Tarzan Reviews- Page 5

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 1:40am

The thing is that the Disney marketing machine is more powerful than any slate of reviews. As I recall, Aida got mostly mixed-to-negative reviews, yet still ran for four-and-a-half years. Tarzan's currently a sellout and probably will continue to be for a little while. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it ended up running for a few years.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 1:44am

did Aida really get mixed-to-negative reviews? that's encouraging, at least to me...I've never seen Aida, but it seems like a lot of people really liked it.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 1:46am

Newark Star-Ledger is Negative:

"That skinny dude with the nasty dreadlocks is supposed to be Tarzan?

This big green box bordered in plastic fringe is meant to be the African jungle?

Worse than anything, this dumbed-down Disney package of vapid Phil Collins songs with a numbing script is being touted as a new Broadway musical?

The 2005-06 season shudders to a close with "Tarzan," a forgettable extravaganza that opened yesterday at the Richard Rodgers Theatre as the final event to qualify for this year's Tony Awards.

Not that "Tarzan" is likely to win anything except the Straight to Vegas prize.
______________________________________________________________

So lots of grown-ups are destined to bring the kiddies for many months to come, buying tons of souvenirs and trying to convince themselves they got their money's worth. (Can anyone spell "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"?)

Etch-a-sketched from Edgar Rice Burroughs' old yarn about an aristocratic ape-man, David Henry Hwang's simplistic text relates how an infant is shipwrecked upon African shores in 1888.
________________________________________________________________

"Tarzan" is what it is: a competent, glossy, but strangely empty musical for family audiences who can't get seats to "The Lion King." There's not a moment of genuine emotion or real wit to its familiar story and pleasant, lushly orchestrated pop music.

Fortunately, director and designer Bob Crowley -- a tremendous artist -- provides some very lovely visuals that beguile the eye while the tuner trundles along.
________________________________________________________________

So two and a half hours or so later, "Tarzan" is over and nobody's the worse for it (aside from financially), but on the other hand, nobody has been transported into magical realms of delight, either. The show doesn't boast the dramatic punch of "Wicked" or the splendid tunes of "Beauty and the Beast" or anything much else, really, aside from some imaginative stage pictures and an able cast.

Better skip it and start saving up now for those tickets to "Mary Poppins" in the fall."




http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1147323773193820.xml&coll=1

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 1:58am

Mostly positive on the sets? No...not correct.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:02am

Granted, I didn't follow the reviews (critical or amateur) when Aida opened, but it seems like people have much worse things to say about Tarzan than they did, and still do about Aida. Based on that and my admitted love affair with Aida, I'd expect better from this creative team.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:06am

AIDA is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, MUCH better than TARZAN.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:06am

See, this is what they get for closing it. It's just karma, if ya ask me.

[DG]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:08am

Munk - please remember it is STILL your personal opinion. While you seem willing to vilify this, while giving LESTAT at least a reluctant pass, there are those (myself included) who would like to see Elton et al eviscerated for what we were subjected to.

In the end, we all respond to what speaks to US - art be damned.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:10am

I think I'm gonna start liking Tarzan just because everyone else seems to hate it. that's usually how I operate. I end up liking shows that most posters here don't like. I'll hold off judgment, though, until I see it. so far I'm enjoying the visuals.
Updated On: 5/11/06 at 02:10 AM

[DG]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:13am

"I'll hold off judgment, though, until I see it."

What a novel concept.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:22am

I don't like the whole "showing the cord" concept. It seems like a cop out to me. I mean if they're going to stick with that concept, at least make the cords green so they like vines. I mean the ones the gorillas use are like fuzzy and brown, like they're God-awful costumes. That just gets confusing. Is the cord an extension of their bodies? What? I think I might get the Cast Recording, the music isn't great (I dont like Phil Collins - it sounds too...cheesy?) I like the theatricality of it all. And I really hate the way those cords in the shipwreck scene are HUGE. It could have been done more artistically. I think this show has great potential. It's a very interesting story, but I think it was put in the wrong hands. The set could have been way more inventive. Maybe they could have put branches out in the audience, on the balcony, etc. and had the gorillas perched up in them. That would have been interesting. To make the house into the rest of the jungle. Oh well.

