Sunday, February 21, 2010
Viva Elvis -- Theater Review
Hollywood Reporter: "It's no stretch to say that Elvis Presley doesn't have quite the cultural hold on recent generations that the Beatles do. Then again, the moptops never owned Vegas like he did. And could again."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It's nice to finally hear something good about Viva Elvis. Maybe Cirque wasn't so far off this time as everyone thought. It sounds like maybe they did what you'd hope every show would do. They took the criticism they got at the preview, and really listened to it. It sounds like the stuff the had problems with got fixed. I hope the same things happens with Banana Schpeel. It's nice to hear about an organization that doesn't take criticism as insult, and instead takes it as advice.
It is interesting to hear a positive review of "Elvis", especially one that cuts down "LOVE" in the process. Saying that "LOVE" is more sad than "Elvis" and that the latter is better for that reason is an inane statement. Both shows strive to embody the soul of the music, and the Beatles have many more melancholy, contemplative songs than Elvis does. The flashy spectacle of "Elvis" seems to fit more with the Las Vegas atmosphere than does "LOVE", as the writer notes, but I can't seem to see how this gives the show more artistic power than the other Cirque ventures there now. I will have to wait for my chance to see the show for comparison, but I take general issue with some of the rather unfounded arguments in this article.
It is great to hear that Cirque du Soleil has another hit on their hands. I find it extremely funny that they had technical glitch during there premiere. The Olympics and now this, what will be the next thing not to work in the entreatment industry? It just shows that no matter how many times you rehearse you always have the chance of something going wrong. But none the less the shows sounds like it is pretty awesome. The one thing that I am interested in seeing is how more dance is incorporated in to Cirque type of show. I know that when I go see there shows I am not looking for dance.
I think the article's portrait of Love was unfair. To say that the music led to the stage-action being secondary is a ridiculous claim. I was never distracted by the music, rather I found that the stage action accurately portrayed the essence of every song and made me thing of the song in a completely new way. I'm glad that Elvis is doing well but I hope that the increase in dancing doesn't lead to a decrease in the acrobatics. I agree with Robert in the sense that I don't go to Cirque shows to see dancing. I go to see people do things that are nearly impossible and awe-inspiring, like the things I've seen in Love and in O.
Having seen Love but not Elvis I'd like to see Elvis for comparison. Love was very good, and I disagree with the remark that it's only about the music as there were a lot of acrobatics in Love as well, but they happened in so many different places and at the same time that it's easy to miss some of them. The similarities between the two shows seem to naturally invite comparisons but I don't know if they're really fair. Not only is Love about the music, it's also telling the story of the songs and some of them aren't entirely cheerful. Just because something is more somber doesn't make it inferior.
I think it's a little strange that they brought up the fact that Elvis isn't as big w/ youth as The Beatles, particularly because it's hard to believe a lot of youth can afford Cirque tickets, but haha no that's not the only reason. I personally LOVE Elvis and I think it would be a really great show! Also, Cirque can't really just keep doing the random and abstract story lines. Not to say that the stories are random, but they are much more vague. LOVE and Elvis are changing up the Cirque norm, and it's just like any other marketing tactic. It has to stay fresh. Also the glitz that Elvis will surely bring is rather Vegas appropriate in my opinion, and overall should be a pretty awesome show.
Post a Comment