I saw this blog about TBFO and I had to respond;
my comments are below her blog.


http://liberalreader.blogspot.com/2007/11/great-jukebox-in-sky.html

Cheryl

Yeah pretty awful, I think if they ever do the movie, Liza should sing IHLY instead of Greg. I mean how many people cared about him anyway?

quote:

I mean how many people cared about him anyway?

Well, let's see... first and foremost there was, um, uh, what's his name... Oh yeah, PETER!

Yeah. And I dunno. Maybe his mother and father. And perhaps anybody else who knew him in life and loved him.

I'm sure I'm having a knee jerk reaction here Sara, but that was a pretty sh*tty thing to say about someone. Especially about someone you never knew.

Also...

You really cannot give much credence to that blogger. I mean come on. If you didn't see this thing live, then you missed it. To judge it on a bootleg just gives you all kinds of credibility, don't it? I've seen a bootleg and if that's all I had seen of this (and knowing nothing about Hugh Jackman's musical abilities), I would have thought...'eh, I've seen better. Stage looked a little bare for a Broadway musical. Leading man's a doll and he sure can belt a tune but he's a little flat and nasally at times.' That would have been my impression.
And some have said -based on this performance- that Hugh Jackman is a somewhat flat and nasally singer, not ever having heard him interpret Rodgers and Hammerstein and not realizing that he was interpreting, Peter Allen.

And one more time...
If they attempt to film the stage show then it doesn't matter who they get to sing IHLY as the film will most likely fail. This needs to be adapted as a musical bio as they've done recently with the lives of Ike and Tina Turner, Ray Charles and Johnny and June Carter Cash which garnered btw, Oscar nominations for each of the actors interpreting those roles, with two of them winning.

And if they do the same with TBFO, then the only person who should sing IHLY is...an actress portraying Olivia Newton-John as it was, the biggest hit of her career.

Barb

I thought those "I Honestly Love You" moments between Greg ( Jarrod) and Peter were some of the most poignant and best acted by Hugh ( I can still remember how his hand tried to trace Greg's shadow but couldn't find him - sniff, sniff)

The actor who portrayed Greg in Australia ( Murray) was more charming and sang in a very engaging way, but I thought Hugh with Jarrod was the more realistic portrayal of their relationship.

As for the blogger - he has issues, definitely...or maybe he hasn't seen too many live performances ( or even bootlegs) on Broadway ( doesn't he know how liberal and uncensored Broadway shows are - and people do not walk out because of what he perceived as too much liberality on stage)


Jo

quote:

I'm sure I'm having a knee jerk reaction here Sara, but that was a pretty sh*tty thing to say about someone. Especially about someone you never knew.

Thanks, Barb.

quote:

As for the blogger - he has issues, definitely

I'm guessing that the blogger -- Heidi -- is female, but you're still spot on, Jo.

As for the Peter/Greg relationship in the play... I liked Murray too, but it was really glossed-over Down Under and I don't mean *just* because they omitted The Kiss. Jarrod's role was more intimate and better defined. The blogger also comments that Judy and Liza were caricatures -- and that's the NY version. Whew, glad she missed the Aussie tour.

Well, at least she appreciates that Hugh worked his butt off... and is looking forward to seeing him in Carousel -- aren't we all?

Oh, sorry, I missed the blogger's name

I think we saw a slightly different Peter in Australia compared to Broadway, both intrepreted by Hugh. I was charmed by both portrayals but I wonder which was the the more realistic portrayal of the real Peter? Or was it the venue ( which also defined the kind of audience it drew) which influenced how Peter was made to reach to his audiences?

Jo

I am sure that Peter himself was different in different venues. When Peter played at clubs smaller than The Bitter End he likely played VERY differently then at Carneige Hall and I sure that was diffent than RCMH and then was different than playing for big audiences down under.

But that point I think I just beat like a dead horse.

I wonder about the internet - sometimes on this forum we try so hard to make this a pleasant place that we forget how many places are faceless places for people to vent frustations or critize without being held accountable. I have respected this forum for its attempts to play nice in general.

That being said - I do think that it is ok to occasionally point it out if someone is starting to vent their frustations publically on this forum. Barb - it is ok to say that you think a statement devalued the life of another. *I think I am likely back to SIASL - in this book all life is meaningful - at least that is how I read it. I care about Judy and Liza and Peter and Greg and folks that are famous and about Jo and Barb and Sue and Janis and Stacey and Carol and lots of people that aren't famous - some I have met and some that I have only read their writing s and about some that are worlds away and not on this forum.

Having a bad day? Smile and remember - if you can find a computer to type on you are likely in a part of the world where you are not having to worry about your next meal or malaria. Just saying.....

Ok - It is late - I will try to stop preaching.

diane

I agree - but my biggest question is - Where did she/he get the DVD ??????????

Having viewed a DVD of the show I know you cant judge from it --that is also why I didnt think it should be a movie or sold on DVD because unless you saw the real show you cant get IT!!

as Barb said you can not make a movie of the stage show - but an adaptation could work. But right - not a movie of the stage show. I also agree that even a great DVD recording of the stage show would be any kind of equivalent....but having seen Legs when I had no chance to see it live and had never seen Peter live I must add that when Hugh is very old and gray - it might then be fun to see a good copy of the stage version of TBFO!

