I've not been here for a while (I went on to uni and now I'm working on a UK tour of Evita) so just want to start by saying hi to all the people I used to talk to years ago and get tracks and videos from.

I confess I haven't read the entire thread here because it strikes me as poor form that an event that we were waiting for back when I joined this discussion in 2003 has happened and we still seem to think to know better than the guy who's vision this show has been for over 20 years, even now he's presented his definitive version. It wouldn't surprise me if there were now changes made based on audience reaction before whatever the next step may be is taken.

Concerning the over-enthusiastic chorus; if you've seen the size of the Albert Hall you'd understand what has to be done to put across things to the audience sitting right at the back. It surprised me this concert didn't have big-screen help like the Les Mis 10th Anniversary concert.

I've just watched it the second time and Idina improved on me - I always thought she was excellent You and I onwards, and I've never felt my heart rip like it did when Walter tells her her father's dead.

The production has to be kept simple as these concerts often have cast who are all involved in other contracts - I know Kerry Ellis was still in Wicked at the time and my friend in the chorus was also employed elsewhere weekday nights. It won't I shouldn't think be a reflection of what anybody wants for Chess (you notice a lot of fluffs from every quarter, so to in the orchestra who probably rehearsed in 6 hours) - it's just the nature of these one off concerts.

I'd prefer to view the situation of the show to be that we have a final version and we're fans of it or not. I'm not really up for saying how I think it should be. Don't mean to offend or be bossy, just what I felt reading this. But I reckon it'd be strange if this wasn't part of some bigger launch for the show so I'm excited to see what happens next, and hope I can get to work on it again!

Oh and also there was a comment on Freddie's line in the Endgame. It wouldnt' surprise me if this were a last minute ammendment from Tim Rice. He's reading it off a card and not in a way where he's acting and reading

You know, not quite so long ago I would have probably agreed with you. But now, I think I really prefer to think of Chess as one of those shows that's always different. Tim Rice himself has praised wildly different interpretations; he just says that this one's his favorite of all the incarnatons. I like the idea that the show is, itself, an echo of its own lyrics - each new production means there's one less variation left to be played. There's poetry in that, somewhere.

And having said that, I hope you're right - I'd love to see Chess make a big comeback following this concert. It deserves it.

I think Tim Rice is a talented lyricist and book-writer but he isn't a perfect dramatist, so it's not inconsistent to question some of the structural points people have raised here, while still holding the opinion that he's created a great show.

Have to say I thought Idina Menzel was going to be a lot worse based on what I'd read in advance of seeing the DVD. She wasn't perfect for the part but she was acceptable. I'm firmly of the view that singers should sing the notes as written and not diva off into a frolic of their own, but I think she stayed on the right side of that line.

So the story of the DVD is the same as it always is with Chess: it's flawed but it's still great.

This is almost exactly right.

The truth is, there was a lot of history between the 1986 London production and this concert, and there were a lot of different perspectives on how to do Chess. All those rewrites happened because everybody involved acknowledged that the book in London was really quite weak. Some were disastrous, some came tantalizingly close to really hitting their mark. I think that, as a whole, Rice's own rewrite in Sydney, as well as the rewrite done for Stockholm, are both better pieces of theatre than the London script for Chess. Both have big-time imperfections, but they're lesser than the London script's muddle of an Act II. But seriously, if I had to pick between "do the show as presented in London" and "translate the Stockholm script" for a Broadway revival, I'd pick the latter in a heartbeat. So I have to say I think it's fair to be disappointed that Rice's "definitive" version is basically London with "Someone Else's Story" tacked in, "Pity" moved to Act II, and an even longer version of the bizarre "Talking Chess" sequence.

Also, I personally don't believe that the idea of this as the "definitive" Chess is the opinion of anyone but Tim Rice. Specifically, the fact that the Stockholm version of the show was totally overlooked says to me that this is Rice's play to re-establish his control over the show, more than a once and for all final Chess. Which is a shame, I think the Stockholm version with some of the kinks worked out could be a far better show than London ever was.

I just wanted to say that "diva off into a frolic" may just be my new favorite phrase ever. Not only did you masterfully use "diva" as a verb, but you also did the converse, and managed to use "frolic" as a noun. I love it so much.

I totally agree. The Stockholm version is from a theatrical point of the superior one. Althought even that production has it flaws.

The strong point of the Stockholm production is that it returns to the orginal concept album but it focuses more on the relations. They didn't solved all the problems, but it moved me when I saw it in Stockholm.

