Bye Bye Birdie Reviews

[Rentfan931]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 12:31am

Tonight Bye Bye Birdie opens at the Henry Miller's Theatre. Post the reviews here.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 12:59am

Bring on the carnage...

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 1:52am

Saw the show on Sunday and thought it was truly terrible, though I hope the reviews don't focus on Gina Gershon or John Stamos who hardly deserve the blame for this tame clunky production of a rather dated show.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 9:16am

I'm really hoping these reviews won't be as bad as I think they're going to be. I truly enjoyed the show.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 9:18am

I'm with bjh. I'm gonna read these with my hand half over my eyes, like in a horror movie. This won't be pretty but, of course, I'd be happy to see them get positive reviews. Weirder things have happened.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 9:30am

I thought the show couldn't possibly be as dreary as the posts hither and (especially) yon suggested. Then I saw it. The bottom line is the material itself, which would creak with a perfect cast and expert direction and focus. But the critics love to find a story in a story, and since everyone breathing in NYC knows how trashed this production has been, look for at least one critic to separate himself from the pack and declare it Unfairly Maligned by the cannibal show queens.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 9:37am

Auggie, I have to agree re the material. I'd never seen a production of the show so I was just going by the score, but God the material couldn't be more dated and clunky. Still, I'm sure someone--not Longbottom--could have assembled a good revival, but as it stands, the current production only highlights and exacerbates the problems with the material itself.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 10:33am

I disagree with the two previous posters who claim that the material would creak even with a perfect cast, expert direction, and focus. The book is very funny and well constructed, the lyrics of some of the songs are witty, and the score is tuneful. I saw the original production in 1961 with the expert direction/choreography of Gower Champion who directed with a light touch despite the raucous goings on. The Tommy Tune production of 1992 showed that a 1961 show can still be very funny and the dancing inventive. The fault of the current BYE BYE BIRDIE appears to lie with the poor acting and singing and the lackluster dancing and overall direction. Don't blame the show, blame the production.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 11:11am

Absolutely, GYPSY. There is a reason BYE BYE BIRDIE is STILL done to death

[alightinthedark23]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 11:31am

While I think John Stamos and Gina Gershon are the weakest part of this production, I don't think the WHOLE thing is a diaster. I saw the first preview and I loved all the teenagers. I wasn't sure what to think during 'An English Teacher' but then they performed 'Telephone Hour' and I was amazed. They are incredibly talented kids. Not only them, but I thought Bill Irwin and Jayne Houdyshell were wonderful and I think the critics will point that out. I do not expect it to be atrocious, but I'm certainly by no means expecting a rave.

[alightinthedark23]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 11:31am

Double Post.

Updated On: 10/15/09 at 11:31 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 11:37am

I do think it's really strange that people around here are quick to jump on this tried-and-true, hugely successful material first, and say that "no one could possibly rise to the occasion" and make it work today. Really?

You're wrong. And what a sweeping generalization to make.

Bye Bye, Birdie is produced all the time, very successfully, in regional, stock, community theatre, colleges, high schools, summer camps, and youth groups. As MB pointed out, you can add it to the short list, right next to Gypsy, Guys and Dolls, and Oklahoma, for "most often produced" musicals in this country.

So, that isn't remotely the problem. It works.

If the jokes and situations aren't funny or clever in this particular production, and everyone is groaning or rolling their eyes in the audience, blame these actors and this particular director for not doing their jobs.

The material itself works just fine elsewhere. It sure doesn't need a fifth-rate Broadway "revival" to act as a premature death knell. Sounds like there's nothing "revived" with this production at all. Clearly. But it also sounds like a lot of you can't begin to understand what the problem is and why it isn't working.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 12:58pm

Go see it, Best12, and then come back and we'll talk.

Please, make a persuasive case that "An English Teacher" is a (still) a cmpelling opening for a musical comedy in 2009. Or that we should endure an intermnable scene between Rose and Albert's mother AFTER he's proposed (with Albert himself nowhere in sight). What's startling about the production is how it exposes the focus problems and other myriad story concerns. Most of the better numbers -- please, examine the tunestack in act two -- do not even involve Albert and Rose. (If everyting ends up "Rosie," then why haven't we seen you spend some quality time with her in the 2nd act?) The romantic crisis of Albert and Rose simply doesn't hold up as a spine for a through-line, or engage. We're left with a show "about" the so-called supporting players: a teen singer who is underwritten to the point of a walk-on with non-character-specific numbers, a stock non-Jewish Jewish mother, a bunch of generic teens with boilerplate PG teen angst, and carboard, pre-sitcom parents that seem even flimsier when played by actors who've tackled VIRGINA WOOLF and FOLLIES.

But tell me how sparkling this show is, still, by all means. Just don't ask those of us who've sat stony-faced through the long, long evening at the Henry Miller to agree. Years ago, when I saw my son play Hugo in middle school, I couldn't fathom how adults could bring to life, but thought I was unnecessarily negativ. And my son was a good Hugo -- Hugo is one of the few characters with dimension; that, perhaps, says a great deal about BIRDIE's dilemma.

Updated On: 10/15/09 at 12:58 PM

[yeomansden]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 1:08pm

"Go see it, Best12, and then come back and we'll talk."

We have seen it. Many times. And sorry, yes, it still works, and always has. Just by saying the quoted line, you've proven his point. If the show didn't work, it wouldn't work anywhere. And it does. If you have to see a specific production that doesn't work, it is more likely the production, not the show that is the problem.

Here's a better idea. Why don't you go see more than just a production that is, by just about everyone's opinion, miscast, badly performed and badly directed, before you put the blame on one of musical theater's classic scripts.

[yeomansden]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 1:22pm

Okay, I reread my last post, and it seems a little harsh. If you don't like a show, you don't like a show. That happens, not everyone is going to like everything. (Personally, I thought Ragtime was long and boring...and there are huge numbers of people that disagree with me) But, as was stated before, BBB is one of the most performed shows in the country. It is doubtful that it would have gotten to that point if it was universally accepted to be a bad show. You don't like any production of a show because you don't like the show, fine. But don't expect that any of us that have seen good productions of the show, and like the material to agree with you.

Updated On: 10/15/09 at 01:22 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 2:20pm

"[O]ne of musical theater's classic scripts"?

REALLY?

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 2:51pm

I think there's a difference between a show being dated and being "of its time". I think Birdie is the later. You don't have to see this production to know if it doesn't work or not. I've seen dozens of productions and have never felt the material was the reason for any of the faults of those productions.

Birdie was "of its time". If you play it convincingly and not like a dated period piece you can't do much wrong.

[bway boy]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 3:32pm

My opinon a boring dissapointment.
Gina- really good
John- horrid
Bill- i love him in other things but obnoxious
Allie whatever her name is-weak
matt-forgettable
Albert's mother-over the top
direction-sloppy
choreography-"okay"
the kids descent

[bjh2114]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 3:43pm

"the kids descent"

What stairs were they descending? I don't remember them coming down anything other than the jungle gym...

[Eris0303]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 6:02pm

Gina- really good

If you mean her acting then I agree. If you mean her singing and dancing then I disagree.

John- horrid

Disagree with ya on this one as well. "Horrid" is way too harsh of a word. He's not fabulous but I found him likeable.

Allie whatever her name is-weak

If you're going to review an actor on this board it helps you credibility to know their name. Allie Trimm is not weak. She's talented and adorable.


the kids descent

The kids were the best part of the show. And they descended into hysteria over Birdie.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/15/09 at 6:03pm

PS: To people interested in posting and reading reviews. Let's keep them in Limelight's thread.