In a way all the messes in Aspects made me yearn even more for a future stable, loving romantic relationship IRL.
That brings me to one of my favorite bits, which is Giulietta's song "There is More to Love". Yes, she apparently is dealing with relationship drama, but this piece is her talking about a more serious form of romantic love that has a lot more depth than just sex etc. It's an outstanding lyric IMO, and it even is a foil to "Love Changes Everything"s "hands and faces" line, when she sings "Hands are just hands / a face is just a face". More importantly, it's the most gorgeous melody in the show, with that huge leap upwards right on the key change at the end of the line "Everyone but him seems wrong for me / every time I feel there has to be more". Danielle de Neise killed it on this song -- absolutely perfect!
Finally, on to the music. For me the music is like a million times more important than any other aspect of a musical, so I'm always perplexed if a show wins a Tony for "Best Score" and fails to win "Best Musical". Aren't they the same? Anyway, I adore this score -- it's my favorite music by ALW overall. I love Phantom and Sunset (and Evita and many many of his other shows as well) but Aspects is top, maybe neck-and-neck with Phantom, but I like the incidental music and the orchestral arrangements better in Aspects. I'm not sure about this production -- BTW it actually does have new arrangements but I feel I can't evaluate them well enough without a proper cast recording. I adore the original's orchestrations -- the shimmering strings and fluttering woodwinds during interludes or bits such as "When the world was a playground / All train-rides and laughter / and love in the morning / and Armagnac after". What's crazy to me is that everyone remembers "Love Changes Everything" when it's the more simplistic of the songs -- the rest of the score is arguably a lot more complex and interesting. It's a great anthem and really works well when used in reprise bits, but I'm always thinking "Wow, if you liked Love Changes Everything, you'll really love the rest of the score!" Except for the circus music bits. ALW seems to have a circus obsession, which is weird.
Several of the key musical motifs aren't part of a major number. This is something I love about operatic, through-composed scores. From little things like the "it must have been a rat" motif to the "I think by now I'm old enough to put myself to bed / Why don't you go and forge another masterpiece instead?" music, there is a ton of wonderful melodic material in here that isn't part of a big ballad. The reuse of motifs is masterfully done, as it adds layers of meaning each time a motif shows up in the context of another character or different relationship. There are also some standout music-theoretic moments: a few bits of 5/8 incidental stuff, but then the massive 7/8 segment of "Hand me the Wine and the Dice". This is my second-favorite weird odd-meter piece ever, second only to the 5/8 title song of Sunset Boulevard. This orchestration made the 7/8 part less obvious, and it had a funky new bass line that was sort of complex and had me confused about the rhythm even though I know the piece so well. Hope they make a cast recording so I can study it.
Now, at last, the song I'm obsessed with and no one talks about: "Falling", the post-circus quartet sung with each character in a spotlight on a dark stage. This is the most interesting piece musically: in my hearing of it, it's sung in two keys, which overlap -- a rare example of real polytonal writing in a musical. ALW does bits of this in Superstar, but here it's much more explicit. For instance, Rose is singing "Love should not be used" in A minor maybe (or F Lydian?) over Alex singing "drug to make me mad" in F minor, and we have all these weird A-flat vs A-natural and B-flat vs B-natural clashes. It's brilliant since it expresses the intense emotions and clashes between the characters so well. In this production I noticed that George's entrance in the quartet replaced the old lyric "Love is a knife" with the lyric "Love changes everything". I liked the original, but sure, I get why they gave Michael Ball yet another bit of "Love Changes Everything".
OK, to wrap up, I must mention ALW's Requiem Mass. I adore that piece -- which is firmly in the classical music world, not musical theatre. Aspects of Love has moments that sounds more like Requiem than any of his other musicals. Of course Falling is like that, but also some of the recitative parts or the orchestral echoes of them. E.g. Rose in Act 2 singing "Alex how can you ever think of moving her away from this place?" -- this is scored in 7/4 and has Rose singing both Db and D-natural over a big Db9 chord in the orchestra. There are places when a flute or something is playing this melody and it really sounds like some of the wacky stuff in Requiem. Love it!
This is getting pretty long for a comment, so I'll stop here! Overall, I'm really happy they did this revival so that super-fans like me, at least, finally got to see it on stage.
I forgot to say my only other real criticism: I agree that it was sort of weird to have George since Love Changes Everything, but I enjoyed this different take on the song. George's version has a different quality to it and is more nostalgic and thoughtful. BUT what is weird is that this takes away from Lloyd Webber's signature plot device: the FLASHBACK. Quick, name another ALW show that *doesn't* start with a flashback.
