Profile for akhoya87

This may prove to be a fiery hot take, but I actually thought the show worked quite well with Katie Webber.  You could not tell she had only three hours of rehearsal in the role.  Katie was entirely off-book, and was just absolutely terrific.  But setting all that aside, I actually like the idea of a veteran actor who's put in her time but losing a bit of her shine trying something new to fend off the threat of an ingenue usurping her role.  Caroline was the stronger v

I found the first third of the play tediously boring (to the point where I was watching the clock and wondering "where have I seen her before" about Phia Saban), the second third moderately interesting, and the last third exhilarating.  So, I suppose the buildup worked.  The writing wasn't my favorite.  But strong acting by Mark Strong (teehee) and Lesley Manville, and excellent work by their intimacy coordinator (IYKYK).  

I don't think I nee

Just wanted to add my $0.02 re:  the 12/1 evening performance. 

Audra:  Phenomenal.  I was skeptical about her voice being a mismatch for the role, but with the acting, it works.  And the acting is otherworldly good.  Received a well-deserved standing O post-Rose's Turn, except for one celebrity in the audience who was rather ... icy and stayed seated.

Danny:  Still finding his Herbie, I t

Thanks, chrishuyen!  I appreciate your insight, which I largely agree with.  I definitely agree with your assessment that Adam and Auli'i are worth a watch, even for those who've seen the original Broadway cast.

One thing that I find fascinating is how we, the audience, choose to view the characters -- but as you said, that's theatre for you.  I suspend disbelief and think that Sally is a white, English woman, regardless of who's playing her, and that Cli

I went to see this last night - both Adam and Auli'i were in, although there were quite a few post-Thanksgiving outs (Bebe among them).   Some thoughts:

Adam as Emcee:  Adam is my fourth emcee -- I've also seen Eddie, Fra, and a cover in London whose name I unfortunately can't recall.  Adam was the most libertine of the emcees in Act One.  I find it fascinating that they've given him more license than other emcees to ad

Jordan Catalano said: "I was offered tickets tonight so why not. They have done a nice amount of cutting. Since the first preview, act one is now 9 minutes shorter and act two is 8 minutes shorter which is a good little chunk to take off the total run time."

Have they actually changed 40% of the show?  Trying to decide whether I should see this again.  (I saw the fourth preview and was not impressed, but I thought it had potential if they restructured the m

Has anyone in this thread dramatically taken their headset off yet?  Or am I early?

Saw this for the first time in NY; saw it twice in London.  Nicole is in fine form, although her voice (understandably) sounded a little tired during AIWNSG, for which she got a partial standing O.  (She held "home" for a shorter period, and you could hear the strain then.)  End still as chilling/haunting as ever, and this was my third watch.

Stephen Colbert was at t

Auggie27 said: "By now, the world of televangelicals has been parsed, exposed, mocked. Everything about the world feels like an already overextended SNL sketch. It's hard to fathom how a musical can excavate an evening's entertainment. Is that a problem with this show? My post is a question, not an indictment."

This was one of my biggest problems with the book.  The musical was obviously trying to satirize the "Electric Church" and evangelical

I was at tonight's preview.  It went a little long:  we started a few minutes past 8, and I don't think curtain call hit until 10:50 or so.  (These are estimates; I wasn't clock-watching.)  It seemed like the audience was heavily papered; box-office line was quite long when I arrived.

I'll preface by saying I did not see this in London, knew almost nothing about the show going in, and had only a general idea of the whole Jim Bakker/Tammy Faye/PT

Just to explain where I am coming from... As a threshold matter, the case against the Shuberts is very very weak

1. Like most copyright suits, this is probably about money.  That's why you "sue the strong," as HogansHero put it.  You name the deep pockets, especially where there's a case to be made for joint-and-several liability (which can be complicated in a copyright case).
2. As Kad pointed out, this is about whether Stereophonic is an unauthorized adaptation of Caillat's book,

   ---

quizking101 said: "Also, those seats are HORRIBLE - like ZERO leg room - and also look like they are about to fall apart at any moment."

The fact that I was sitting in the front row made this experience all the more painful for me.  My knees were brushing right up against the stage.  There were several moments where I thought the show would end and that I'd enjoy sweet relief, only to find that there was yet another scene. &nb

Part of me wonders whether there is some subconscious backlash (or at least bar-raising) because of the high prices charged by this production, and the efforts to make it "immersive."  Part of me also wonders whether the production rises and falls primarily on the casting.  I loved the London production, but it worked "best" for me when I saw it with Fra Fee and Amy Lennox.  Every version I've seen since then has been lackluster by comparison.