Columbus Reviews

[Yorkie]

I think you missed by point Rich - there is nothing 'middle class' about the Elliot family. I found it interesting that there was a different take on your side of the Atlantic. If miners are middle class in the States, what would you do to be to be deemed 'working class' or 'lower class'?

[Rich B]

OK, it was a stab in the dark. I agree 100% that the Elliots are not 'middle class' - 'working class' is more like it. But if you Google coal mining salaries here in the US, you'll find they make pretty good money - definitely middle class.

"According to an April 2010 report by ABC News, coal mine workers received an average starting salary of $60,000. Very few professions have a starting salary in that area with such minimal education requirements."

[Yorkie]

Thanks for that. It does give an interesting insight in to the differences in class systems that operate in the two countries - in the US it is money that determines your status where as in the UK it is your past.

It is perfectly possible in the UK to be a penniless member of the upper class or a millionaire member of the working class.

http://www.worldsalaries.org/miner.shtml

http://www.mysalary.co.uk/average-salar ... iner_14700

Just my hunch on this, but I don't really think any British miner (the few that are left these days) would think of themselves as middle class. If they think about class at all of course.

[ERinVA]

Thanks for that. It does give an interesting insight in to the differences in class systems that operate in the two countries - in the US it is money that determines your status where as in the UK it is your past.

It is perfectly possible in the UK to be a penniless member of the upper class or a millionaire member of the working class.

http://www.worldsalaries.org/miner.shtml

http://www.mysalary.co.uk/average-salar ... iner_14700

Just my hunch on this, but I don't really think any British miner (the few that are left these days) would think of themselves as middle class. If they think about class at all of course.

I think that is a perfect explanation of the different interpretations of "class" between our two countries.

[kport]

My post has been deleted - the link has been posted before. Sorry.

[StevenKing]

On the point that the tears flowing during the Letter, yes it seems to be a tour speciality , almost all the tour Billy's cried convincingly and were more expressive on average then elsewhere IMO. I only saw one Exception and that was compensated for by perfect Ballet.

[Todd]

I found that a good rule of thumb is if you count the F-Bombs and the blood-curdling screams during Angry Dance, add them together, and come up with a number less that 10 then you don't have an "Angry Dance". You have a "Mildly-Upset Dance". For Zach tonight I counted no F-Bombs and only 3 screams (although the final scream as he was falling to the stage was a great one). 3 is par for the course for the Tour.

I'm a bit out of the loop on the tour show, having seen the current version of it only on its opening city in St. Louis 4 and a half months ago. The best performance of "Angry Dance" I saw that weekend was by Lex Ishimoto who's no longer in the show. So it could indeed be a case of the current group of Billys being a bit more laid-back than some of the other casts. Or maybe the "anger factor" isn't emphasized as much by the current resident director as it has been by some of the others.

At any rate, I agree that it's a pet peeve of mine as well when the "Angry Dance" isn't angry enough. It can be the most powerful, electrifying number in the show for me when it's done well but a bit underwhelming when it's not.

What I have noticed in pretty much every city where I've seen the tour show performed the past two years is less lively audiences, compared to New York and London. Every so often you get a responsive audience who laughs loudly and applauds enthusiastically. But most of the "dead audience" shows I've been to have been at tour shows - particularly in Chicago and St. Louis. I definitely don't blame the cast, but rather assumed that the audiences in some of these cities aren't generally as into live theater as the people are in New York and London where attending live shows is more a part of the culture there.

I'm curious as to whether others here have noticed subdued audiences at some of the recent stops on the tour, compared to New York and London if you've seen the show performed at one of those two places. . . .

[BEtourfan]

[I'm curious as to whether others here have noticed subdued audiences at some of the recent stops on the tour, compared to New York and London if you've seen the show performed at one of those two places. . . .

I've seen the show in New York and a number of cities on the tour. Some tour audiences are very lively, others less so. I think it depends on the city; which time you see the show (matinee v. evening); which week (first v. second); how receptive a particular audience is to live theater/BE; age of audience (younger v. older), etc.

[ERinVA]

I think part of it is attributable to the huge size of the venues the tour plays in comparison to the Imperial or the Victoria Palace. The larger the venue, the more likely audience reaction is to be "swallowed up" because of the size.

[BEtourfan]

I think part of it is attributable to the huge size of the venues the tour plays in comparison to the Imperial or the Victoria Palace. The larger the venue, the more likely audience reaction is to be "swallowed up" because of the size.

Another good point! Many of the tour venues are nearly twice as large as the Imperial or Victoria Palace.