The King and I previews thread - Page 15

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/21/15 at 10:55am

A post of mine from another thread:

They do offer student rush: $32, cash or card, 1 ticket per student ID, two hours before curtain

At the performance I attended, I'd say about 20 students got tickets. I think the probability of getting a rush ticket depends on availability since I don't think Lincoln Center sets aside tickets specifically for rush.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 1:50am

Here's an article about Catherine Zuber's costumes for THE KING AND I.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/03/king-and-i-costumes-catherine-zuber

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 2:34pm

My two cents:

Overall, Sher cannot recreate the magic of South Pacific with this King & I. His subtle/minimalist approach to this production while beautiful is simply not effective IMO. There's a reason people go for opulence and over the top with this show, and I think it's a better fit rather than going very 'historical' as Sher does…

Kelli is blissful as Anna, and she gets the most juice out of every line she has. Her Shall I Tell You…? is a showstopper, and her relationship with the kids is adorable. She acts the **** out of the role and sings it like no one has ever sung it before. They've raised the key of Shall We Dance? and it sits so beautifully on her voice.

Ken has immense presence but zero chemistry with Kelli. (A lot of people said Szot had no chemistry with Kelli either, so who cares?) In fact at times it's like both principals are in two separate shows. His diction is poor in places but it didn't mar my experience, but maybe that's because I know the script inside out (BTW, they've tampered severely with the script, adding in loads of extra bits - who did this? How did R&H Organization give anyone license to do this? It baffles me).

I thought the entire supporting cast was forgettable. Ruthie was solid as a much younger, severe Lady Thiang and she plays it much more forceful rather than the King's little head wife who follows behind him like a lamb. I prefer a more operatic Something Wonderful, so her rendition did not impress me. The two young lovers, Tuptim and Lun Tha were so bad, it was painful to listen to them and watch them. This poor casting surprised me, because Sher was so spot on with South Pacific.

The Overture has been meddled with like the script, but it's still beautiful. Specifically, the opening as far as Whistle a Happy Tune is like the OBC recording, then you have a few chords from A Puzzlement before it launches into a rousing Shall We Dance? refrain and I Have Dreamed before finishing with the original ending.

The boat thing was not as awesome as many others thought… I thought it was an unnecessary gimmick, and yes the show falls flat after that scene. The whole opening was far too cartoony for my liking. There was no sense of sinister or chill in the air as these two foreigners were arriving in Bangkok. I think Renshaw fared far better with this idea overall in his 1996 revival.

The design is very boring overall and unlike anything we're used to with this show, but it is what it is.

I don't think this production will do well at the Tonys - I thought it might've swept, but I think Broadway has some other stronger revivals this season (On the Town, etc.) that are brighter and more memorable. Kelli's worthy of a Tony nomination but I doubt she wins this year simply because of the role and her potential competition.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 2:39pm

loads of extra bits to the script??? Any examples?

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 2:43pm

Tons of constant, irrelevant references to Cambodia and France that Sher added in to make the production seem more accurate or historical obviously. Ugh! And just millions of other little extra lines that I have never heard before in various scenes. Very strange!

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 3:16pm

The references to Cambodia were written by Hammerstein and cut. I did not find them irrelevant.

[Marway44]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 3:40pm

broadwaysfguy,

I'm in those seats (C, 101-102) and will report back on Friday, April 3rd if you haven't already seen it from those seats. If you have, please report back and let us know how they are. From the looks of the pictures though, they look fantastic!

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 4:14pm

The references to Cambodia are super, super relevant. How could one think otherwise?

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 4:56pm

How much do you think they'll tinker with the show while it's in previews? Obviously a revival isn't liable to change as much as an original show but this is the first time I'll be going to a show while it's still in previews and I'm getting a little nervous. I would totally see it twice but ticket prices at the Vivian Beaumont are ridiculous.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 6:23pm

I've heard that Sher is finding some lines from when the show was in tryouts and is reinstating them into the new revival, ala SOUTH PACIFIC.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 6:40pm

I thought reinstating the lines about France and Cambodia were terrifically helpful in adding stakes and urgency to the King's dilemma with the outside world. Suddenly we had context for his need to impress Britain, and the push-pull toward modernization. Watching the globe be overrun with colonization must have been terrifying for a place like Siam in the 19th century.

I've already taken the sets to task in numerous posts above, but I disagree with Dudepeter about the impact of the boat scene. Thought it was ravishing AND scary. Introducing the peasant population on the docks while scenic pieces grouped and regrouped into dock shanties felt emotionally just right for the terror of finding yourself in a country you don't understand.