By Jeeves: Banjo concert about to happen. Flash back to explanation of how we got here.
Superstar movie: Jesus just got crucified. Let's rewind a couple days.
Phantom: "Lot 666, broken chandelier..."
Sunset Blvd: "I guess it was 5 am, a homicide had been reported... let me take you back 6 months"
Joseph: "May I return to the beginning / The light is dimming, and the dream is too"
Evita: Eva Peron just died / funeral / flashback.
etc.
This production sort of ruins it, since we don't get Giulietta's big interjection "Alex, it's all in the past!" before the big key change.
The man who wrote the book that this is based on, David Garnett, was in the Bloomsbury Group and actually this is very much based on his inappropriate relationship and marriage to the Angelica Bell. She wrote a memoir called “Deceived with Kindness”, which is as wild as the show.
When ASPECTS OF LOVE originally premiered in 1989, Lloyd Webber promoted it as being the first show he'd done with director Trevor Nunn that was "about human beings".
This is hilarious both because Lloyd Webber felt he had to advertise it that way after becoming famous for trains on roller skates and falling chandeliers - and because his show "about human beings" is ASPECTS OF LOVE.
Hal Prince directed "The Phantom of the Opera".
I saw the original Broadway production and thought it was very much a bizarre plot with some beautiful music. Then I read the novella it’s based on and I found myself asking “why”? I would love to see this music set to a good story that works. Great review. You are brilliant!
1. With the way Michael Ball has sung "Love Changes Everything" for the past 30 years, I thought it was supposed to be like "Climb Ev'ry Mountain" or "You'll Never Walk Alone"...nothing conveying what this musical is actually about
2. It feels like the creative team used the 2016 Falsettos revival art as a reference for this revival's design
Hey Michael Ball was a hunk and we loved hearing him sing it as a stand alone away from the show
Already watched Ellie's video on this but the plot is so wild I have to watch another. How have I never looked into this beyond the titular micheal ball song?
I feel like they should have changed it to Rose’s niece that happens to be living her after the time jump. Make her 18 and not a child. No further time jumps after that. Just have 20 year old fall in love with an 18 year old that he’s
Not related to. Why is that hard Andrew Lloyd Webber???
Even 18 and 12 with then a time jump to get them to like 18 and 26 would still get that tension of a little bit eyebrow raising age difference without crossing into full on “is this grooming this looks like grooming” territory
Maybe change who is Jenny's father. It is essential that she is Rose's daughter. Rose wonders if this is love or Alex's revenge for what she had done to him.
I never thought this show would ever be revived.
@@meggaluardi1883 It only "looks like grooming" if you've been brainwashed by society into finding fault with the man in every unwholesome relationship. Alex isn't blind and admits that Jenny is beautiful and excites him, but Jenny's infatuation is completely one-sided and he makes multiple efforts to get her to see reason and dial it down.
The "it's my fault" line was cut the very next day 😂 it has improved the end of that scene.
The thumbnail alone has me *ridiculously* excited for an ALW show... that I've actually never heard of until it was mentioned in the last Oh My God Hey! vlog.
Let us all bow our heads and have a moment of silence for Mickey Jo and his toxic relationship with the works of Andrew Lloyd Webber 😔
Edit: I beg your plotty pardon??
I saw the Broadway Tour in the early 90’s?? And loved it. I even owned the double cassette set of the musical!
I know the plot of this show is really, really problematic, but there is something about the original cast recording that I just love! I listen to it a few times a year! If you really want some questionable family relationships, read The Hotel New Hampshire by John Irving.
That's a terrific novel and, like Aspects of Love, a comedy to be enjoyed, not a life-plan to emulate.
Oh geez the Hotel New Hampshire film too. I saw it when i was 12 & I def shouldn't have.
@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 Maybe why it was rated R?
