MrsSallyAdams said: "I saw the musical in Boston. Then watched the documentary. If it gets retooled they need to dial up Fred Siegel's malevolence. In the documentary he was emotionally abusive, and she was afraid of him. It may have been a factor in her hoarder tendencies.
The house looked empty on stage. But in the film, she filled it with garbage, animals, feces and a pack of feral children. It was moreGrey Gardensthan Barbie Dream House.
A production where the set becomes more and more cluttered till she's wading through garbage could be an effective visual metaphor. I'm thinking of something almost expressionistic."
This is a great point. Anyone who has seen the doc takes away just how cluttered and garbage filled (that dog ****!) the house becomes--I remember a friend saying how she thought it was telling that no one seems interested in looking after the place. I assume for the musical they really wanted that reveal of the empty mansion--and I can understand the reasoning for it, but...
Adam Feldman has a great new podcast with TimeOut, Sitting Ovations, and the first episode is devoted to The Baker's Wife with Stephen Schwartz and director Gordon Greenberg but... I guess I spoke too soon, because in the last few minutes Schwartz is asked if QoV would ever be reworked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6550n-GlDQ&list=PL71nON9BFM3hIUZ5bTQbApeF5lKaa7ST_
I love Nussbaum's writing--I can't think of any tv critic who topped her tv writing. I know from Twitter that she loves theatre, although she doesn't seem to know much about theatre history, again judging on those Tweets but maybe that isn't an issue when reviewing.
The 2008 Sunday was Roundabout, which is not categorized as it is a non for profit."
Thanks. OK that bumps out the 1995 Company too then.I'm still curious about Into the Woods--I don't think I ever bothered to look up just how well it did (or didn't do) although at the time I did think it closed quickly for a Tony winning revival of a popular show (although ITW hadn't quite reached the "beloved" status it w
Joevitus--that's actually an interesting thought. Well, to me, because I immediately thought that it is common for creators to want another shot at their flops but... I'm not sure it is all that common, as you point out. Lots of shows that spring to mind that have been revised over the years (Sondheim has Company, and Follies both) were already successes in their original production (yes, for my own purposes I'll call Follies a success.) Then you have shows
EmceeHammer said: "QoV will close the same day as the Off Broadway revival of Baker’sWife, which will have played almost as many performances.
I haven’t done the math, but if you include the previews of the original Broadway productionof Baker’s Wife, it will have been performed in New York almost as much, if not more, than QoV.
At least Schwartzwill always have Wicked (and Pippin and Godspell). Between this and the fallout from Wicked: For Goo
Sutton Ross said: " I honestly don't see it anywhere. It can't be done in middle/high schools (imagine?), it won't be in colleges, it cost too much for regional theater, and it's too massive of a production for cruise ships. So, ummmm, Vegas? They know a thing or two about tacky, gauche, ridiculous, over the top shows. That is literally the only place I can think of where this piece belongs, besides the dumpster bin outside of the St James."
I've seen the revival twice, both times on tour 15 years apart (the first tour, with Charlotte D'Amboise and Brent Barrett, stands out.) And I don't even *remember* any choreography in the Overture...
And I admit, I'm not even sure how to gauge if the past two Sunday in the Park revivals were successful or not... The 2008 was a limited engagement,so does that count? (Another Sondheim show, Company's first revival was also a Roundabout limited engagement that almost transferred but... didn't) And the 2017 Gylenhaal revival was also a limited run that obviously sold well during that limited time but...
Did James Lapine's revival of Into the Woods recoup? I know it won the revival Tony, but it only ran 9 months and 279 performances and I don't remember if it toured... I find it fascinating, partly because it kinda has been forgotten (and if it's remembered, not too positively.) When Ben Rimalower was doing his great Giants in the Sky podcast about the history of ITW, I was hoping he'd ask Lapine about some of his decisions with the revival (besides just a ge
And here I thought 1.3 mill was actually pretty good? It only played one night here.... (Maybe I'm just putting it beside how badly Kiss of the Spider Woman did...)
caitlinette said: "I walked in not knowing the show at all, and loved it, but was very puzzled by Gussie. I’m not sure if it was the actress, the way the role is written, the directing, or a combination of both, but she came off as a total caricature, almost like a Sally Bowlestype. It felt quite incongruent with the rest of the production. On another note, whydid they not try to change up Mary or Charley’slooked throughout the show? Gussie went through so many changes. Y
SkidRow82 said: "Maybe, because a traditional pro-shot of this exact production already exists with the London cast, they wanted a way to differentiate this version. So, they opted for a more "this is a real film" approach…"
In the interview with Maria Friedman I linked, that's exactly it. But I still wonder--like why have applause at the end but no footage of the bows?
