Big Fish Chicago previews- Page 3

[pndmnd]

Posted: 4/9/13 at 8:45am

I went to the first preview performance last week (and am just now having time to write a quick comment). I'm not going into too much detail, but I'm in the group that loved it! Was it perfect? No. Do you go to a first preview of a pre-Broadway tryout expecting perfection? No. Overall, I really enjoyed! I know they'll make some changes before it opens on Broadway, and I think they have a really good base to work off of.

There were some first performance issues (mostly technical things), which have probably already been fixed. Mic levels were of, especially in the first act. A quick change costume decided to make its debut a little early. I'm pretty sure that Bobby Steggert's mic fell off during one number. The overall pacing could have been picked up a bit, but again it was the first preview. I would expect that that is something that has already improved. Several of the numbers seemed too long, but I'm sure that those will be changed over the next several months.

I thought Norbert Leo Butz was perfect casting! I've seen him in other shows and have always thought him to be a stronger actor than singer (not a bad singer, but a stronger actor). This is the best that he's ever sounded to me! Bobby Steggert was good as Will, but it sounded to me like his voice tired on Tuesday (as in, if it hadn't been the first preview he might not have performed?). I've never seen him perform before, though, so maybe that's just the quality of his voice. I did have trouble with Josephine being portrayed as over-the-top French, but that's just something that I hope they'll change.

It seems that most of the commenters who didn't like it also don't like the movie, which I love! If you don't like Edward or Will in the movie, then you probably aren't going to like them in the musical. If you don't like the comedy/drama aspect of the movie, then you probably aren't going to like it in the musical. I just hope that Chicago audiences give it a chance and don't ruin it with scathing reviews early on (ala Pirate Queen) when it really could be cleaned up into a great show!

[JeaniusIsMe]

Posted: 4/12/13 at 1:09pm

Question for those who have seen the show: Most of the side orchestra seats are labeled as partial view. Based on the set design- do you guys think they are really partial view, or do you think people will catch most/all of the action? Thanks.

[ggersten]

Posted: 4/12/13 at 2:05pm

I don't know about seats labelled "partial view" - but part of our group sat in the "right orchestra" and had trouble seeing things that were happening Stage Left.
We sat around row S on Left Orchestra about 5 seats in from the end - and had no trouble seeing anything. But the seats were not labelled "partial view".
The stage is kind of high for the first few rows - and there is the "river" on the front of the stage - and there is some major action at the back of the stage (like the Elephant dance) which you likely would miss if too close and to the side.

[lds19]

Posted: 4/14/13 at 4:17pm

Saw it last night. I was impressed, particularly since it was only the second week. I knew nothing about it coming in - have not seen the movie. Could it be improved? Of course. A few scenes seemed to drag. But it's in remarkably good shape for second week. No doubt they are seeing what works and doesn't work with the audience - but even that changes. Last night, they clearly got applause where they weren't expecting it and I think it was Butz who had to stop mid-line, wait for the applause to end, and then start over.

About side views. They have a false proscenium (perhaps to match where it will be on Broadway - AFAIK, the Oriental is a wider stage than the typical broadway stage) so side seats are impacted. Also a false stage on top of the real stage adding several inches to the stage height so for the close rows (and we were second row), that's another viewing impact.

Anyway, it met one of my tests for a good show which is the time seemed to fly by causing me to think "What? It's over already?" even though a look at the watch on the way out said it had been 2:40.

[theaterdrew]

Posted: 4/14/13 at 6:30pm

I've been holding off on buying tickets because I don't know that this is selling all that well. Right now, it looks like I have a choice of center orchestra row P, front row dress circle, and front row loge/mezz on the Thankyou promotion. I'm not familiar with this theater--any advice on which to choose?

[emmessann]

Posted: 4/14/13 at 9:58pm

I saw it last week and liked it more than not. The choreo was flat but the work with the projections was lovely and served the story well.

