My college professor gave us this link to watch as part of a class 3 years ago, I still call my sister a “not too French French bean” from my favorite song
Any authentic production of "Patience" begins with its overture. That this production substitutes a patronizing "what you need to know" prologue reflects lack of confidence in its minimal fiddle-free orchestra and in the actors' abilities to put life into their parody of the short-lived aesthetic - not ASSthetic please - movement. It all seems thrown together with little unifying concept. At 1:07:27 "Sad is that woman's lot", Lady Jane's key appearance is diluted by the unwelcome addition of an accompanist on the bass that she should manage alone. At 1:25:47 "Now go to him", we get the jolly "hook" melody that should have come in the missing overture, but with such lack of chemistry between Jane and Reginald that this fails to be the encore piece that it could be. By Act 2 the lack of practice is evident as lack of confidence, which is the only explanation for the embarrassing stumble during 1:41:12 "When I go out the door".
Sadly, I have to agree. However, you did not mention the costumes that are so wrong on several counts. The women (20 lovesick maidens we - someone needs to improve his/her counting skills ) are supposed to be dressed as Pre-Raphaelite nymphs with flowing red hair. There is no apparent attempt to make the Dragoons look vaguely authentic; red buttons on their tunics are definitely unacceptable. This is all before I get started on the level of singing which generally speaking leaves much to be desired. Sadly, most of the voices are decidedly unmusical. Poor Sullivan must be turning in his grave.???
@@judynesher5898 I can agree that there have been marvellous productions of "Patience" where the ladies are modelled on the muses of Pre-Raphaelite painters such as Millais, Rosetti, Waterhouse et alia. The fleetingly adored poet Reginald Bunthorne is sometimes made up as a caricature of an effeminate self-indulgent Oscar Wilde who pouts at the competition presented by Archie-the-alright. For my part I am tolerant on the subject of costuming, especially in a small-scale production where the expense of authentic Victorian dress would be exorbitant, and in any case an American production would more likely look for ball gowns from antebellum Southern plantations than from an English débutante ball. I suspect that William Gilbert would be unimpressed by our eagerness to impose stereotypes on his characters. The 20 lovesick ladies are objects less of beauty, more of collective ridicule, in the case of Lady Jane even masochistically so. The opera's subtitle "Bunthorne's Bride" is an ironic reference to Reginald who ends up with neither bride nor "adulation" which in 1881 was as close as anyone imagined or dared articulate the proclivity for which Oscar Wilde would be hounded first in 1895. Is there a future LGBT production of "Patience" waiting?
Excellent diction, and a lively performance! Great fun!!
My college professor gave us this link to watch as part of a class 3 years ago, I still call my sister a “not too French French bean” from my favorite song
Excellent version
Thank you! It was a lot of fun!
Any authentic production of "Patience" begins with its overture. That this production substitutes a patronizing "what you need to know" prologue reflects lack of confidence in its minimal fiddle-free orchestra and in the actors' abilities to put life into their parody of the short-lived aesthetic - not ASSthetic please - movement. It all seems thrown together with little unifying concept. At 1:07:27 "Sad is that woman's lot", Lady Jane's key appearance is diluted by the unwelcome addition of an accompanist on the bass that she should manage alone. At 1:25:47 "Now go to him", we get the jolly "hook" melody that should have come in the missing overture, but with such lack of chemistry between Jane and Reginald that this fails to be the encore piece that it could be. By Act 2 the lack of practice is evident as lack of confidence, which is the only explanation for the embarrassing stumble during 1:41:12 "When I go out the door".
Sadly, I have to agree. However, you did not mention the costumes that are so wrong on several counts. The women (20 lovesick maidens we - someone needs to improve his/her counting skills ) are supposed to be dressed as Pre-Raphaelite nymphs with flowing red hair. There is no apparent attempt to make the Dragoons look vaguely authentic; red buttons on their tunics are definitely unacceptable. This is all before I get started on the level of singing which generally speaking leaves much to be desired. Sadly, most of the voices are decidedly unmusical. Poor Sullivan must be turning in his grave.???
@@judynesher5898 I can agree that there have been marvellous productions of "Patience" where the ladies are modelled on the muses of Pre-Raphaelite painters such as Millais, Rosetti, Waterhouse et alia. The fleetingly adored poet Reginald Bunthorne is sometimes made up as a caricature of an effeminate self-indulgent Oscar Wilde who pouts at the competition presented by Archie-the-alright. For my part I am tolerant on the subject of costuming, especially in a small-scale production where the expense of authentic Victorian dress would be exorbitant, and in any case an American production would more likely look for ball gowns from antebellum Southern plantations than from an English débutante ball. I suspect that William Gilbert would be unimpressed by our eagerness to impose stereotypes on his characters. The 20 lovesick ladies are objects less of beauty, more of collective ridicule, in the case of Lady Jane even masochistically so. The opera's subtitle "Bunthorne's Bride" is an ironic reference to Reginald who ends up with neither bride nor "adulation" which in 1881 was as close as anyone imagined or dared articulate the proclivity for which Oscar Wilde would be hounded first in 1895. Is there a future LGBT production of "Patience" waiting?