Shubert Alley Cat said: "TI don’t know why but the dude in the ensemble who played Beth’s father was so goddamn annoying (he is Willie Conklin in Ragtime now)."
He's the guy who really camps it up in the party scenes, right? (It's funny, because maybe that was a Maria Friedman decision--I would have to go back to check, but I swear in the proshot of the original 2013 London production, there's a larger guy who does the same in those
My take on the Merrily “film” (I’m genuinely happy that my grumpy sounding negative comments seem to be in the minority here)
I was glad to see it, and surprised to see the theatre was sold out (and with a lot of young people--yes I've reached the age, I guess, where I notice all the "young people.") I... wasn't sold on the filming. I know Friedman wanted to make the work more like a film and less like a record of a stage production, but I think in the end we kinda got something that was neither of those things. When James Lapine decided to film Passion, he wanted to make it more film like and so also emphasized close ups, but he also recorded it without an audience and had special cast rehearsals on how to modulate their performances for the camera. With Merrily this was still put together from several nights of filmed theatrical versions, and we could hear the audience--so when we got close ups (and boy did we get close ups) they were of performances that were meant to "play" to the back row of the theatre. Some of it did work for her vision (including emphasizing it as Frank's story,) but... We *know* it's a filmed performance, so I wish there was more of a sense of where people are on stage in relation to each other, etc. And the extreme close ups did show how committed to the performance the cast was--the blond chorus member who keeps on doing coke with Frank in the opening party was also constantly grinding his jaw, which, as a friend pointed out, is a realistic detail lol
I admit, it reminded me too of some quibbles I have about this production and have had since the London filmed version ten years back. And no, it's not just about all of the changes for the revised version which, as anyone who knows me knows, I don't think improve on the 1981 book 😉 One random one, is I still don't quite get why the Blob party is SOO stylized in a beatnick/early 60s way, when the 1970s That Frank party isn't to the same extreme, since Sondheim and Furth said they should parallel each other. But that just seems to be an issue only i have. (And I won't get started about the fact that I still don't "get" the set and it still all looks like a room on a yacht or old cruise ship to me (why are there plants above the windows?) But, unlike nearly every other Sondheim show, I don't think I've ever heard of a major Merrily with a set design that was liked.
Calum Marsh in his overall positive NYT review said it best: "But as a film director, Friedman adds little and, occasionally, inadvertently subtracts: This “Merrily” is too reliant on close-ups and frenetic cutting, which simply distract from the moving, beating heart of this wonderful play. [. . .] Merrily We Roll Along” is an OK movie of a good production of a great musical: on balance, another worthy addition to the Stephen Sondheim canon, which can always stand to be expanded." Now before everyone jumps on me, I'm so glad we have this, I'm so glad I got to see it on the big screen surrounded by people who loved it, and I know I'll return to it! And I am so glad to see these lead performances.
(Oh but WHY cut the overture by more than half? 😛 )
(And of course, we do have the pro shot of the London version already which gives some sense of the overall staging. When I saw that in theatres there was only one other couple in the audience. Nice to see how different that was this time)
Maria Friedman just did an interview on it for What’s On Stage podcast. I admit I’m amazed at all the work involved—completely recolouring and filtering shots due to the stage lights not filming well, adding light to eyes that otherwise would look like black coals, filming reaction shots… interestingly she saws she avoided wide shuts because feet on stage would pull the viewer out and remind them this is a stage production which she didn’t want. But doesn’t the (muted somewhat) audience and set do that already?
SteveSanders said: "iluvtheatertrash said: "Is there REALLY enough of an audience for a hologram show here that a venue needs to be built?"
I have no idea, but it has been playing for 3.5 years in a 3000-seat in east London.
Yes but ABBA has been a massive part of the UK culture in a way that it never was in the US.and of course the venue pulls fans from across Europe. When I worked in London and Dublin during a gap year (in
Wait, is Anna meant to be 20 in the play?? I haven't read it in years and years but I always thought she was a bit older (otherwise, just how long was she a prostitute for?) I don't think it's all that strange to revive it, there have been somewhat recent successful revivals including a Donmar production (Anna is almost always played by an actress around 30 years old--so still quite a bit younger than Williams--including, since Cabaret got mentioned, Natasha Richardson
TotallyEffed said: "Sherie Rene Scott is a bonafide Broadwaystar.Tonight felt like she finally got her moment to shine as the true leading lady she is, if only for a night.."
I'm definitely curious to hear if her performance changed the overall tone of the piece in any way.
TheatreFan4 said: " They stupidly put it on the Score Album that releases in 2 weeks. Its out on Spotify already, but doesn't include the speech part, just the For Good reprise section."
I mean, it's not as stupid as not recording Wicked Witch of the East on the original cast album because of "spoilers" (spoilers on a cast album?) but still annoying...
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