I agree that a core problem is that the son is unsympathetic. The son wants the bare truth and the dad tells beautiful lies; the lies are a lot more interesting and have more heart.

My biggest problem that left me a little hollow was the second act. I believe this is from the movie version but not the book's. Without giving it all away, the son realizes that maybe all the beautiful lies were covering up an ugly (but very common) truth.

I would like the story much more if they were brave enough to face that ugly truth. Instead, like the movie, the ugly facts are prettied up to an implausible level. It takes away the power, because the point isn't "hey, learn to love your dad even if he's far from perfect." It actually turns out to be "learn to love your dad because he's so much better than you imagined." I would much rather have seen the son forgive his father for something meaningful.

The ending past this revelation was my favorite part of the show and had a ton of heart, but this phony-feeling twist let some of the air out for me.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 4/15/13 at 10:10am

I saw it on the 6th. The overall impression is a good one. But, there is no sense that his son ever cared about him. In this show, it wasn't that he lost his childhood innocence and became jaded. They have to establish that relationship. I was expecting a little more theatrical eye candy, especially in the circus scenes. Maybe they are holding off to wow us on broadway. Some nice songs, but none at first hearing that would seem to be sure "hits" with staying power in the broadway songbook.

It was pretty funny coincidence that the 3 shows I saw that weekend all had the orchestra on risers behind the stage and could be seen by the audience and all had the moon in the background at some point.

[pndmnd]

Posted: 4/15/13 at 11:14am

For the people asking about partial view seating, if you are in Chicago I would suggest stopping by the box office ans asking their opinion. A friend of mine did that with Book of Mormon and it turned out that the view from some of the seats was not limited at all. Apparently they had to set the seating prices before they knew for sure how the set might impact things, so they played it safe. It still might not be a gaurantee, but since it has been running for a couple of weeks now I would think that the box office staff might have received some feedback on the seats.

[Paul W. Thompson]

Posted: 4/18/13 at 2:18pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Photo-Flash-First-Look-at-Norbert-Leo-Butz-Kate-Baldwin-in-Broadway-Bound-BIG-FISH-20130418

First production photos!

[BwayFan4]

Posted: 4/18/13 at 3:13pm

SPOILERS...

That's a really interesting issue you bring up about "the ugly truth"... I guess I am naive and always thought that he was telling the truth. But maybe he wasn't? The thing that always made me believe he was truthful was that the wife (Jessica Lange's character) was always so supportive, sure of their love, and not jealous at all. Even the woman in the town says "There were only two women in your father's world... your mother and then everyone else." So I never took away from it that there was actually an "ugly truth," although it sort of seems strange if wasn't...otherwise, why was he so emotionally involved with that town? Fascinating...

[emmessann]

Posted: 4/18/13 at 9:52pm

SPOILERS...

As far as I can tell, the play and the movie are the same: there is no ugly truth. I haven't read the book, but according to Wikipedia, in the book, there is.

From a storyteller's perspective, I think the ugly truth is necessary for a balanced story. The show skips over it because it would be very hard to deal with and keep the dad likable, but that's a cheat. "He told beautiful lies, and then I learned there was an ugly truth behind them and I had to deal with that" is a lot more true-to-life than "He told beautiful lies, and then I learned there was a truth that wasn't quite as beautiful, but actually proved he was a noble hero who lied about it, for reasons that the audience is just supposed to accept as plausible human nature."

In real life, the truth of people who lie all the time is that some of the lies are self-serving to protect the liar from ugly facts. If there is nothing ugly to hide and protect, then what are the lies for? Plenty of the audience have lived what the dad's story briefly appears to be, as the kid or as one of the parents. None of the audience will have experienced the supposed "truth" the dad is hiding, because it just isn't true-to-life.

And yet: I liked the show and cried through the ending, because I found the son's final understanding so moving. I loved the way the dad's stories were portrayed. I just thought this incident that's supposed to bring conflict and forgiveness rang hollow at the middle.