All the more sad to be stuck behind the plaster wall of the palace for the rest of the show then. I know, I know, that's Anna's fate too. But I've been to the real palace in Bangkok, and believe me, the views to the whole city and the Chao Praya river are spectacular from there.

[Thparkaly]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 7:41pm

Somewhat off-topic, but where exactly did they find these cut lines? Are there drafts of the original libretto available at some archives, or was Sher able to see a private collection? Just curious!

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 8:46pm

I'm confused by their crediting Robert Russell Bennett for the orchestrations and also making cuts and changes to them. Who made the changes? Also, did Mr. Bennett even orchestrate the Overture or was that done by someone else?

Robert Russell Bennett did indeed orchestrate the overture. Bennett is the most overlooked man in the history of the birth of the modern book musical, if you appreciate the importance of the orchestrations to the ultimate presentation of the score. The demand for his services speaks of his excellence. Show Boat, Oklahoma, South Pacific, The King and I, The Sound of Music, (He was engaged when asked to orchestrate Carousel, but Rodgers still got him to do "The Carousel Waltz"), "Anything Goes, My Fair Lady, Kiss Me Kate.... Well you get the idea.

When Rodgers asked him to orchestrate the score to the television series Victory at Sea, a documentary on the US Navy in World War II that was written far too close to the end of the war to be very accurate, Rodgers just gave Bennett about a dozen themes from which Bennett wrote the complete score to the degree that Rodgers publicly thanked him for making his music sound better than it was.

Bennett wrote orchestral concert pieces. The one based on Porgy and Bess has always been one of my favorite short pieces, Porgy and Bess: A Symphonic Portrait.

I often wonder what the very familiar music of those early classics would have sounded like without Bennett. What if the overture to South Pacific did not begin with those three rapturous notes from Bali Ha'i?

[jv92]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 8:57pm

Rodgers did write many of the famous accompaniment figures people enjoy, like the flute line in "We Kiss in a Shadow" (maybe not orchestrated for flute, but it's in his piano part). In fact, he may have even routined his overtures, or suggested which tunes and themes he wanted used in them. I don't doubt that he had a hand in the magical opening of the SOUTH PACIFIC Overture.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 9:13pm

Rodgers and Bennett did work closely to find that great sound that we all know and love today. I'm very happy that LCT had restored Bennett's original orchestrations for THE KING AND I, they are spell-binding in every way, and that's an understatement.

Would a painterly detailed backdrop of the city of Siam please all those who don't like that wall in the palace? I feel that the idea works for Anna's situation. I think flowers on that so called ugly garden vines during "We Kiss in a Shadow" could help, won't it?

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 9:33pm

Yeargan made a gorgeous semi-abstract drop for the opening scene-- black silhouettes of harbor shanties stretching into the distance reflected in "water", all lit with a sunset by Donald Holder that felt like the world was on fire. Surely there would have been an equally stunning way to introduce a vista into the palace sequences that didn't hearken back to the semi-kitsch of Mielziner's 1951 set.

The point in Act II when that wall flies halfway out for the ensemble to enter in white shrouds is thrilling for the abstract freedom it suggests, although I would have thought it would have been much more appropriate to happen at the very end of the play as Chulalongkorn lays out is proclamation for new freedoms and the notes of "Something Wonderful" swell in the orchestra.

Thailand is subtropical-- wet and green and as flower-filled as Hawaii. The asceticism of the garden design is beyond explanation.

Updated On: 3/22/15 at 09:33 PM

[enjoyable2]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 9:43pm

I love these informed comments today. Learned a lot. Thanks!

[Musical Master]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 10:02pm

Good point Someone in a Tree2.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 3/23/15 at 1:44am

Well, Jonathan Schwartz does tell that story about the night when Rodgers took him into the theater in which South Pacific was playing and Rodgers stood in the lobby, listened to the overture, and then left with Schwartz. At that moment Rodgers may have felt as if he had reached the peak of his long career.

But Rodgers is known to have given Bennett more freedom in his arrangements than Jerome Kern or Irving Berlin.

[NoName3]

Posted: 3/23/15 at 3:03am

I once read that Merman went to Rodgers during the Boston(?) try-out of Annie Get Your Gun -- R&H were the producers -- and told him she simply couldn't sing to the orchestrations. He picked up the phone, called his New York office and said "Get me Russell Bennett immediately."