I saw it a couple days before the opening. I agree with many of your points, but I don't think it's supposed to be a romance. It's more of an anti-romance. I don't think it should have been taken as trying to get the audience on board with any of the relationships. It's the opposite. You want to root for a couple but then the show does everything it can to make sure you don't. I also said it should have been called Aspects of Lust instead of Aspects of Love. None of the relationships are wholesome or endearing. All of the partnerships are supposed to be icky and off putting. None of the characters are supposed to be likeable. The incesturous aspect is supposed to drive home this point. Also I took the whole show as being one big soap opera opera. It's supposed to be grandiose in every way, including the set pieces, which were all way too large for the scene. Everything was supposed to be exaggerated, melodramatic and larger than life. I took it as a modern opera, probably Andrew Lloyd Webber still on his opera kick after Phantom. They even sing the entire book and have a few opera tropes like the drunken ogy scene and mad with passion shooting scene, which both sort of point back to Phantom of the opera. It also has aspects of soap opera. So overall I enjoyed it for what it was worth. If you take it as just a melodramatic soap opera and not an actual endearing romance it can be fun to watch. I think you just have to go in knowing it's not going to be a cute romance even though that's how it's marketed. It's a lusty, melodramatic, soap OPERA.
I saw the original production in 1990 and my memories of it are that the whole thing looked absolutely stunning, it was a beautiful and atmospheric set. I went wanting to love it and I did love the music, I remember being really disappointed at the story line but enjoyed the beauty of the set and music. In fact it inspired a holiday to the Pyrenees as it looked so spectacular! 😂 I then went to see the UK tour up here in Aberdeen and was devastated that the set was nothing more than white sheets draped over things 🤷🏻♀️ and in this production I hadn’t a clue what was going on and who was with who it was really confusing. A friend of mine went to see the current production and said ‘it was ok but maybe I was just tired after travelling all day but not one I’d rush back to’. I’ve watched your review twice, very entertaining. I’m hoping to come back to London before 30/7 to see Newsies and was swithering about Aspects but not so sure now.
I sat through this today (as a companion to a friend who had bought tickets) and it was like being put into a musically-induced coma. It’s fragmented, confusing, with an average production also unbelievably tedious. Granted, there are a couple of notable moments of pain relief in some of the solos. But for the vast majority I was silently self-talking the words “This too shall pass”
What a brilliant synopsis hahahaha I loved and cackled at your comment about the lyrics being like a hymn in church hahaha!
just got home from watching and immediately had to check ud made a vid on it bc i was so shocked 😭😭😭
Omg, that plot description is hilarious. Why would a dumpster fire like that ever be revived? It is ironic people would claim audiences are not ready for this in 2023? This is the post-"Game of Thrones" era. The average person is used to horny and incestuous characters, because of that tv series. Did it ever occur to anyone that this is just a bad and grotesque musical?
I don’t disagree, but I do think there’s a lot more scope for wild sexual relationships in a show when there are so many murders that all morals have kind of gone out of the window
It's actually a very beautiful and musical, but it makes the same mistake as Anyone Can Whistle, in that it challenges and accuses the viewer more than it's reasonable to think he or she will accept without complaint. The show has also always needed tightening-up dramaturgically, and both the original production and this one suffered from conceptual problems (1989 was determined to be a megamusical when it should have been a simple chamber musical, and 2023 overcorrected by going theatre-of-the-absurd with it). Most damningly, though, the cast here is hit-and-miss; Michael Ball and Danielle De Niese rivaled (or, arguably, exceeded) Kevin Colson and Kathleen Rowe, but Laura Pitt-Pulford and Jamie Bogyo are inadequate and failed to even touch Ann Crumb and Michael Ball.
I'd love to see a reviews round-up ☺
Oh yes I love your review round ups! Please do one for this show too 🤗
Would love to see a review round up of this.
I'm a little surprised that this show is considered unfamiliar, but I guess that just shows my age (40). It ran a bit over three years (putting it pretty squarely in the upper-mid level of ALW successes) in London, then came back twice. Of course it was at the time the most expensive Broadway flop ever, despite running a year and having the then biggest pre-show sales in Broadway history.
But even if I like the show itself more than you did (and as I go on below a good deal of that is due to nostalgia, I'm not sure I'd even call it a *good* show with its clumsy sung recitative over random melodies from previous songs (though this is typical ALW of course, especially in the shows surrounding Aspects, Phantom and Sunset.) But it's interesting to hear you critique the actual production which doesn't seem to have a clear vision any old way. Certainly in the versions I've seen, the ending always seemed a natural ending to me, and not the "huh?" ending you describe. But you're quite right, there is very little actual romance (aside maybe when Alex and Rose meet) and as I ramble on about below, that's VERY faithful to the book where I think the title is meant to be ironic, and something that I'm not sure the creators realize, and also something that doesn't reflect the marketing of course.