[daisybeetle]

Posted: 4/22/13 at 8:07pm

I saw it last week and even though there were people tearing up at the end, it's still a musical and the music was not memorable. Not one song.

[Marlothom]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 1:37am

Just got back from seeing this - 3rd row center ($70!). I could not help but compare this to Kinky Boots (why I also liked) in that both shows deal with father-son relationships. I thought the book is very strong, but maybe so strong that it drags in trying to tell a cohesive story- and (most) of the songs are character driven but you won't leave the theatre humming them. Whereas Kinky Boots glosses over things in its book and hits you with a catchy tune at just the right moments. I fear that tourists will come expecting breezy/light musical and get something deeper.

Anyway I was very impressed, thought Norbert was remarkable and Kate Baldwin was amazing! Bobby Steggert hooked me at the very end. I was surprised to see Angie Schworer, who I saw as Ulla with Nathan/Matthew in the ensemble. She is not understudying Sandra.

I was also surprised how time flew! They told me at the box office it was a 2:40 show - it felt like an hour. I hope this does well.

[theaterdrew]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 11:43am

Saw it last night. I didn't care for it overall. I haven't seen the movie, so my response is to it is purely as a piece of theater. I didn't like the first scene because it didn't give me enough to be able to buy the son's negativity. **Spoiler**The wedding scene might make more sense as the first scene in that regard, with a flashback to the first time the son hears the "big fish" story. The wedding scene, with the father stealing all the attention, gave the son a real basis for expressing his frustrations. Later, they suggest the son's problem is that his father traveled all the time and brought nothing home but new BS stories, and the son never felt his father truly loved him and wanted to be with his family. Well, the wedding scene should be capable of establishing all of that. I just didn't get the needed depth from the scene with Young Will at the start.**END Spoiler**

I'd be surprised, though, if they make very many changes to the Broadway version. I suspect they think they've got a package that works and I found the pacing fairly tight. Lots of sniffles at the end.

Kate Baldwin was great, and I liked Bobby Steggert's sincere performance. If you like NLB's brand of scenery chewing, you'll like his performance. Otherwise, like me, you'll be wishing for a more authentic performance.

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 12:11pm

Saw the show last night and I was blown away. I had no idea I would fall so in love with the show. I left the theatre feeling so fulfilled and satisfied. It is hard for me to believe that the show was derived from any other source because it seems so complete and natural in its life as a musical. The story is so perfectly theatrical and emotionally forthright that musical theatre seems the perfect vehicle for it. (Side note, I had seen the movie years ago but, honestly, barely remembered any of it.)

Where to begin my praises? I suppose we should to start with Norbert, the heart and soul of the show, who I could easily see winning his third Tony for this role. He is just electric on that stage and excels at whatever he does. He made seamless transitions between ages (while still keeping the same Edward character he had developed, no matter the age). This is a role I now have a hard time picturing anyone else in because he so clearly has created this beautiful, flawed, many-layered character. I didn’t feel like he relied on his Freddy from “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” antics (which I think would have been easy to slip into often in this role) and found his performance to be very nuanced. I was in awe of him the entire time and he grabbed me from the beginning – I was enchanted with Edward Bloom and his beautiful stories (and his outlook on life) from the start, just as we should be. Not to say that Norbert only played the magical, whimsy side; he captured the audience from the start with his tales, humor, and excitement (as the character does to others) and when we were brought back to reality, it was easy to see (and relate to and sympathize with) his flaws as a human being, which sealed the character-to-audience connection for me. Norbert’s Edward Bloom, and the show in general, is beautiful, theatrical, and dream-like, yet all rooted in the reality of human emotions and relationships.

Kate Baldwin also shined. What a warm, wonderful presence, both her character in the show and the actress onstage. Butz and Baldwin had wonderful chemistry and formed a relationship to root for.

