La Cage - The Magic is Missing

[bunnys_mum]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 10:54am

I've never been compelled to write before, but went on the boards to see if anyone else is as disappointed with the current production. I saw the original production, and the memory of George Hearn singing "I Am What I Am" is seared into my memory. It was truly show stopping - the audience was silent for a half beat, and then I thought the house would cave in from the applause and cheering. I still get goose bumps when I hear the recording. I went to the 4/28 matinee, and waited for the same feeling; I never even came close. As amusing as Mr. Hodge is, I simply never felt any real emotion from him. His John Wayne was brilliant, his Zaza in the second act engaging, but the impassioned belief that he is who he is? Not there.

Equally disappointing were the Cagelles. As talented as they are, there was "no fun guessing their gender." There was real magic in the original when, after trying to guess who was what, the "reveal" came at the end of "We Are What We Are." In this production, there is no "reveal," because there is simply no need. The dancers, while very talented, are clearly men; they look like anatomical models, all muscle and sinew. The result is that they simply look like pretty boys in drag, rather than the magical creatures that they are supposed to be. In addition to being a terrible disappointment, it was also incredibly distracting. (Also distracting were the '70's clothes and hairstyles, and the rather flat affect of Robin de Jesus, but I know I'm in the minority on that.)

I went to the show to see if there was any reason that I couldn't take my 10 year old (a Broadway veteran, but still thought it worth double-checking). There isn't any reason not to, other than a desire to wait for the next revival in the hopes that it will hew closer to the original so that she can experience the same magic that I did when I first saw it.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 11:03am

I also saw the original, and George Hearn was heartbreakingly real with "I AM What I AM."

The production values were first rate: the sets, the costumes, the orchestra, the ensemble..everything smacked of that big brassy Broadway musical comedy feel that is a hallmark of Jerry Herman's musicals. Even from my $10 seat in the last row of the balcony the production overwhelmed on so many levels, (That said, I did not think it deserved Best Musical at the 1984 Tony Awards. The other nominees...SUNDAY IN THE PARK, BABY, THE RINK - were far more deserving)

I plan to see the revival, and appreciate that the idea is to scale it down to make it more of a tacky second-rate nightclub. But that is not what LA CAGE is about - it's a fantasy world with glamorous costumes. Still, I doubt anything can dim Jerry Herman's score.

But I am rooting for FINIAN'S RAINBOW to win Best Revival.

[frapperia]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 11:49am

I think that what you guys are saying is perfectly valid, but it comes more from the viewpoint of what you perceive La Cage should be. That's not necessarily what everyone else perceives it should be - for instance, you mention the sets, which have been 'scaled down to make it more of a tacky second-rate nightclub' when it should be a 'fantasy world with glamorous costumes'. I never felt that it was tacky or second-rate watching it, at all! But then I never felt it should be a fantasy/glam world either.

Or you say the Cagelles are meant to be 'magical creatures' - well, that's your opinion, too. I didn't ever feel like they were meant to be that, I thought they were meant to be attractive, sexual beings who (at least in the London production) were still pretty ambiguous but who are obviously men - you know it from the first song, and I don't see the need for biological women as Cagelles. Of course with someone as bulked up as Nick Adams in the production, nobody's going to be fooled in that respect...

At any rate, all I'm trying to say is that I'm sorry you were disappointed, bunnys, hope you won't be, frontrow, but that there is a real variety of opinion on this show. Some on this board are very very anti this production, but others like myself absolutely adored it. It was one of the best nights I've ever had at the theatre and one of the best productions I've seen. For me!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 12:06pm

I went to the 4/28 matinee, and waited for the same feeling

That's where you went wrong: NEVER go to a revival and "wait for the same feeling." You will wait in vain.

Go to a revival and hope for a new feeling. You may actually have one.

Signed,
Learned That the Hard Way

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 12:08pm

But that is not what LA CAGE is about - it's a fantasy world with glamorous costumes.

I couldn't disagree more. I think the entire essence of La Cage is completely laid out in I Am What I Am and this production comes closest to achieving that more than any other. The problem for me was that previously, there was so much fantasy, I couldn't take the reality seriously.

There was real magic in the original when, after trying to guess who was what, the "reveal" came at the end of "We Are What We Are." In this production, there is no "reveal," because there is simply no need.

There is no need because the reveal was a cute gimmick that ran its course back in 1983. Over 20 years later, it's not that big of a novelty any more. This production decided to take a more realistic approach to the setting and characters because the glitzy and unbelievable treatment had been done to death. They took a risk and it paid off.

[MariusPontmercy]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 12:21pm

That's where you went wrong: NEVER go to a revival and "wait for the same feeling." You will wait in vain.

Go to a revival and hope for a new feeling. You may actually have one.

Though I think we're probably coming from opposite sides of the argument as far as this particular production is concerned, I agree 100% with that comment.