I first saw it when I was 11 or so (92?) when the first new revised production, a very intimate production, premiered in my hometown of Edmonton, Alberta (ALW was in the audience when I went--I think the most exciting night of my life up till then) before moving to Toronto and that production toured N America for two years, eventually with Sarah Brightman--significantly that production got MUCH better reviews than the Broadway-- so I always thought it remained... fairly well known?
I have a lot of nostalgic love for it (at the time, newly into musicals due to both the PBS Into the Woods and seeing the Canadian tour of Phantom) it felt SOO grown up to me, LOL. I still think the score is filled with some of ALW's most beguiling music--Chanson D'Enfance, Mermaid Song, There Is More to Love, Anything But Lonely, Give me the Wine and the Dice... (notice I don't list any of the three singles that came from that show in my list--not faves, especially the shoe horned Love Changes Everything.) And I kinda like the crazy soap opera-ness of it all even now, though after reading David Garnett's novella I will say the musical is 100% faithful to it in terms of plot, thin characterization, and "why don't they look for sex outside of their tiny social circle" (though that reflected Garnett's own life, except of course he slept with men as well and wanted a gay liaison in the novella but his editor said it might get them in legal trouble, so went with lesbian flirtation instead as the courts didn't apparently care about that.) I think you just have to go with it.
The problem is, I think, is similar to Sondheim/Lapine's Passion (a MUCH better show, don't get me wrong.) People assume it's didactic and TELLING them that this is the kind of love that's true love, that you should seek out. When, as the novella makes clear, these Aspects aren't really meant to be positive aspects of love at all. But rather negative. Deluded.
But I'm not sure the musical gets this, despite being so faithful to the book. CERTAINLY both in 1989 and now the advertising doesn't get this, it's being sold as a truly romantic show, which is one reason I think modern audiences have been (largely) so incredulous when they see it--it's not what's being marketed.
(I should point out in the book, from what I remember, Jenny is YOUNGER than 15--13 I think. Which says something to Garnett's own morals as that's kinda based on his reality so they already had to age her up in '89)
It is funny about the design--the Maria Bjornson originals, which were expensive to run and massive were still gorgeous and much was made of a wall coming together to form mountains.
But that production WAS massive, as you suggest in your critique. I think everyone was scared to have a chamber musical on the West End in 1989 (Miss Saigon opened the same season!) especially as a followup to Phantom and wouldn't risk it indeed.
@@EricMontreal22 The version I saw, in Austin, Texas in the early 90s had some sheer curtains that they made to represent a train, or a bedroom, or a wall of windows in a villa. Their budget was limited, and the minimalist set design worked fine.
In 2000, I visited London with my brother and his wife, and we got tickets to see Whistle Down the Wind. I loved that show, but it had an overly complicated set. Many of the scenes could have easily been staged with less fanfare. There is one scene where a freight train comes out of the stage and runs over the audience. I'm not sure what the purpose of that scene is, but the whole set seems to have been built for that moment.
@@EricMontreal22 The mountain switchover was the most stunning set change that I ever saw on stage.
@@watanabewatanabe7886 Yeah, while I think doing Aspects on the huge scale they did was probably not great for the material (and it's why the show on Broadway ran nearly a year, had the largest advance in Broadway history up to that time, and yet lost the most money in Broadway history up to that time when it closed--I can't imagine it made a HUGE profit in London despite it's three year run.) But, regardless, Bjornson's work was absolutely stunning.
Aspects has always been my second favourite ALW score after Evita. Unfortunately, the only production I ever had a chance to see was a touring production from the Philippines starring Monique Wilson and with all their props apparently from IKEA. It was a little difficult to believe we were seeing George’s chateau at the foot of the Pyrenees when Alex and Rose were making out atop a rickety table that could have used a couple more twists of an allen key.
BTW, anyone ever seen the Forbidden Broadway version of this? Never realised until RUclips came along that it was actually a recreation of the Tony performance 😂
Great review - this would be bottom of my list to go and see anyway -but your brilliant plot description was really worth the watch of the review !!
I remember googling the synopsis like 10 years when I saw the music video Michael Ball did for Love Changes Everything on tv. I was really weirded out by the plot. I was shocked it got a revival.
Yeah, similarly I remember looking it up a long time ago because the songs sounded nice, then going "What?" and deciding I wasn't missing much by not having seen it staged.
What?? Huh?? LOL. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard through one of your synopsis' - well, maybe your ones about Cinderella (which is how I found your channel. I was looking for videos on Carrie HF. :) ) Well done, MickeyJo, and hello from America. :)
Yes would like to see a round up of other reviews.
