THE DROWSY CHAPERONE

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 1:59am

THE DROWSY CHAPERONE, despite some funny bits and an extremely talented, hard-working cast, is essentially an overextended sketch that is seriously compromised by two mitigating factors that prevent the show from fulfilling its premise satisfactorily. Though a purported valentine to musical theater and early musical comedy in particular, TDC lacks the virtues of the very genre to which it pays homage. For what audience this show is intended and why it's on Broadway are complete mysteries to me.

First off, for a show that concerns itself with the unbridgeable gulf between the fantasy and illusion of lyric theater and mundane, contemporary reality, the show never employs charm to make its point but takes a ham-fisted, winking, sledgehammer approach, forcing--no, begging--the audience to love it in a way that is indistinguishable from the cheesiest sitcom or game show.

Second, rather than recognizing the wit, melody and craftsmanship of the genre, the writers have simply trotted out the hoariest of cliches from these early shows which already have been parodied to death for decades (and far more successfully, I might add). Have the songwriters taken the time to study any of the incomparable scores by Gershwin or Youmans or Vivian Ellis? Or even THE BOYFRIEND? The title tune of the latter, itself a pastiche, has more style, wit, and affection in any one of its measures than the entire score of TDC, which, if truth be told, would NEVER win the love and loyalty of a musical theatre queen but would be bought by completists only, listened to once and filed away, never to be heard again, like THREE WISHES FOR JAMIE or KING OF HEARTS. One need only listen to Scott Frankels' score to the first act of GREY GARDENS to hear pastiche of the first order: inventive, melodic, sophisticated, memorable. Finally, if you're going to take cheap, predictable shots against such shows like CATS, MISS SAIGON, et al, you better damn well deliver the goods on your own terms. TDC utterly fails to do so.

BooBooKitty
Hell's Kitchen, NY





Updated On: 4/7/06 at 01:59 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 2:06am

Completely agree, although I enjoyed Bob Martin.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 2:10am

I did, too, but, it's a performance in search of a show.


Allison MacKenzie
Peyton Place, New Hampshire

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 2:14am

Thank God I'm not crazy. I had only heard enthusiastic reactions to this show, then when I saw it I was thinking..."Either I must be crazy or this is bad..."

I hate when people post things like "Look out NY!", claiming that we have a huge hit coming our way - then when it gets here - it sucks.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 2:27am

OK, it sucks? Going way to far.

What Drowsy achieves, IN ITS 3rd day of PREVIEWS, is a very enjoyable little ride that is light hearted, fun, yet witty and cleverly written.

If you did not relate to that show, but find yourself reading postings on here and writing reviews on message boards, you must have missed the essence of the show. How can you not the the comparison of what we are doing now, to the "Man in the Chair" character?

The show constantly pokes fun at itself. It is not meant to be brilliance, but simply a fun hour and a half or so, and I think it accomplishes that easily. The opening of "Act 2" where the wrong record is played, is just briliant wrting, how the man in chair is so "DID YOU RECOGNIZE BEATRICE STOCKWELL?" This fantasy land that he lives in within his apartment is one thing, but they have created an entire world for this show that he lets us in on. He himself says the scenes suck, but there in lies the enjoyment of watching sutton sing a campy number while the gay man swings his head along with her.....who hasnt pretended to be evita in their bedroom, or well lets say glinda to the younger crowd.

Also the performances are stellar. Bob is amazing, sutton is delightful, beth Leave STEALS the show. After the line, about the olive and the gibson, she won be over immediately.

Ultimately, this is what the second musical is 4 years that was completely orginal, the 1st being brooklyn. Maybe there are others, feel free to post if im forgetting things, but I think we do have a hit on our hands. If you didn't love the show thats fine, but the opening night preview audience was rolling. they are making changes everyday, and once they lock it down what we will have is a witty, fun light hearted night of theatre thats totally original, and going to get lots of tony noms. I dont if Brantley will agree with me, but those are my thoughts to open up a discussion with. Its 230 am, please excuse rambles or type os

Happy Theatre Watching!