I suppose the weakest link was Bobby Steggert who seemed a bit stiff, particularly in act one. However, his strong point was his dramatic acting chops in the second act (where I really loved him in the character).

I know one complaint of others I had read before seeing the show was that people never saw a good side to the relationship between Edward and Will and, therefore, had a hard time caring about it being repaired. I am not sure if things were changed or both Bobby and Norbert were able to find different moments to combat this, but I never felt this way at all. I saw a lot of tenderness in their relationship, however strained it was. I believe they both always meant well and strove for a connection with the other, they just tried to create it in different ways the other couldn’t understand.

As for the rest of the cast, everyone is top notch. It is an extremely strong cast and they all seemed quite comfortable in their roles, including the ensemble.

I would also just like to note that this is a great example of using projections in the theatre. Never in place of something, only to enhance. Very well done.

Was I crying along with the rest of the audience for the last 20 minutes? Yes. However, I want to make the point that I often think people are clouded by tear-jerkers into thinking that just because they cried it was a good show (I have absolutely been to shows where everything was quite dismal, but they were excellent at producing tears). This was not the case with this show. Were there moments that were devastating? Absolutely. However, the show earned this point of devastation and none of it was just to induce tears; everything was supported by telling the story.

I was surprised by how fluid the show was. As I am still in the “Big Fish” world, even the morning after seeing it, I can only relate it to a flowing river. The transitions between stories and present day were very well done and I think this flow really influenced the music (or perhaps the other way around). The music was lush and full (I already can’t wait to get it on a recording). Many on here have commented that there are no songs that stuck out to them or were memorable and I think that may have to do with the purpose and placement of the songs within the show (although, neither of these were my experience as I was humming tunes at intermission and after the show and have my few stand-outs: particularly the song between Edward and Will at Will’s wedding and the moment that Edward and Sandra see each other). There are only a few uninterrupted songs (in terms of dialogue or other action); most others almost seem more like interludes in the moments where they need music to express their emotions. Personally, I loved this and it added to the wonderful flow of the show and did exactly what I felt musical theatre songs should do: took over when speaking just isn’t enough. And, especially in the story sequences, everything was so theatrical and underscored with music anyway that you barely noticed when they began to sing because it appeared the natural thing for these characters to do.

This was one of the most exciting, worthy new pieces of musical theatre I have seen in a while and a real breath of fresh air among some of the recent shows to grace the Broadway stage. It’s a truly special show that is thought-provoking and moving. I feel like even with any flaws this show might have, it is still a more important piece of art to see than many other musicals these days (to be clear, I am not saying it is more important than other musicals – who is to judge that – I mean it is more important to see than other shows, both in its humanity and in terms of fostering and supporting theatre like this). I wish nothing but good things for this production and cast and hope that enough New York audiences give this show a chance (the audience last night seemed very receptive to the show).

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 12:37pm

>>"I know one complaint of others I had read before seeing the show was that people never saw a good side to the relationship between Edward and Will and, therefore, had a hard time caring about it being repaired."

I don't see their relationship as one where the word "repair" would apply. Because Edward was a traveling salesman, he was absent from Will's childhood. All he knows of him are the "fish tales" that Will believes are lies.

When he seeks the truth from his father, his father is incapable of telling any "truths", EXCEPT for the one truth he knows about himself - that he is is a storyteller. This only further frustrates Will's attempt at any real connection.

It's only when Will makes the journey himself, to physically walk through his father's past footprints to Spectre, that he finds the truth he's looking for. Tragically, the truth he finds is almost too late. It comes just in time to solidify an acceptance of his father and his story-telling, but too late to relish/nurture it for any length of time. His symbolic gesture in the ending is incredibly loving.
Updated On: 5/3/13 at 12:37 PM

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 12:47pm

Yes, perhaps “repair” is not the right word to use in that instance as their relationship was never whole enough to be broken; I actually thought about the use of it as I was writing it. Perhaps I should have said “…had a hard time caring about fostering a deeper relationship between the two.”