Saw the original on BWY in 1990. A 27yo Michael Ball was gorgeous and the idea of the actress running off to the villa was easy to imagine. They get to the villa where it's revealed it belongs to Uncle George who was played by an old crock. We get the impression quickly that she is a climber. I haven't seen this new production but I think the casting was much better in NYC
Discussed it with my BFF to get her recollections. The NY casting worked because the actress wanted to be pampered so she married the geezer. The sex was blah for the actress and mistress so they hooked up. The creepy part was the cousin but the rest of it worked in an odd way. Michael Ball didn't get grey hair at age 30 and looked gorgeous so a young lady could have an infatuation but not sex.
In 1990 Michael Ball entered center stage and sang Love Changes Everything to prepare us for all the ways our cast would change. BTW we bought standing room tickets which let us see the show the second week and eat at a great French bistro down the block
Enjoyed your review - very funny and we couldn't stop laughing.
Greetings from California. You may not know this, in 1992, there was a "chamber-style" tour of "Aspects" across North America. It starred Ron Bohmer (who later played Phantom in the US tour) and Keith Mitchell. Robin Phillips directed it. I saw it in DC at the Kennedy Center's Opera House. The sets and costumes were very monochromatic. The main set was a box of gauze scrim and various set-pieces would illustrate the scene. For example, an over-sized rocking horse for Jenny's party. I saw the understudy for Rose. The production was beautiful, well-timed and very under-rated.
Review roundup please! I always enjoy those. 😊
The Hope Mill production a few years ago was absolutely incredible. It was perfectly cast, beautifully sung and transferred successfully to London.
Decades ago when the original production tour (with those awful black and white sets) landed in my city, St. Louis, US, there were so many walkouts.
I saw Aspects on my first trip to England 1990. I hear no lies in your analysis.
My memory is the story is nuts but the music was really catchy. On a choral tour, we all couldn’t help humming the tune on our tour bus during the 3 weeks of our tour of the UK 😂
I saw it after MB had moved on the Broadway and my biggest memory of it was the giant plantation shutter set pieces. (And the OMG everybody’s having sex with everybody plot, obv)
I've known (and loved) the music since the 90s but never saw the original production. Today, finally, I've watched the show ... and ... your review is SPOT ON.
Saw it in 1989. Loved Mike then , saw it last week still loved him s d all the actors, especially.Rose
Good scenery. Alex nice voice
Strange ending
Still gave a standing ovation
Just a story to take you out of your self ❤
Should read AND all the actors
Nice little actress very young Jenny
I do love the music of this show and the original 1989 cast recording with Ann Crumb was amazing. Remember this was set in the 1940's and 50's and the age of Jenny was more in keeping. Also first cousins can marry. So it is not classed as incest
Back when I was a theatre critic in Atlanta, I was sent to review Aspects of Love. It struck me as a musical about pederasty and child abuse. I'm not surprised it's still the awful musical I always thought it was. Just a horrible idea for a musical.
Wrong.
Grow a brain.
Well, you’re American so your view of the world is twisted and distorted anyway so… 🤷♂️
I saw the original Bway production, which Ball did also - and don't really remember it, although it DID impel me to read David Garnett's original 1955 novella - and I recall the plot didn't make much sense back then either. [Fun fact - his mother was Constance Garnett, who translated all those hefty Russian books]. According to IBDB, Jenny was 12 and 14 in that production - and was played by two sisters, who presumably looked alike.
Btw, I am rereading Garnett's novel and if you think the story is wild and improbable - it turns out it is largely autobiographical! Garnett was bisexual and had an affair with painter Duncan Grant. Sometime later, Grant impregnated Vanessa Bell (Virginia Woolf's sister), who was at the time married to another man. When their daughter Angelica was born, Garnett wrote: "I think of marrying it. When she is 20, I shall be 46 - will it be scandalous?" On 8 May 1942, when Angelica was in her early twenties, they did marry, to the horror of her parents. She did not find out until much later that her husband had been a lover of her father. Garnett and Angelica had four daughters.
I've always loved this show! My fav production of it was the 1992 Gale Edward Production starring Alex Hanson, Kathryn Enans & Gary Bond!x
I saw this on Broadway as a teen. It got a lot of chuckles at times that I don’t think the show wanted. The actors were playing into the camp by this time. Like, it wasn’t working as a romance, so maybe it’s a comedy? The set was huge, which wasn’t a good fit. Young Michael Ball was impossibly adorable and had a stunning voice. So that was the main draw, I think.