[Musical Master]

Posted: 3/23/15 at 4:15am

It is sad that this production won't use the full version of the Overture but since that thrilling ending is kept, I'll live.

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 3/23/15 at 5:40am

Saw this on Saturday and thought it was simply stunning, with a rich and authentic feel. So many little additions and moments elevated it above being just another revival.

I didn't have an issue with Ken's diction at all, there were maybe two moments I couldn't understand what he has said but it wasn't a big deal. He commands the stage and for me is giving an award worthy performance.

This might be controversial but if anyone is a bit weak for me it was kelli ohara. Don't get me wrong, she is very good, but for my first time seeing her I wasn't blown away, she was no better than anyone else I've seen in the role. In fact her whistle a happy tune at the start was a bit weak vocally. Talented and solid if slightly bland actress. Not a Tony winning performance in my view, especially compared to Kristen chenoworth

The design is beautiful , and yes the ship at the start is cool, it wasn't quite the wow moment I was expecting from comments on here.

Overall loved it, highlight of my trip

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/23/15 at 6:05am

The O'Hara comments intrigue, because in some ways her (inevitable) casting was connected to the revival's existence, unlike Murphy's Anna. If memory serves, the Renshaw revival hired Murphy; she wasn't part of the reason for doing the show per se (and they were at serious odds through rehearsals and previews, per her interview in the book on musical theater women.) Murphy was the first Anna I saw to in some ways deconstruct the role, free of Brynner's shadow, or rather take the character back to the creation of the show, to its values when it was a conceived as a vehicle for Lawrence. And I loved Murphy, and saw her in the part twice. Phillips was expert, and her partner in every way, his youthful charm a component. But Murphy reminted Anna for me -- and I perhaps represent the legions who had grown up on screen Brynner, and then saw him on stage. Most of us probably saw the workmanlike Anna of Constance Towers, fine enough but in no way memorable next to the unavoidable event, Brynner.

To me, Murphy is simply a more dynamic actor than O'Hara, in many ways a character actor rather than a traditional leading lady, and she imbued the role with an odd combination: chilliness and sadness, something akin to despair, that made the story unfold through her emotional experience. She took us into that palace through her eyes. I saw the King, and the material itself anew.

When I heard the excitement around O'Hara, I wondered what the actual expectation might be: her handling of the songs? We certainly knew she'd apply her lovely voice expertly. But the synergy of actor and role -- what aspect of O'Hara's prior work made people expect a transcendent experience? I'm a fan, and loved her in both "Far From Heaven" and "Bridges of Madison County," though she was almost miscast in "Bridges," to me wonderful but lacking a spark of authenticity. I'm sure she will use the previews to dig deeper into this role. Yet I'm not surprised by the posts that find her merely adequate, or perhaps more fairly, predictable. O'Hara has a particular youthful glow about her, an inherent innocence perhaps. Comparisons are odious, but part of what made the Murphy Anna compelling was her steadfast refusal to be lovable. To "glow" in anyway. Murphy made Anna a true teacher, a bit of a scold, and highly judgmental. She was stern, at times cold, and often you could see her trying to withhold -- or contain -- Anna's inherent heartbreak. The layers appeared, effortlessly. Though she won a Tony, it was maybe an under-appreciated performance. Anna was the original raison d'etre for the whole show. I think it demands particular sensibilities, and an actor willing to excavate some very dark, at times unappealing nooks and crannies.

Updated On: 3/23/15 at 06:05 AM

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 3/23/15 at 6:40am

Really interesting point, Auggie. I totally fell in love with Kelli for her work in "BRIDGES", and all my love for that great show starts with what subtle truth she brought to Francesca and spreads outward from there.

So that was the image I had in my head anticipating how great she'd be as Anna. Maybe the wavering British accent is at fault, maybe her need to constantly exude warmth in those classroom scenes, but I do agree there's a flatness to her delivery here. Beautiful singing (which is not necessarily a requirement for Anna) but very little surprise.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/23/15 at 6:47am

For the record, O'Hara's performance of "Almost Real" In BRIDGES wrings tears from me every single time I listen to the CD, as it did in the theater. My quibble noted above aside, I thought it was a beautiful performance, and that number was its heart for me. I don't doubt that she has the emotional depth for Anna's journey. I wonder if, at this stage, she's still working. I would hope she would be encouraged to take a few risks, to look at that inherent sadness -- even a loneliness -- in the character. "Hello Young Lovers" has always struck me as a song about memory and heartbreak.