"Side Show" Preview Thread- Page 2

[gleek4114]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 11:28pm

^ Thank You!

[getatme]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 11:31pm

Tried rush this morning. Got there at 9:20 and was, I believe, 7th in line. Seats--or at least the first 14--are in the front row. A really fantastic view.

[NewYorkPulse24]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 11:32pm

Soooo how was it?

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 11:35pm

Well. That wasn't what I expected.

Going into the show tonight I knew they had revised the score and altered the tone of the piece some. The sample audios the producers leaked early left me unimpressed and kept telling myself, "They're not Emily and Alice and don't expect them to be."

It turns out that those audios should be pulled from the site because they truly are bland and the live performances surpass them, especially Emily Padgett's. I was so worried about them being in the shadow of the originators, and it really wasn't an issue.

What did end up being the problem for me was the poor score, which has been ripped to shreds; even the songs that remain have been tinkered with so much that they might as well be Renee Zellweger's new face.

The biggest loss is (surprisingly) "More Than We Bargained For." It's one of the few original songs that was cut without a similar song replacing it and Buddy and Terry are woefully underdeveloped because of it. That whole section of "Look at where this road leads- to Vaudeville- it's not right, we overlook their needs- they have needs/we're giving them the chance of a lifetime" goes a long way revealing who these two men are and their different approaches to the girls, their feelings, careers, etc.

"When I'm By Your Side" has been replaced with a very similar "Typical Girls Next Door" and I sorely missed "We Share Everything" which has been replaced with a Story of Lucy and Jessie meets Victor/Victoria "Ready to Play." "We Share Everything" is SO much more fun and catchy. The biggest question is why replace these songs with such similar, but lesser numbers? It seems like tinkering for the sake of tinkering.

"Tunnel of Love" has been cut, but the melody does remain and the thrilling, "I am yours, you are mine, it's a sin, it's divine" is still sung, albeit with different lyrics.

I liked David St. Louis, who played Jake. He reminded me of Sahr in Fela!- there's a scary intensity to him and his voice is a little gruff around the edges.

Unfortunately Ryan Silverman, was was fantastic in Passion, and Matthew Hydzik didn't fare so well. They came off as bland and unlikable- a tough combo to overcome. Terry is unlikable on the page and Silverman's staging during the first half of "Private Conversation" kind of leaves him hanging out to dry.

Buddy has to put up with worse though in the biggest head scratcher of the night: One Plus One Equals Three. This has turned into a huge, full ensemble production number straight out of Into the Light and Prince of Central Park. It's campy and shocking.

The stuff that worked best happened in the Side Show with the freaks. "The Devil You Know" was strong, as was the opening. Padgett and Davie had an easy chemistry and Padgett generated genuine laughter. There was a sweetness there that made it easy to root for them.

I didn't care for the added (neverending) flashback sequence about their childhood.

There's not much of a set, but what's there is real and not a bunch of projections. The costumes are great. The sound was excellent for a first preview.

It's hard not watch this revival without expecting Jessica Lange to push the twins out of center stage and sing some David Bowie song. The producers should try to work with FX to run a ticket promotion with DVD pre-orders or something.

All in all a mixed night for me.

[haterobics]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 11:43pm

I am not familiar with the original staging/production/show/songs (although I do have a friend who walked out of the original Broadway production because he thought it was so bad), so hard to parse whether this would be better going in fresh, although... it does'n't sound like it. I don't have a ticket yet, so worth waiting it out for now...



Updated On: 10/28/14 at 11:43 PM

[dreaming]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 11:49pm

I will take another perspective.

I LOVED it. This is the first musical I have loved in ages. I did not see the original (I listened to the OBCR obsessively). I love the score and like the addition of the twins' backstory. It gave the story a context and I liked it from the historical perspective.

The two girls-Erin Davie and Emily Padgett-are fantastic. They give each of the twins their unique voice. I love how they sound together-and they have plenty of power. I was afraid they wouldn't but I was impressed. They work beautifully together.