Funny that when it's a play that really has been done thousands of times (like a Shakespeare), productions are criticised for being too similar to previous ones or not being original enough. With musicals there seems to be this idea that the original production (as opposed to just the text) should be the starting point for a revival.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 1:16am

I couldn't agree with you more. There is NO magic in this La Cage.
Very disappointing.
Dancing substandard. Douglas Hodge way over-rated
and not as good as any of the other Albin's I've seen.
The maid. Yawn.
See La Cage Substandard just to me?
for more on this topic.

[jpbran]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 1:20am

My main issue was not hearing what Zaza was saying & singing at times. He was going for "subtle" in some places I assume, but I really couldn't hear some of it.

Related: was this show mic'ed? (miked?) At times, it seemed like I was hearing Grammer and (at times) Hodges' voices coming from THEM and not from the speakers. Has this been discussed before?

[perfectliar]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 1:27am

The glamorous aspects (intricate sets, over-the-top costumes, etc.) are what made the last revival so heartless. Concentrating on beauty and illusion and technical excellence doesn't always pay off.

This production gets to the heart of the matter: family, love under any circumstance, togetherness. And it still has something to say about beauty and perception that this club where they are not trying to fool anyone (clearly the Cagelles are men) can still be popular and intriguing to its patrons.

There is a lot of soul and depth in this production that I'd never seen before (didn't see the original, just the revival); beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, and I guess most people who saw this production perceived beauty where you perceived something else.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 1:48am

Many people do not like this production.
perfectliar and myself and bunny's mum are 3 on this board alone.

Some people like it and others, like myself don't
And that what makes show business. Our opinions.

Many people on the other posting...
La Cage Substandard just to me also did not care for it.

[alterego]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 8:30am

But will it run? Will they have to rely on stunt casting? Kelsey Grammer and David Hyde Pierce in LA CAGE AUX FOLLES.

[quizking101]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 4:41pm

Kelsey Grammer (Fraiser) and David Hyde Pierce (Niles) = Brothers

Kelsey Grammer (Fraiser) and David Hyde Pierce (Niles) = LOVERS??

[perfectliar]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 6:03pm

goldenboy, I'm pretty sure you completely misread my post. I really liked this current production.

[actionjaxson91]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 7:30pm

"Many people do not like this production.
perfectliar and myself and bunny's mum are 3 on this board alone.

Some people like it and others, like myself don't
And that what makes show business. Our opinions.

Many people on the other posting...
La Cage Substandard just to me also did not care for it."

^WTF is this shish? A haiku?

Anyways, I agree with the OP. This version of La Cage was a snoozefest. Way overrated, Doug Hodge's performance was hyped up to be something that it wasn't, and everything just fell apart. I don't even know why they cast such a dreadful singer in the role of Albin. Some say that his singing adds to the character but I saw it as distracting from what he was trying to convey in the song.

[Almira]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 10:52pm

What once was a rare champagne
Is now just an amiable hock,
What once was a villa, at least,
Is "digs."
What once was a gown with train
Is now just a simple little frock,
What once was a sumptuous feast
Is figs.
No--not even figs--raisins!

Ah, LA CAGE...

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 10:58pm

Only someone with less taste than a British director would mix Herman with Sondheim.

[kmbrlee8252]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 11:23pm

I have mixed feelings on this production. I was at the 5/2 evening show and was a bit underwhelmed. I had heard such amazing things from others about this production, I guess I went in with too high expectation.

The lows:
Someone earlier mentioned about the sound in the show, I was so distracted by the crackling speakers, mic's going in about out, etc. Whoever is working on the sound should be ashamed. It ruined a lot of the experience.
Grammer was sub par at best. I wasn't really impressed with his acting, his singing, anything, very surprised as I have never seen him in a production before and really expected more.
The 70s feel and look seemed off. The costuming was very unimpressive.

The highs:
I need to respectfully disagree with many of your comments regarding Robin de Jesus' performance. I thought he was great, really funny, over the top and precisely what the role was meant to be.
The one part that I thought was really moving and definitely delivered the emotion it was meant to was during I Am Who I Am. I thought Hodge delivered, definitely my favorite part of the show.
I loved the Cagelles, thought they were fun, each had personality, were all in all fun!

Basically, I liked it, didn't love it, won't repeat it.

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 11:41pm

The only sample of the original Broadway production is from the Tony Awards show...on that video service which name shall not be uttered. I loved the magic... the costumes... the dozen Cagelles...and George Hearn's voice. While the original poster of this thread is entitled to his opinion, others have pointed the fact that a revival is bound to change things a bit (or a lot.) I got a (sort of) preview of a mimimalist "La Cage" when I saw a Chicago production at Theatre Building Chicago in June 2009. I thoroughly enjoyed myself with that show, in a small theatre. I'm looking forward to seeing with my own eyes what the current "La Cage" has to offer. I'm certain it will be magical and pleasing to the senses. from RC in Austin, Texas