Yes please, I would like to see a review round-up.
I saw the original production of the show with Michael Ball and Ann Crumb (??) and felt it to be one of ALW's finest works. Musically it is astonishing. Since then I have read and reread the book it was based on, by David Garnett, which is short but so full of imagination that I could see exactly why he wanted to make a musical of it
Saw this first in early ‘90s. Don’t know why, after seeing it 5 times, I learned (?) to appreciate the actors performances - maybe the story was a bit crazy.
I saw this at the Hope Mill and Southwark Playhouse. I really enjoyed it (despite the problematic elements). It was a much more intimate production and definitely worked well with this plot. Intrigued to see how it plays in a larger west end theatre
I was obsessed with this show and Michael Ball when I was younger. I never got to see a production, although I found a "slime tutorial" on RUclips. (Gotta love those!)
I did have tickets to see "The Woman in White" starring Michael Ball on Broadway but it was cancelled before I got there. 🤦♀ALW is not new to failure.
I would be interested in the slime tutorial. Any title help please? Thanks!
I'm surprised anyone would revive this show. The storyline has always been icky. It does have a couple of good songs.
I saw the show when it played the Broadhurst and Michael Ball played Alex. It was terrible back then, too Should have been called.Aspects of Self-Love.
Some people have said it would work best as a staged concert. This way it highlights the songs and downplays the mess of a plot
I agree with all your comments however Michael Ball was brilliant as ever and the scene changes were excellent. Apart from that I hardly knew what was going on and the ending just left you in mid air!!
I just saw the show. Other than a few songs I knew nothing of the plot so went into it mostly blind just so I could cross seeing Michael Ball and Rosemary Ashe on stage off my list, both of whom were a joy to watch.
I agree ENTIRELY with this review. I’m sure the member of house staff standing near my seat was far more entertained by my facial expressions during some of the more outlandish moments than said moments themselves.
I did enjoy the score. There’s a few songs I will probably be adding to my iTunes library for future listening, but on the whole I’m not going to be rushing back to see it.
The orchestrations are partially different. I know this because I know one of the swings. Apparently, ALW wasn’t very present in rehearsals and it therefore was a nicer work environment 😂. When ALW did rock up, he was generally nice, except for the time he had a shouting match with the conductor, angry with the orchestrations. But after that, he stepped back and I think was generally happy with the show. Although, I’m not sure he will be after the reviews! I feel bad as this cast is so talented and they’re not being used or celebrated enough. It was the same issue with Cinderella. Hopefully, we’ll get a Cats revival at the Gillian Lynne in a few years time and I’ll be very happy!
Ouch! I'm sure ALW is a very, very nice man deep down (at least his family loves him and you know what they say - all together, "Love, love changes ev'rything... ")!
I’m sorry! I’ve just realised how harsh that sounds! I love ALW and he’s had a really difficult year. Just because this production wasn’t great doesn’t mean ALWs work isn’t good. I LOVE Cats and Jesus Christ Superstar with a passion and so grateful for all his work! It brings me so much joy! Praying for him and his family in this difficult time ❤
@@joshglover1732 I was only joking, Josh! I have a somewhat odd sense of humor!
I think Aspects of Love has a very good score, but the story has always been a mess. I saw the original version on tour in San Francisco with Sarah Brightman as Rose and the cast as excellent but it was hard to get past the story. I also read the book on which it’s based. It was around 70 pages and has very superficial so there wasn’t a lot to work with
Wow! I knew that Aspects of Love was infamous, but I never knew that ~this~ was the plot! Also, is Mickey wearing his hair differently? It looks good
I saw the original production on tour back in the 90s, and hearing Mickey Jo recap the plot was hysterical. And spot on.
Off to see this today and glad for the warnings - as someone who liked the film of Cats and Bad Cinderella, perhaps my critical faculties are on the wane!!!!
always enjoy your reviews but this one had me cracking UP this wednesday evening
I have seen the Southwark Playhouse production as well as the West End revival during preview. The former was more intimate and I think worked better. I thought the Wine & the Dice part at the funeral scene was memorably disturbing at that production - at least it triggered some reaction. This revival on the other hand felt detached and I’d admit that vaguely remembering the plot from the Playhouse production, I went to see the revival out of curiosity to find out how they’ve “reimagined”/rewritten it for Michael Ball to sing Love Changes Everything. I guess most of those who went to see it may have the same reason, except maybe for those who assumed it’s a romantic musical based on the title alone. I gathered that this was adapted from a novella and the musical’s plot is pretty much faithful to it. I agree with most of the comments here that this could work for some European audience, but maybe not for Brits and Americans. In summary, I’d say that like some of older ALW musicals, this is what happens when one tries to shoe-horn an arguably well-written hit song into a completely unrelated musical (another case in point: Memories in Cats). The saving grace for me is Rose’s costumes - lovely and appropriately “French” in both the Southwark Playhouse production and this West End revival.