I did think Hydzak was the weak link-but I really don't think he had much to work with. I liked Ryan Silverman very much, though.

I thought that David St. Louis was great as well.

I really love the production. I must say I always skipped "More Than We Bargained For" so that to me wasn't a big loss. My favorites, aside from "Tunnel of Love" are there.

I hope it catches on.

[dave1606]

Posted: 10/28/14 at 11:57pm

I was there tonight and I mostly agree with Whizzer. Full disclosure, while having owned the cast recording, I never saw the original, and was not as familiar with the score as others so I can't comment on the song and lyric changes.

After act 1, my partner and I turned to each other and our immediate reaction was that it was missing something.

I can understand not wanting to invest in a large set for a show like this, but to also light it so darkly really bothered me.

Casting-wise-Emily Padgett was definitely a standout, and even Erin Davie who I am usually not a fan of, acquitted herself nicely. The men, unfortunately, do not fare as well.

I found nearly ever man onstage exceedingly bland. Buddy and Terry could have switched places in the middle of the show and no one would have noticed. Neither made any impression.

Act 2 improved definitely, and finally made me care about what was going on onstage.

Overall, I agree with Whizzer. The score is a weak link, and the new songs don't seem to have helped. I felt like most of the show I was waiting for one of the two big songs. Definitely a mixed to "meh" from me.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 12:01am

Just to clarify- I don't think "More Than We Bargained For" is a masterpiece of a song, though I do find it tuneful, but the loss comes from the lack of character development that the number once provided. Terry and Buddy desperately need a song in the first 30 minutes after they meet the twins to establish their plans, personal goals and feelings for the twins.

Right now Buddy is doing it for the money and Buddy is just kind of there.

For all the changes they made to the score they really didn't upend the structure or storyline all that much. Why cut so much of the score only to replace it with songs that serve identical functions/espouse similar messages?

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 12:13am

How was the house? Mostly full? Sold out?

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 12:18am

What was the running time tonight? Just curious, as I'm not familiar with the show. Where was everyone sitting? I've got a ticket in the mid-mezzanine and I was worried what that'd be like for this show being at the St. James but some photos I've seen of the pre-show setup from the rear-mezzanine tonight look pretty nice. I LOVE the "curtain."

Edit: The image did not post. Sorry!
Updated On: 10/29/14 at 12:18 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 12:24am

The house was full, though I'm not sure if the balcony was open. There were lots of actors/industry people in the audience including Tommy Tune and Alice Ripley. The grosses will likely reveal a decently papered audience.

Some people tried to start applause over the opening lines of "Who Will Love Me As I Am" and "I Will Never Leave You" as if they were "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going." A little weird to me.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 12:37am

I like "Bargained For," but I will say that both leading men are pretty bland performers. I mean, I think Silverman is a hottie, but I wouldn't say either of them are the kind of actors who are "exciting" on stage. So that could just be giving bland actors bland material.

[HSky]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 12:37am

It ran around 2:20-2:25 - I posted the cast list photo within 5 minutes of the curtain call and it started a few minutes past 8. I didn't time intermission so I don't know if that ran long, but if it did, it wasn't by much.

I was in the next to last row up top and it was perfectly fine. It looked full in the mezz.

I saw it in '97 and at the Kennedy Center - I'll try to write up thoughts in the morning, it's hard to do via phone on the train. I did like it better than DC, perhaps because I already saw the major changes then.

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 1:04am

HSky, what row in the mezzanine is that? Row P, Q, R?

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 1:18am

For those of you who rushed the show and got the front row of the center section, what row *is* that? And, is the stage high for this like it was for BULLETS?

I only ask 'cause I sat in the mezz for BULLETS, but SIDE SHOW is *so* special for me. I want to be right along for the journey.

Thanks for the help in advance! :)

[getatme]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 1:22am

It's row A. The pit is pretty wide and the stage was about eye level. It was a really good view of the show. Didn't miss anything, could see feet if that's a thing people still gripe and complain about. Didn't have to crane my neck at all which was very nice.