As for the reviews, they don't seem to mention the acting or singing at all. Maybe that's for the better? but I doubt any of them will get nominated. It seems like in Disney shows the acting and singing is only secondary. How were the reviews for Beauty and the Beast?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:27am

NY Post is Negative:

"YOU, "Tarzan"! Me, Agonized!

Disney's new musical swung shakily into the Richard Rodgers Theatre last night, and as far I'm concerned, it can swing right back out again. It made me nostalgic for "The Drowsy Chaperone" and even "Lestat." Well, perhaps not "Lestat."

The talented Phil Collins wrote the music for "Tarzan," and here and there, glints of that talent shone through - although it was all so vastly overamplified that it seemed to be making up in volume whatever it was it lacked anywhere else.

The book, by David Henry Hwang of "M. Butterfly" fame, tried hard to anthropomorphize the gorillas and to humanize the humans in a ludicrously doomed effort to give the love story of Tarzan and Jane credibility - something, ironically, that seemed not to trouble more credible versions of Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic potboiler.

Perhaps the most acceptable aspect of this sad, busy and loud evening was Bob Crowley's staging and designs. Together, with Natasha Katz's lighting, he offered images of true beauty.
_______________________________________________________________

But the show was wrecked from the onset by its concept. Perhaps the Disney people will realize that not every one of their cartoons contains the kernel of a great Broadway show.


http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/68358.htm

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:31am

[Anyone happen to know who reviewed Beauty and the Beast for the times? I'm having trouble finding it on the site. Thanks.]

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:32am

As for the reviews, they don't seem to mention the acting or singing at all. Maybe that's for the better? but I doubt any of them will get nominated. It seems like in Disney shows the acting and singing is only secondary. How were the reviews for Beauty and the Beast?

I think there's a lot behind this, and that it's a statement of only partial truth. Do you mean it's secondary in terms of the actual quality, as in that Disney cares less about the talent it puts into its shows and more about the glitz and glamour? Or do you mean that it's secondary in terms of what the reviewers focus on? Either way, I think that's not all true.

Take the former. Look at the immense talent in Tarzan -- look at the names in this cast; I'm not even talking about the two leads, but people like Chester Gregory, Merle Dandridge, Shuler Hensley... hugely talented. They didn't cop out on casting here. Look at the talent pumped into AIDA's original cast. Enormous. Beauty too, to an extent -- but Susan Egan, IMO, just doesn't get the love she deserves. The only show for which I can see that being a valid claim is The Lion King; but that show *is* all about the visuals. As long as there are able, competent actors in it, it's going to be fine, because the wow factor rests almost entirely in how visually stunning Julie Taymor's work is.

Now take the latter. I think the reason that the reviews aren't addressing the acting and singing much is because with the way the reviewers are approaching this show, it's kind of moot. What they're saying indicates that it's not about how talented the actors are; people aren't going to go see it because Jenn Gambatese is a good singer, they're going to go see it (or not go see it) because of the "other stuff" about it. They're making a point, I think, that cuts both ways. With the stigma that exists against stuff like this, a reviewer who's not in favor of the show existing and goes in set to hate it for what it is (which potentially happened with AIDA, in some cases), they're going to write their review about the reasons why this isn't something that belongs on Broadway, etc, etc, etc. And again, as I said before, it also works in order to focus on that which the general public is going to care about with regard to a show like this, and I don't think that's the acting.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:34am

For some reason, the BATB review isn't there, RentBoy.

http://theater2.nytimes.com/gst/theater/tdetails.html?id=1077011420199

Updated On: 5/11/06 at 02:34 AM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:36am

Yeah, I just noticed that. Well thanks Emcee for looking for me. I was just wondering how it was recieved by the critics. Although it did win the Tony. I just didn't get why that show is still running. But to each his own.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:38am

Updated On: 5/11/06 at 02:38 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:40am

Margo, that was in reply to RentBoy's post about the Times review for BATB.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:40am

OK. Here it is:

http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=9F0CE1D91431F93AA25757C0A962958260

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:41am

Well written Emcee, but I still disagree. In the original cast, sure they had a lot of compitent singers/actors. But, in terms of quality, I don't think Disney puts a lot of emphasis on the acting/singing. It seems like they don't trust themselves. Like, if they put a lot of glitz and glamour to hide the music and dialogue, maybe people won't notice. Again, maybe the original casts were great, but I saw the touring productions of Lion King and Beauty and the Beast and I thought they both were horrible in terms of acting, and for the most part singing. And I know you have a love affair for Adam Pascal, but I didn't really care for him in Aida. And to me, Aida just seemed cheap. Although I like certain parts of the score, I was just a little confused as to what it was trying to be. But I'm not trying to fight, so please don't take offense to this.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 2:49am

Well.