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 12:59pm

>> "Perhaps I should have said “…had a hard time caring about fostering a deeper relationship between the two.”

I think Will is extremely frustrated by the fact that EVERYONE else in his world loves his father so dearly. He wants very much to be able to do the same (he wants to avoid "repeating history" with his own children), yet feels "locked out" because his father can't be honest with him.

Those that DO love his father are adults and actually "lived" the truth of his life. They have no need for discovery beyond the fish tales because they were present and part of the "truth".

But Will is playing a frustrating game of "catch-up" that they don't have to. The one person, most accessible and able to assist him in "winning" the game, doesn't want to (or can't) play.

I think it's perfectly OK for audience members to be unsympathetic with Will at the start of the show. It's what makes the ending so strong.

Hopefully, the first act of the show (and the fish tales) are strong enough to keep you interested in, and fall in love with Edward to a point that you start hoping his son will, too.

Updated On: 5/3/13 at 12:59 PM

[ggersten]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 1:02pm

In terms of changes from the first week-
is Showdown still in Act 2 and is it any good now?
Is Karl's dance more energetic - perhaps more tapping?
Does the Act 2 opener generate excitement or is it still dull?

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 1:12pm

"I think it's perfectly OK for audience members to be unsympathetic with Will at the start of the show. It's what makes the ending so strong."

Completely agree. As long as we are enamored by Edward and understand the effect he has on others with his stories, we can grow to sympathize with Will. I was definitely on Edward’s “side,” if you will, but was still understanding of Will’s struggles. How Will’s character matures at the end was very rewarding.

"Showdown" is still in Act 2 and was probably the one song that didn't work the most for me, as the show already has establish a rhythm of only story or reality sequences, so having a fantasized, present day, dream-like state was a bit alarming. However, the transition out of "Showdown" worked very well for me.

It’s hard for me to answer your questions about Karl’s dance and the Act 2 opener, as I didn’t see the show early in the run to have a comparison with (and, I personally found neither dull or unenergetic). Karl doesn’t do a crazy amount of dancing, so it may be the same as when you saw.

Updated On: 5/3/13 at 01:12 PM

[jamiekennywicked]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 1:25pm

How is the Witch handled in the show? I heard she's no longer the old woman, but rather a more funky belting character. I've also heard her compared to Michelle Visage..

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 1:39pm

Right, the witch is not an old woman and does has a funky, belting song. The song needs a bit of work, but I really like the direction they are going with it (and the movement/choreography). She reminded me of a role Sara Ramirez would be great in. She really is only in the show for her number (***SPOILER ALERT*** and when all of the characters return in their “realistic” forms at the funeral, where she looks more like an eccentric, goth-styled woman. ***END SPOILER***)

Edited to add: ***POSSIBLE SPOILER*** The Witch's song is trying to get Edward to look at how he dies, saying how your life can begin when you know how it ends, face your fears, etc. He consents to see how he dies at the end of the song. ***END SPOILER***

Updated On: 5/3/13 at 01:39 PM

[emmessann]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 10:50pm

***Spoilers***

(I can only compare the second week of performance to last week, but the show didn't show much momentum for change in that time.)

Showdown is still in Act 2 and completely unchanged. It absolutely needs to go. I suspect they can't bear to drop something that big, but it's a massive production that should be a more intimate, searing moment (perhaps more like "This River Between Us.")

My other pick for "please, please cut" is everything to do with the camping trip where Will says he realized his dad's stories were lies. This is a hokey World War II USO-type number that bears an unfortunate resemblance to the Captain America movie (in which Cap goes on an extended show tour and "punches Hitler" 300 times in front of Rockettes.) I found it trite and far overlong. (Plus the pointless dancing fire girl must go.)

What's more, and I realized this was an ongoing problem, they don't line up the number with the idea they're trying to express. Little Will asks some vague questions about which war this actually was, and that's that, no other reaction/comprehension. If this is the moment that Will figured things out, they've taken something important away from his story.