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 7:34am

Loving the original, I can't wait to see this production in 2 days!

[Diva_Dom]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 7:34am

I was there last
I sat in the last row in the mezzanine. It was an overall clear view of the show but I want to sit closer next time. This was the first time I'd seen sideshow live and it certainly won't be the last. The cast is outstanding! Having been a fan of Emily and Alice I wasn't sure how much I would live Emily and Erin...they were fantastic. Even though I would prefer some serious belt from both leading ladies I think there vocals worked with the new additions to show and overall added to their vulnerability. I really do hope this lasts because it's a great piece of theatre. Also I have a voice recording of "I will never leave you" if anyone is interested

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 8:03am

I haven't seen this edition yet, but I really do get and appreciate Whizzer's astute analysis of why "More Than We Bargained For" was dramatically crucial to the first act trajectory. This show has always struggled with that ineffable ick factor, so debated and explicated in terms of its commercial accessibility. That song zeroed in on the two men and their contrasting emotional investments in the two women. The song, covering plot issues (learning a routine) gave the audience a way into the discomfort with contemplating any emotional intimacy with conjoined twins. In looking over the libretto, I see how much it accomplished so expeditiously, character, story and premise-setting wise. I'm not seeing the show until mid-November, so I shouldn't comment yet, but it seems as if the two fictional romantic leads have lost material and relative stage "weight" to shoehorn in the biographical/backstory details heretofore only streamlined. The focus is the Hiltons' ascendancy rather than a narrow(er) look at the romantic quartet. A trade-off, that may or may not be worth it. Whizzer makes a persuasive case that we've lost the POVs of major players half-way through act one.

I am still baffled by the excision of "We Share Everything." It was a set-piece in the show everyone loved, even naysayers. (It even was featured in the Macy's Parade, infamously, as the two women broke apart during a near close-up). The melody was infectious, and of course Longbottom's staging was brilliant. No other word. John Simon, on the fence about the show, praised that number for its elegance and poetic eloquence. It featured some of the most stunning visual vocabulary in the show, and managed to be funny as hell, too.

So now we get a more traditional sophisticated vaudeville number? I'm intrigued when Whizzer says "Lucy and Jesse," because of course that's an infamous showstopper, too. Is it that sort of Porter or (Weill) esque patter song, with clever lyrics? And a lot of compelling choreography, which "We Share Everything" gave us? Reading these posts, I'm more confused than ever as to why the other number was so arbitrarily dropped. Is it because it was Longbottom's signature piece? And his touch needed to be wiped clean? Just a question. I can't think of the show without the twins in that Eyptian drag, the Greg Barnes costumes the icing on the theatrical cake. Old fans will have to let go of their memories, but still: These decisions about revisions don't seem to track entirely with an appraisal of what always worked.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 8:46am

Auggie, I listened to "More Than We Bargained For" a couple times on the train this morning and also marveled anew at how much plot and character development they crammed into five minutes. You're right- they've pushed the love quartet/quintet aside in favor of historical background about the sisters. It might all be factual, but I think the romantic angle makes a more persuasive case for good theater.

There were so many little "why?" changes in the lyrics of the songs that did remain as well. For example, in "You Should Be Loved" the original lyric is "One of these days you will look back in shame/after you've learned that a spark's not a flame." Now we have "One of these days you will look back in shame/(paraphrase)And you will find you're only to blame"- definitely blame was the rhyming word now. Why even tinker when the original lyric is better/just as good?

It would be like going to a production of Oklahoma! and hearing, "I'm just a girl who cain't say no, whether they're small men or tall." It's not like the lyric changes the content of the song or distorts Ado Annie's character- it's just different for the sake of being different. At worst it is jarring for the audience when they expect to hear a different lyric and you risk pulling people out of the moment.

