2006-12-26 05:29:05 · 3 answers · asked by andybing1978 3 in Travel ➔ United Kingdom ➔ London
Having been to both, it depends on which place you are closer to as both are great.
I've found I enjoy the West End performances better, mostly because I think the theaters are a little better designed. I've found the acustics better and felt I could see the stage and performers without posts in the way. I also felt that the props were better done in London.
2006-12-26 05:34:58 · answer #1 · answered by An Oregon Nut 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both offer terrific production values. However, as a rule, NY or London are better at staging certain plays.
For example, I'd prefer to see an American production of Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neill and a British one of Noel Coward and Shakespeare. Much of this has to do with the "Voice" of the play which is unique to, and better staged by, one culture or the other. And, I'm not talking about regional accents here.
Having said that, Andrew Lloyd Weber does equally well on both sides of the pond. In fact, American Weber productions seem to have an extra layer of gloss.
If pressed to choose, I'd opt for the West End, based on the history that is so much a part of the ambience of many of London theaters. This makes theatergoing an experience in and of itself.
And let's not even get into Method acting techniques versus classical training.
2006-12-27 22:59:42 · answer #2 · answered by Lady Yaz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I also have been to both places. I would vote for London any time. I think its the best place in the world to see a good play. Its not that NY has nothing to offer but London surpasses it by much.
2006-12-26 06:43:00 · answer #3 · answered by Josephine 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