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 2:27am

A huge problem is that the 'show within a show' is pretty dreadful - witless and stupid with unmemorable songs and no grasp of period style. And seeing Leveal, all one can think is..."Damn, wouldn't she make the IDEAL Vera Charles?" Her material is bitchy and DragQueeny...but not in a GOOD way.

Most tiresome characters were Engel & Hibbard.

Had "The Drowsy Chaperone" really existed in 1928, it would have closed on the road and never been recorded.

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 02:27 AM

[Jinks]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 2:55am

How lame. Your review gives no indication that you EVEN SAW THE SHOW. You attack this show generally, making no specific references, (what characters, plot, what acting, what songs????) to how it failed. You choose instead to drop a bunch of references to supposedly show us how much you know about other theater of it's kind. As one who is looking into whether or not I want to see this show, you have helped me immensely. Now I know it's not "Shakespeare".

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:13am

>>>OK, it sucks? Going way to far.<<<

No, not far enough. The more I think about your show (you're affiliated with it in some capacity, yes?), the more I realize what a hollow enterprise it really is.

>>What Drowsy achieves, IN ITS 3rd day of PREVIEWS, is a very enjoyable little ride that is light hearted, fun, yet witty and cleverly written...<<

...in concept, yes, but in execution devoid of the charm, sense and spirit of the genre.

.>>If you did not relate to that show, but find yourself reading postings on here and writing reviews on message boards, you must have missed the essence of the show. How can you not the the comparison of what we are doing now, to the "Man in the Chair" character?<<<

Because one is critical discernment, the other fan-idolatry.

>>The show constantly pokes fun at itself.<<<

No excuse.

>>>It is not meant to be brilliance, but simply a fun hour and a half or so, and I think it accomplishes that easily. The opening of "Act 2" where the wrong record is played, is just briliant wrting...<<<

...for a Harvard Pudding show, sure. But one gag does not a show make.

>>>how the man in chair is so "DID YOU RECOGNIZE BEATRICE STOCKWELL?" This fantasy land that he lives in within his apartment is one thing, but they have created an entire world for this show that he lets us in on. He himself says the scenes suck, but there in lies the enjoyment of watching sutton sing a campy number while the gay man swings his head along with her.....who hasnt pretended to be evita in their bedroom, or well lets say glinda to the younger crowd.<<<

But I didn't charge $100.00 for the privilege. And it was Mary Poppins.

>>>Also the performances are stellar. Bob is amazing, sutton is delightful, beth Leave STEALS the show. After the line, about the olive and the gibson, she won be over immediately.<<<

There we agree. Beth Leavel is the only performance of real interest and wit. Naturally, she's given nothing to do in the second half.

>>Ultimately, this is what the second musical is 4 years that was completely orginal, the 1st being brooklyn. Maybe there are others, feel free to post if im forgetting things, but I think we do have a hit on our hands. If you didn't love the show thats fine, but the opening night preview audience was rolling. they are making changes everyday, and once they lock it down what we will have is a witty, fun light hearted night of theatre thats totally original, and going to get lots of tony noms. I dont if Brantley will agree with me, but those are my thoughts to open up a discussion with. Its 230 am, please excuse rambles or type os<<<

Before you start talking about Tonys, throw out the score and start from scratch. I mean that, really. Good luck.


BooBooKitty
Hell's Kitchen, NYC







Updated On: 4/6/06 at 03:13 AM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:52am

EnchantedHunter, you're full of ****eroo.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:07am

Whoa! I got edited. Sorry, I meant to say votre tete est plien de m***e.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:52am

You have defended yourself virtually not at all. You didnt like it.....fine. However you don't seem to have any reasoning.