I compared the new "We Share Everything" number to Lucy and Jessie not because of witty word play, but because it's more jazzy and sultry; really it might feel more at home in a cabaret than on the Orpheum Circuit. The men dancing around the twins reminded me of the guys dancing around Jan Maxwell in the last revival too. Le Jazz Hot also works as a comparison.

The lyrics to "We Share Everything" truly are wonderful. The words crackle even more coming right out of "Leave Me Alone," which remains, but has been moved to the second act. But look at this stuff:

We're a pair remarkably mated
People swear we must be related
We can't bear to be separated
We share everything
Two songbirds
Zero friction
No strong words
Dainty diction
Harmony is what we always sing
We're so happy we share everything

I love "dainty diction," which you must have dainty diction to sing correctly! It's just delightful and as a fan of the show it was hard not to feel somewhat deflated being deprived of it last night.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 9:24am

Boy, no argument. You continue to make quite a case. Even "Harmony is what we always sing" is a perfect example of illuminating the premise with clarity and efficiency. Every word in "We Share Everything" painted a portrait of the conjoined dilemma.

(Now you've got me thinking of why "Ah, But Underneath" never works as well as "Lucy and Jesse" for me, in a way the same point. Watch Alexis Smith stop FOLLIES, as I did, twice, with "Lucy and Jesse," and ask yourself why Sondheim penned a replacement.)

Baffled I am. If they thought the Egyptian send-up motif was either tired or somehow ... insulting? ... they seemingly ended up with a far more generic framing device: diva(s) center, chorus boys encircling. Maybe we'll hear why eventually. I don't recall the loss of "We Share Everything" mentioned n La Jolla or DC reviews. Critics stayed clear of contrasting the two editions, perhaps fairly. But the score was recorded, it's been licensed. A lot of people entering the St. James won't be able to avoid comparisons, odious as they may be.

Updated On: 10/29/14 at 09:24 AM

[RaisedOnMusicals]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 9:26am

As much as I enjoy looking forward to and reading Whizzer's wonderfully written reviews of first previews, I'm puzzled about why so much time was devoted to comparing this production to the original, as if the original was an iconic piece of theater instead of the failure it turned out to be. We've been told that the "revival" is pretty close to 60% rewritten, so it's more like this is a "based on" production than a true revival (at least as to much of the book), but whatever. I know that it's hard not to compare, but I wish Whizzer could have reviewed this show on a tabula rosa to the extent possible, especially because the overwhelming number of people who will buy tickets will have not seen the original. So to me, the real question is how is this show standing alone, as if it were a new musical?

[dreaming]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 9:38am

Raised on Musicals-They should not (and I'm guessing will not) get this into the new musical category. It's a revival. The tone is altered a bit and the lyrics and songs have been tinkered with, but I really don't think they're going to be successful trying to get this into the new musical category. It's not a new musical really. (And they'd snag a slot pretty much guaranteed if they are in the revival category.)

[Kad]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 9:45am

How can this be assessed on a tabula rasa? Not only is it a revival, it's a major revisal. It is inviting comparison.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/29/14 at 10:11am

I don't think this will be classified as a new musical come Tony time, but I do think the score could be eligible for Best Score as so much of it is new, especially if you're counting new lyrics placed over old melodies. It is a revisal more than a revival, but if forced to choose between new musical and revival I would have to call it a revival.

RaisedonMusicals- I suppose I discussed the changes so much because they are what occupied my mind for a good deal of the evening. It's impossible to view it with a clean slate because the original score is so ingrained in my brain and it's only natural to compare the two.

If I had gone in cold my reaction may have been different, but I can't change or ignore the past experiences I bring to each show I see- no one can do that.

Like I mentioned, I knew that the score had been played with, but until I saw it I didn't realize to what massive extent. Right now, for me, the most interesting point of discussion is why did the creators feel the need to change what they changed. They knew they had a car that didn't start, but instead of working on the engine they changed the rims, replaced the fender and gave it a paint job. Is that enough to make it run?