I personally think as a musical, London is fine. The show has been overthought since the concept album. This is mainly due to the addition of Walter in my opinion. That character added yet another confusing element to what should be simply a love triangle story set in the middle of the cold war. If I could pick between Broadway's act 2 and London's...I'd pick London. It's just musically better and that's the biggest appeal of Chess anyway. All productions that have satisfied me so far have been staged concerts of the show and I have no desire to see it evolve beyond that except perhaps in form of a movie.

The problem with the London version's second act (and concept, and recent concert for that matter) is that it's essentially another play altogether. Anatoly wins the first match (which takes forty-five minutes to *start* btw), and Florence gets out of a tumultuous relationship, thoroughly completing the dramatic through-line, and there's nowhere to go until the second act. And the second play presented is...well...quite a mess. Freddie is a non-entity who becomes whatever the plot needs him to be, and Florence doesn't do anything -- things happen *to* her, but she doesn't make a single action, a single decision. For someone who's so often touted as a "strong female character," I find it rather offensive how much of a cipher she is. Crying for daddy? This late in the game? Really? Maybe I'm hardened, but I'd like to think that a woman whose earliest memories involved witnessing first-hand the events in Budapest, 1956, and spent the better part of her adult life clawing her way to notoriety (and being a world champion's second *would* require a certain notoriety) in a male-dominated sport would have a little more of a backbone to her. And don't get me started on the half-assed attempt to throw the Arbiter into a narrator position.

If all you want is the music, well, that's what the albums are for -- but Chess can be so much more than the music. The best productions I've seen have been small, intimate stagings (usually in the round) in community theatres, often accompanied by no more than a couple keyboards and using assorted modifications of the Broadway book (which, admittedly, needs modifications as badly as London -- just in a different set of ways). So many versions have succeeded in doing so much more than London (including financially, in Stockholm) that seeing it regress to its original form, all I can do is think of it as a complete waste of potential.

I think if in performing the show you can bring out an obsession on Freddie's part with Florence that gives him a reason to be hanging around in Bangkok in whatever capacity (I think the Deal in Stockholm did this well), and if Florence's father grows from a curiosity to see him (she can't possibly remember much of him?) to banking on a normal settled home life with man and dad then you solve any problems there may or may not be.

I loved a lot of the Swedish Chess but will never get on with trapeze artists, THAT Mountain Duet, and a chavvy whiny Svetlana

I rather liked Josh Groban, although considering Idina's about ten years older than him, it was a little bit awkward to see them in "You and I" IMO. I think his voice makes a nice contrast with Adam Pascal's rock-n-roll, but I'm only so-so about his acting skills--he didn't exactly draw me into Anatoly's character, and some bits in the musical were lacking a bit of...something...that Tommy had when he sung those bits, such as "...and others <i> blind </i>...." in Endgame, and when he was supposed to forcefully break into Florence's thoughts in Mountain Duet. But all in all I have a very positive opinion of him. His voice is really pleasant to listen to and it's impressive. In "The Interview", he really hit the second round of "Chess is her passion" well. And his acting is better than the 2003 Actor's Benefit Concert version of Chess--now "You and I" was a bit painful to watch when he stood there stiff as a poker.

Now, Adam Pascal in terms of voice--his is a bit gruff, but I think his voice holds up to the higher notes quite well. His voice is pretty strong, and if you get used to his style of singing, it has power to it. To me, Murray Head sounded strained about half the time he sang--his voice wasn't the strongest, and it blew out when he performed live. Some bits of Adam's acting were somewhat unintentionally funny, such as when he sings, "That's your sex, woman!" onwards, he makes some strange expressions. But his version of "Pity the Child" was absolutely superb. He wasn't overly dramatic, but at the same time he was feeling and seemed genuinely frustrated and tragic. Plus, who can beat that last note that he held, while sliding up and down, for 26 seconds without one breath in between?

Idina, I have a little bit of a problem. I loved her in RENT and Wicked, but here I think she was a little bit confused as to who Florence was. I'm not sure exactly who she's trying to portray and she didn't really seem to act much at all. In addition it seemed like she had a little difficulty reaching the higher notes in her part. Her tone is warm and I've gotten used to her nasal tone, but at parts she sounded like a little girl. Florence needs a more mature-sounding voice to pull her songs off. So as much as I like her, I think she was miscast for this role.
I think that's enough typing for me--it's getting rather late.

Stig Rossen can beat it. Holding the higher end of the note equally long without sliding down to a more comfortable note.