Other places with this problem: I realized I have no idea whether the wife or Jenny would keep roofs over their heads, even though they both sing about this concern. Will brought Jenny a mortgage, not a deed, and there's no resolution to Mom's possible issues. Why make it a danger and not resolve it?

The dancing elephants are a similar miss. There's a line that the girls could stay in the show if they could teach their dance to elephants. Fifteen long minutes later, elephant butts are dancing, because...? The throwaway could be much more effective if there was more connection.

Is Karl's dance more energetic - perhaps more tapping?

Karl's dance is basically as before, when I've seen it. I wonder if the actor keeps falling. It's looking like they won't do more with the stilts than the most tentative steps.

Does the Act 2 opener generate excitement or is it still dull?

I can't remember what it is, but there were relatively few changes between the second week and last week, and not in Act 2.

The only substantial number change: Instead of starting with Will's whiny monologue, they dive almost directly into The Day That You Were Born. From the bedroom into the fantasy, most of the company are now fishing by the river, Edward draws them into the story, and they all get swallowed by the big fish and spout corny dialogue therein. It's on the right track but now it's too much to enjoy the family moment (a la Showdown.)

The other tinkering I noticed has been with very small dialogue/actor inflections to depict greater affection and longing to temper Edward and Will's frustration. It comes across much better with the tweaks.

I realized on reflection that nearly all of the effects magic drains out of the show rather quickly, and after Daffodils the numbers are more pedestrian. The high point is the Witch's forest, which gets audible gasps and spontaneous applause. A little air is let out as the audience realizes the rest won't be like that.

I'd agree that the songs seem flat alone, but become memorable and catchy when acted out. In context, it's a deceptively strong score.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 11:30pm

I saw the show Sunday afternoon and mostly enjoyed it. I got $30 tickets from Goldstar way in the back of the balcony, but the ushers were upgrading everybody's tickets (I guess it wasn't selling very well) and I ended up with orchestra seats, so that put me in a good mood.

I think the three main leads are perfectly cast, especially Norbert. He has such great presence that he is very believable as a dramatic story-teller.

The best song in the score is the act one finale, "Daffodils". It was so beautiful, romantic, intimate, and theatrical and really representative of what the show could be.

On the other hand, several moments that attempted to be theatrical fell flat. The giant song (appropriately titled "Bigger") was not the fun it tried so hard to be. Also, it just repeated what the scene before it just said. The witch's song is also weird and says nothing new. Both are very visually appealing, but they don't do anything dramatically, nor do we really get to know the characters any better through them.

The opening took too long--what the movie covers in a fast-paced montage takes 20 to 25 minutes to cover. "The God's Honest Truth" may be a fun song, but it should be cut. The show should open with the dad telling us the fish story, the end directed to the audience at the wedding, going right into "The River Between Us," allowing the story to start quickly. The way it works now takes too much of act one for the show to really find its footing. The show would really benefit if act one really focuses on the stories and act two is an evaluation of them, giving a clear approach to the story.

Overall, I enjoyed the second act much more than the first, save for the terrible western number. This act was made mostly of more intimate moments, which were the most successful ones in the show. The last 20 minutes or so of the show are near perfect, although I didn't need the reprise of the opening number. This part of the show really convinced me that with hard work at rewriting over the summer, this show could really be an amazing piece of theatre--perhaps even a classic musical if the right changes are made. If the creative team knows what needs to be done, New Yorkers could be very lucky this fall.

[theaterdrew]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 8:24am

Spoilers**

Re: the elephant butts, I got the impression they were trying to suggest Edward had to clean up after them as part of the grunt work he was doing to get his future wife's name. But, they were too timid to provide the real payoff for that, i.e., a little elephant dung.

**End Spoilers

As again someone who hasn't seen the movie, I liked the witch's number the best of all the songs and dances in the show.