And what i love is the board constantly saying, you must work for the show, just because you like it. I actually do not work for the show. I have worked with Beth in the past and she is the main reason i went to see it, however enjoyed the overall experience. Do I work for a show? yes, is it Drowsy? no. I can't stand it when people drop that card constantly.

There were many many gags that worked. Apparantly you liked that one as you said 1 gag doesnt make a show, atleast we agree that 2 minutes of the show were good, now lets move on to the other hour 45.

If we are going to have an educated discussion on this, atleast go into detail about whyspecific material didn't work, because what it was structed to be, and what it accomplished, are par for the course. Troups of people in LA, critics alike and in NYC will agree, so 2 people on this message board are going to have to do more than overviews of, it was campy and stale and the songs weren't memorable.

You are correct however that the score isn't overly memorable, but neither is WICKED's and look what happened there. I'm not comparing it, I'm just saying thats only one component of a COMEDY. It has chosen to be a musical, but look at their choices of actors. Sutton is the belter, everyone else is a chracter, I believe the music was written as it was to help that characterization, and the actors chosen to deliver those songs, have voices that match what the writer wanted to achieve.

Finally, it won't win the Tony for Score, however, Best Musical, Book, Direction, Best Featured (beth), Leading Actor (Bob) and I'll even say costumes. All should get nods., and it has a good shot at taking anythign from 2 to all of those.

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 04:52 AM

[ken8631]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 7:45am

I (and wife) enjoyed it very much. Very entertaining, spent my time much more enjoyably than I did with Lestat and 3 Days of Rain. I still did like Jersey Boys a bit better though. But I'm not a critic, just your average theater-goer and engineer.....

I recommend seeing this to just about anyone.

[steveshack]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 7:47am

I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. I agree that the score itself isn't mind-boggling. But even that's mitigated by the fact that Man In Chair agrees with you and is kind of one of the points of the show, that the 20s churned out these things by hundreds, and, for some reason, he loves this old chestnut. Could the show be helped by having a score as witty as the book? I guess, but it didn't seem to keep me from having a great time nonetheless. For me, it works and I laughed myself silly.

One of things I worried about was that people would go expecting this show to be "the next big thing," but it's not. It's a modest, engaging valentine to the those who love shows -- and even more, to those who love shows that no one else really "gets." I'm glad you gave your honest opinion.

Steve
(who is also not connected to the show but has raved about it)

[alterego]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 8:16am

Wow, someone is really putting the boots in! Both theenchantedhunter and munstrap78 are really gunning for this show.

Why so vicious? You both write as though you were associated with a show which wasn't greeted with praise and so you don't want anyone else to receive any either. I'll wait until the numbers come in from the professionals before I write THE DROWSY CHAPERONE off.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 8:40am

Geez- We are all entitled to our opinions, Enchanted shouldn't have to defend the review. Thank you for the truthful review.

[freeadmission]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 8:52am

Enchanted has to defend his review because he wrote it with such hatred and from such a high and mighty position.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 9:10am

I'm sorry, kids, but you may not like Enchanteds' message about DROWSY, (I disagree with him plenty on GREY GARDENS) but I think he pretty much nailed it.

I was looking forward to it a great deal. I had head the reports and I am enthusiastc about ANY new show with a new score - and one not based on a film for a change. But I thought DC was a big dissapointment with a lot of talented people floundering in a mess of medicority. I'll go into it a bit later.

Come back, NEVER GONNA DANCE - all is forgiven!

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 09:10 AM

[steveshack]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 9:15am

Enchanted said:

>The title tune of the latter, itself a pastiche, has more style, wit, and affection in any one of its measures than the entire score of TDC, which, if truth be told, would NEVER win the love and loyalty of a musical theatre queen

I don't know if I agree with you. I have known many musical theatre queens. In fact, I live with one. And one of the hallmarks of being a true musical theatre queen is that each one has at least one really big turkey of a score they, for some reason -- maybe because there's a emotional attachment they have apart from the show, or because they love the cast, or for whatever reason -- just really, really love. That's one of the points, IMO, that makes this show feel "real." You can't truly explain why someone has an emotional attachment to something that isn't the greatest or the best. It's like loving the homely puppy.