Oh, PLEASE do a review roundup!!!
Lovvvvvve love changes everythiiiing. Lol I love that song. ALW is really quite fantastic at the musical theater power ballad.
I remember listening to this cast album on repeat when it first came out. It is problematic. I think changing Jenny's age was a good choice. I think it's interesting the different types of love explored, but the plot could have used a doctor of dramaturgy.
To be clear, though, the age of consent in France during that time period makes Jenny’s relationship with Alex completely legal. Likewise, the age of consent in England was only 16. In the book, the action jumps between George’s various properties, so it may be a reference to scenes that were originally in England, but the musical itself was simplified and takes place almost exclusively in France, so any reference made by Jenny pleading for Alex to wait for her is not rooted in legalities. It’s Alex who feels she needs to mature, and it’s Jenny who reminds him that he was only 17 when he fell in love with her mother. The notion that she should be 18 is just a random number with no real basis in reality, and perhaps part of the broader conversation this musical evokes. Some countries say 18… some say 16… some say 14. Who is right?
By some American standards (in states where the age of consent is 18) they would consider the UK immoral for setting the age at 16. But even in America they can’t agree. California says 18… but cross into the neighboring state of Nevada and it’s 16, as is the case with the majority of states. So, sleep with a 17 year old in California and you’re a sick, twisted pervert who goes to prison for statutory rape, but take one step across the state line and suddenly you’re perfectly fine and normal. Is it a legal question or a moral question? Does it matter in matters of love? Should it? Maybe that’s part of the overall point of this musical.
What is the difference between love and lust? Where are the boundaries? When can the lines be blurred? Does age even matter? Is there such a thing as “morals” where love is concerned, when love makes us all do stupid, crazy things?
For me, this musical has always been about Jenny. Her part always brings me to tears because in the entirety of the story (I’ve also read the book) I believe that she is the only person who truly knows what unconditional love is. She loved her father and lost him, she loved Alex and lost him, and in the end her own mother betrayed her. Everyone else was totally screwed up and jaded and immoral in their own way, stabbing each other in the backs and stepping over one another to get what they wanted. Jenny was innocent and true. This story is about love and lust at its finest and it’s ugliest, and it takes time to savor and appreciate-like fine wine. Or maybe it’s because I grew up watching Melrose Place and this is like a musical version of all that sordid drama and juiciness.
If it gets people talking and debating about what is right and wrong, what is immoral and acceptable, then the art has achieved its purpose.
Me, before the plot synopsis: It can't be THAT weird.
I remember seeing the original in London . Anything but lonely was a great song .
"Aspects of Lust" is a far superior title.
I recently saw a regional production, and in that production, Jenny was 16. But Alex in beginning when he meets Rose was 17. So the Rose+Alex to Alex+Jenny kind of felt like a grooming cycle of abuse 🥴 . And I have to agree with you; I don't know how these age gaps did well in the '90s
Hi Mickey. I'm new to your channel and realise i have quite a lot to catch up on! Looking forward to putting in the hours though.
I saw AoL at the menier in 2010. Clearly a small chamber affair. Rosalie Craig and Katherine Kingsley were in the red corner sparring against Dave Willets and i think Michael Arden. Remember the show as charming and sincere without too much play on the genealogy of the relationships. Im seeing this current production later this month, oops!😂
The highlight of the menier was Katherine spitting at me on the front row. I haven't washed my face in 13 yrs😅
Love your videos thanks
The very first show I saw on Broadway. As a young opera student I was certain that the singing should be beneath me (arrogance of youth) - and then Michael Ball began to sing and I melted into my seat and feel deeply in love with him!
Thanks MickeyJo for your very entertaining reviews. Like a few others here, saw Aspects in 1992 towards the end of its original West End run. The set was the star - seemed everyone talked about ‘the wall’ which split vertically to become the Pyrenées. My other main memories are (1) how it began: out of the dark, a spotlit male singing, unaccompanied ‘love, love changes every thing…’ (2) the lush, brief entr’acte and (3) the charm and relative intimacy of the theatre itself. Had it moved to the Prince Edward by that time? Not sure. I’m glad I saw it.