Somewhere there is a good copy of the show, but it is not the DVD bootleg that I've seen. Although I wish I had a good copy, I think TPTB did the right thing by not releasing it. I think it is unlikely, as time passes, that this film will ever be made. Boo hoo.

quote:

I think we saw a slightly different Peter in Australia compared to Broadway, both intrepreted by Hugh. I was charmed by both portrayals but I wonder which was the the more realistic portrayal of the real Peter? Or was it the venue ( which also defined the kind of audience it drew) which influenced how Peter was made to reach to his audiences?

I'm not entirely sure I know what you're asking, but I'm gonna take a shot at it anyway... and I'm probably gonna contradict myself doing it.

In my experience, Peter was the same with all audiences in that he was ebullient whenever he was on the stage, big or small, and it was contagious. When you walked out the door your feet didn't touch the ground. And, he was somehow attuned to each audience. He was always very free and easy, but he did not joke around the same way in a public/professional (what's the word I want?) venue the way he did in a small, private (gay) club where he might (have a drink or two and) get rather bawdy as the night wore on.

There were also times, doing certain songs where he'd seem introspective and almost unaware that there were other people in the room (there's a glimpse of it if you watch Paris At 21 from the RCMH concerts) -- but particularly early on in some of the tiny clubs when he was trying out new things that no one had heard before... and sometimes, late at night, not many people *were* paying much attention to him (gasp!) He'd be "in a world of his own" and I know that at least one time I saw him seem a bit startled when people applauded, like he'd forgotten they were listening.

So, IMHO -- Hugh's performance on Broadway was more like Peter, in general, while the characterization Down Under was more like the "On Stage" Peter -- because, well, the whole thing was more of a faux concert with snippets of dialog every once in a while, and the show in New York was more of a play.

If that makes any sense to you, please explain it back to me. LOL Very tired. Babbling. I'm off to bed.

you didn't sound too tired to me -spelled better than I do when I am awake!!

It is interesting that as I focused on the differences you found the similiarities. (See - wide awake and still can't spell.)

I wish I was there to walk out of a big or little PA performanc with that feeling of having "walked out the door your feet didn't touch the ground"

I must admit - this is how I described leaving TBFO.

Here's a somewhat more succinct observation, along the same lines.

When Peter was on stage he was really, *really* ON -- "full tilt boogey" -- he gave you his all, absolutely 100%. When he was not performing, he not only turned "it" off, but he was very attentive to other performers. Peter was not the kind of person who needed to be "the center of attention" ALL the time.

From my fleeting encounters with Hugh, and from seeing casual pix of him (playing with the kids at the beach, etc.) he strikes me the same way. He gives you all he's got when he's working, and when he's done, he's done -- just a "regular" guy again.

Maybe that's why his performance as The Peter Allen Character seemed to suit him so well.

Does anyone have a copy of the DVD ???????

sorry for acting like Frank Rich. I know this forum is quiet,but there's still stuff to talk about. I hope they get the official site back and running.

And I apologize for that "sh*tty" remark. I could have said that a little more gently. But sometimes I just react. Still, no excuse.

And what do you mean by the "official" site, Sara? The official site of TBFO, The Musical? Well...this is it. This is still the official site of that stage production. Isn't it? I mean, I guess it has evolved into the site of the world famous OZalots but still...look at which actor in which character still graces the face of this forum?

As for a DVD of the stage production...
I've got an idea about that and I may have written about it around here some time ago (can't remember as my brain cells are dropping off at a rapid rate).

As much as I would love to have a first rate copy of the stage show in my hot little hands, I never thought there was much feasibility in it. Especially if the producers were looking at a possible film adaptation somewhere down the road. But I think there's a way they could have both.

Make the film and have a DVD of that and if the film is successful, then do a mini tour of the states with the arena show and video tape at each venue. Open it say...in Los Angeles and close it down from RCMH and make a compilation of the tour, hitting all the highlights, all the different audience interactions, and closing it with OBIG from the stage of RCMH. That way they'd have a DVD of the film and one of the stage show, or rather, the stage tour. No, it would not be the Broadway "play" as that is over and we'll most likely never see it again. But this would be a close second and would give film audiences a taste of what Hugh Jackman can do on a stage with a live audience.
This way you'd have two DVD's; the film adaptation and the arena tour that would not compete against one another, but rather, would complement each other. That's how I'd do it.

Of course it's all dependent on a film being a sucess. If it fails, who is going to pay out big bucks to see a stage version of a failed film? Well...except for us. Hell, we'd probably line up and hand over the kid's college funds just to watch him pick lint out of his navel. And then afterwards, bid on it at auction.

Anyway. Just an idea. The two DVD's I mean, not the navel lint.

Barb

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Songirl,

Oh. And the salad shooter thing...

I believe I stole that line from George Carlin years ago. He was talking about how violent a species we are (and especially here in America) and he said..."we even have a salad shooter." I remember laughing my head off, but it made me think too. And this is one of the things I thought...

According to Genesis, who was the first human born of a woman? Right...Cain. And who was the first murderer in the world? Right...Cain.

Ol' George had a point there. We are an incredibly violent species.



Barb