I don't think it's their main focus, no. But I don't think you can really accuse them of cheaping out, or not caring about who they cast, at least when you're speaking in terms of original casting.

This argument, contrary to popular belief, is not being held down by my love affair with Adam Pascal (patronizing much?); I listed plenty of other people who I believe to be of great talent in order to prove my point, Adam being one of many. Besides the fact that I do take mild offense to the term, because it's not some shallow fangirl obsession with a pretty face and a nice ass, despite the widely-held theory that he's devoid of talent, thank you very much. I also take offense to the fact that people are so quick to jump to the conclusion that he's the basis for any argument I make that might be even the slightest bit related to him. I think I know what I'm talking about more than to make *such* an over-arching statement based on being an Adam fan, or because I liked AIDA (and if you didn't, to each his own, whatever). I liked it, but I certainly recognize that it was full of flaw. Despite disclaimer, it just... kind of gets old. Thinking he's hot doesn't breed attempted well-thought out argument.

That said, I don't think you can say Disney doesn't put emphasis on it; they may not seem to put *as much* emphasis on it as they do visual stunts and the like, but they don't, at least for original companies (poor subsequent stunt casting choices aside), seem to cast hapharzardly. I don't really know what you'd consider "enough" emphasis on it, especially if you're considering Tarzan in this. It's a good cast. If you're making the distinction between the tour casts that happen ten years down the road and the original cast, then there's a big difference, but that's not just a Disney problem; it happens with other shows, too. Hell, look at Rent.

Updated On: 5/11/06 at 02:49 AM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 3:02am

No, you're right. But c'mon, if you stripped Aida of all its glitz and glamour and put it in a cabret setting, or Beauty and the Beast, or Lion King, it wouldn't hold up to so many other shows.

And I wasn't harping on your obsession with Adam Pascal, we all have our own obsessions, but I just wanted to put the disclaimer in there just to know that I wasn't jumping on you for liking him. It's just that I find him sort of pompous and the way he sings makes me feel bad for him because he's tearing up his vocal chords and I don't find him a very versatile actor.

Anyways, I wasn't trying to start an arguement with my comment, just saying I don't think Disney puts a lot of emphasis on the things that should matter most in a musical - I.E. The dialogue and music. And the music part is disputable, but dialogue? No, it's just plain bad.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 3:05am

I think Disney puts a lot of effort into it's casting - atleast for the original casts.

The problem with most Disney shows are that the performers (no matter how first rate they are) almost always appear amateur because of the ridiculous material they're given.

The original cast of AIDA, though, was a rare exception - and each and every one of them outshone their awful direction and mediocre material.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 3:08am

Yeah, maybe that's true. Again, I haven't seen the original casts. I just remember how Idina Menzel in Aida looked
re-dunk-ulous up there. She didn't move at all. And again, maybe that's the direction - although I don't think a good director should tell the actors how to "act" the part - but anyways, maybe I just have some bitterness for some of the crap they put up on stage. I still don't see the big deal with Lion King.

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 5/11/06 at 3:14am

The reason I have really wanted to see this was because Bob Crowley has been my idol for a long time, and seeing pictures of his Carousel and Aida sets are a big reason why I am a set designer today. I was especially excited about the much-talked about opening sequence...but now that I have seen the video...I sort of feel like I have seen everything i want to see and don't have as strong desire to see the show itself. And yes the Gorillas were pretty disaponting to me. I definitely am not one to force realism in theatre, but it would have been nice if they had some suggestion of apeness, like part of the siloutte (built up forarms or shoulders or something).

Akiva