My pov: It’s not the greatest show and I’m not the greatest fan of ALW for a number of reasons, but I’m a little bemused by the shocked and seemingly prudish reactions to a tale set in a bohemian milieu inhabited by artists and others, where conventions are disregarded. Immoral? Amoral? The Bloomsbury set… Virginia Woolf … who’s afraid? People have mentioned A Little Night Music of Sondheim, and, tellingly, Chekhov. This show, and the novella on which it’s based, present us with flawed characters and the implications of their impulses. Rashness, self-delusion, disregard for consequences, selfishness, impulsiveness, stupidity, absurd generosity, revenge, forgiveness and more, resulting in farce, melodrama, comedy and tragedy. It sounds like this revival may not have captured the essence of the original which, after all, ran for c. 3 years, yes?
Foot note: That same week I saw the original London Angels in America at the National. This put everything else in the shade. What great theatre can do when the stars align! Wow. ✨
Originally the show opened with an emty black stage and Alex singing "Love changes everything", in the beginning just being accompanied by a piano. A woman's voice just interfered with the sentence "Alex, it's all in the past" The show ended with the same scene, only that we then saw that the women is Giulietta. They both are waiting for the train to take them off to??? This was a logical bracket to the evening.
I saw a production in Denmark, and i loved it.
Whistle Down The Wind is still my favorite ALW 'whu?' show, but thanks for reminding me of this 'gem'. Is putting the orchestra up behind the stage a thing at that theater? Or a necessity?
Love that song, though.
I LOVE Aspects of Love! You must read the original French novella to get a grasp on the nuance of the story better. I find the overlapping relationships beguiling and fascinating as well as the music to be one of Andrew Lloyd Webbers best! I’m so glad there is a revival! In the original production they had gorgeous mountains too!
Finally! There's an adult in the room who gets it. Thank you, David.
you don’t expect the creator of this ‘content’ to actually read and understand ‘nuance’, do you? He’s a fraud and an arrogant bitchy twat with a mouth… it’s pathetic he thinks people actually care what he says… hack.
Probably my favorite Webber score probably because it does not sound like a typical Webber score. I still listen to the original Broadway CD.
My mum has flown from Australia to see it….the Michael Ball diehards will keep it going…
Mickey Jo while trying to listen to your review of the show I became obsessed with what was hanging in your wardrobe behind you. Can we please see you wearing those beautiful jackets sometime, please? 4:38 May 31 Palm Springs CA time
Yes!! The sequined one especially!!!!
I saw this show in Los Angeles in the 90's. The best part was seeing Michael Ball and Sarah Brightman performing. I dont really remember too much, other than the songs Love Changes Everything and Seeing is Believing. I do remember thinking it was too long of a show!
I watched this last night, I'd seen it 3 times before 1991, 2007 and 2010), I think the 2010 Menier Chocolate Factory show was my favourite, but this show was fine, mainly due to Michael Ball, he's probably the best George I've seen. The main lead Laura Pitt-Pulford was also excellent, and Anything was Lonely was amazing
I've seen it a few times, and talking about a "chamber musical," a troupe in Chicago staged it immersively in a bar. It kinda worked (though 'Hand Me the Wine & the Dice' lost a bit of its pop). Interestingly, the same group also staged CATS in the same bar and that was the first time I didn't feel like heckling the show.
I saw a west end version about 17 years ago which baffled me, lots of lust, insincerity and awkwardness, was glad when it ended and never imagined that it would be redone, awful then and glad that you’re review was honest and not sponsored. Thanks for truthfully saying it as it is.
My only genuine Matisse!
Thank God, no damage done!
All of these comments are fascinating and, dare I say it, more entertaining than the actual show itself. lol
It'd be interesting to see the age demographic behind these comments which appear to fall either pro or against the musical's controversial subject matter. Based on the comments I've read I suspect that those with the fewest objections likely fall in the Boomer, Gex X and older Millennial age bracket. Essentially those old enough to remember the original London and Broadway productions of the show. Fascinating...
I fall in that category of having seen the original and not fussed by the material. Less to do with age and more with experience- this is nothing I haven’t heard before. Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13 year old cousin, Bill Wyman marrying a teenager in his 40s, Elvis and 14 yr old Priscilla. Etc. Wrong? Yes. Surprising? No.