Myself, I'm more of a rock and roll queen. One of my favorite records of all time is a total turkey of a bomb called "Metamorphosis" by Iron Butterfly. It's the worst record of the rock genre. And for some reason, I cannot get enough of it. One of the songs is so awful, it's mindblowing, a song about pollution called "Slower Than Guns" -- "DDT making bugs relax/they're in your food like poison tacks" -- ROTFLOL and it's sung like a love ballad. My love for this record is totally inexplicable.

So, I have to say that we all have these frozen turkeys in our love freezer and, no, it doesn't really excuse anything. Who knows? Maybe "Drowsy Chaperone" is my "Drowsy Chaperone" but I think your point there isn't really a valid one, all due respect.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 9:43am

>>>And one of the hallmarks of being a true musical theatre queen is that each one has at least one really big turkey of a score they, for some reason -- maybe because there's a emotional attachment they have apart from the show, or because they love the cast, or for whatever reason -- just really, really love. That's one of the points, IMO...<<<

And precisely where the show falls down. The argument of the show is that musical theater is a transporting experience. For that argument to work, the authors needed to dramatize the difference between fantasy and reality by allowing the antiquated material, however corny and foreign and impossible it may first appear, to eventually seduce and enchant the audience. But nothing about the show-within-the-show or the actual TDC itself provokes an emotional response or engagement: it's just a barrage of tired parody and mediocre songs expertly put over by the actors. In the end, it's not enough to TELL us that musical theater is transcendent: we should experience it ourselves.

Tootie 'The Most Horrible' Smith
St. Louis, MO

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 09:43 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 9:56am

As the saying goes... to each his own.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 10:05am

Wow! Someone obviously auditioned and didn't get cast. This was probably one of the most enjoyable evenings I've ever had at a theatre. Who among us hasn't listened to a cast recording and seen the show in our minds, or explained the scenes and actors to friends? I thought it was clever, and I see practically everything. The audience I saw it with seemed to eat it up. I definietly need to see this show again! I would say the only weak part of the show is the ending. But other than that I think the premise works. I could care less if it has any memorable songs. Why do the songs have to be memorable to make it a good musical? The point of the show is that the show-within-a-show wasn't a good musical. Were you sleeping during the show?

[steveshack]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 10:06am

I found the score totally appropriate to the material. I find it hard to judge, personally, because I don't like songs from that era very much. But I think it's a much better score than you're giving it credit for. I love how it skewers itself and there were times when I laughed out loud at it. So, as they say, each to his own. "Show Off," for instance, had me on the floor. And I loved the torchy ballad. So, there ya go. Each to his own.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 10:15am

>>>The point of the show is that the show-within-a-show wasn't a good musical.<<<

Which is a dodge and exactly why the show is misconceived.


Mayella Ewell
Maycomb, Alabama

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 11:03am

Okay, people need to stop accusing posters of not seeing the show when they disagree with a negative review posted on a message board. It's childish and absurd.

One man's opinion, that's it folks - and if Ben Brantley happens to fall on his side in his review - let the cards fall where they may.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 11:07am

I think the score serves this show extremely well, considering that Man In Chair is trying to introduce us to a "forgotten" musical that he admittedly loves, despite all its shortcomings. This is not a "cop out," because the humor in picking it apart (as he does throughout the evening), and the entire concept of this show wouldn't work if he were introducing us to (say) "Gypsy" or "Sweeney Todd." They wouldn't have been either "forgotten" or anyone's "guilty pleasure" if they were THAT good, would they? That's one of the things I loved most about this show: He's introducing us to a bad musical that he loves. What an original idea!

Above all else, a musical score needs to serve the show, not overshadow it, rise above it, or contradict its intentions.

The music in "Drowsy" is FAR better than you give it credit for.

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 11:07 AM