Godspell - First Preview Tonight- Page 3

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 1:44am

labwyfan- If the creative teams of any show want to read message boards like this to see what people are saying, more power to them. There have been many wonderful suggestions/critiques over the years from the numerous savvy posters on this board. I'm not in any way suggesting they bow down to the opinions of the posters on BWW, but what's the point of previews if not to gather feedback and make changes.

Some actors change their performances a lot during previews, others come to show with pretty much their character in place. Tonight I mainly took issue with some of the singing styles. I didn't give a detailed description of anyone's performance except taking major issue with Hunter's singing voice.

This is a forum to discuss theater. Why do it? Because that's what this board exists to facilitate. I raved about Other Desert Cities last night. Should I have held back or should I only post when I have something nice to say? We discuss every show here. The good, bad and the ugly, and it would be a tough task for us all to agree on what shows fall into those categories.

[jbm2]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 1:46am

I am not familiar with this show.....is this really a "family show"?

[labwyfan]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 2:13am

I'm on the west coast...what are you still doing up? Anyway, thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate it and it doesn't seem like you meant any harm by your post. I just don't think it's fair to "publish" anything based on the first preview alone. You see from the comments on this thread how it can snowball! I get that you paid full price for your ticket and that it's your thing to be the first to write up a show here. However, you didn't give out as many specific details for Other Desert Cities as you did for this! :)

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 2:18am

If there's one thing I hate more than anything it's when older generations try to "update" something for younger, modern audience. It is ALWAYS bad. Like when "The Wiz" in La Jolla used a Totto-Cam. Stupid. A modern audience can understand something and appreciate something that doesn't involve cell phones and Donald Trump references. I know everyone is trying to replicate the success of "Wicked," but that show - which is by no means perfect - does not use any "topical" references. It's just a solid, interesting story. Same goes for "The Book of Mormon" or "Lion King" or any other show that's a "hit."

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 2:19am

"I just don't think it's fair to "publish" anything based on the first preview alone."

Most of us don't think it's fair for a producer to charge full price for a seat to a first preview. Fair is fair.

If anything, it is up to those who read the comment to decide how much they want to take out of it, based on the "preview" status. Bu it's infantile to ask anyone to refrain from commenting on a public performance they attended.

Posted: 10/14/11 at 2:23am

"Sounds like the youg people at the show enjoyed it, so tell us, when is the show you wrote going to open?"

HA I think Whizzer counts as a "young person". What a bizarre defence! And then you pull out the whole "You have no right to criticize if you can't write/act/sing yourself. Do you have to be a chef to know when something you order doesn't taste good? It's not like he was critiquing other people's opinions--he was just stating his own.

I don't like the practice of professional critics reviewing a show in previews--but to suggest someone on an internet forum can't is just bizarre. They don't make their audiences sign waivers, do they?

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 2:24am

Publish? Didn't realize this was the arts section of The NY Times.

[binau]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 2:28am

RippedMan, you don't think the iPhone references in THE BOOK OF MORMON are 'topical'? And of course Avenue Q made many topical references, including ones that were dynamic (George Bush is only for now, Swine Flu is only for now etc.). I don't necessarily disagree with your point about people unnecessarily 'updating' things, but then you seem to imply that 'topical references' are not used successfully or in 'hits' at all. Perhaps I misunderstood.

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 2:33am

I know always look forward to a post from Whizzer et al on first preview night. These posts seem to usually be pretty carefully designed to emphasize that it was, in fact, a preview and elements could change, and it was an impression of the performance that happened that night, subject to change over previews though it may have been. I don't think it's mean at all, but, rather, constructive, informative and interesting.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 2:44am

"I don't like the practice of professional critics reviewing a show in previews--but to suggest someone on an internet forum can't is just bizarre"

Except if you like it, Eric. It's okay then! ;

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 2:48am

Out of respect, which I suddenly seem to have gained, I am withholding the "I told you so" until after I see the opening (someone was gracious enough to drop a ticket on me). If it hasn't fixed itself by then, all bets are off, darlings.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 3:16am

I'm seeing this on the 30th. I certaintly hope that I don't feel the same way as Whizzer, I believe that he wrote about HIS experience and opinion with the show.

I am one that fully expected it to be contemporary and topical. To compare it to Hair doesn't seem to make sense. Hair is ABOUT the 60s, how could you ever change that? Godspell was always about making biblical teachings relevant to the current audience THROUGH pop culture.

I have my reservations about seeing the show -- I don't love the casting, I'm worried about how the show will play to modern audiences -- but I love Godspell and will hope for the best!

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 3:22am

I'm a bit baffled by this productions apparent need to make the show relevant today by inserting topical, pop culture references. Seems like a timeless treatment would have served the material just fine.

[kyle4]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 3:46am

just put my review on my blog....

http://thetheaterbuff.typepad.com/the-theater-buff/

i haven't read this thread yet... but i will begin NOW...

hope everyone is doing WELL !!!!

[binau]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 3:49am

Oh god. No. No. No.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 3:53am

Uh oh... Here we go...

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 3:56am

What on earth did I just read? Was that a surrealist review?

I loved the end, though "gotta be PEBBLE IN HER SHOE rage !!!"

Last supper jacuzzi, really? This production sounds too good to be true!

[kyle4]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 3:59am

well, the WHIZZER guy and i agree... not sure if that has happened before...

for what it is worth, stephen schwartz was there... i saw him at intermission... i grabbed him and i said thank you for EVERYTHING... EVERYTHING !!! it would have been rude to say.. EXCEPT this production... so i did NOT !!!

does anyone know what happened to the actress... she was WEEPING and WEEPING in the lobby.... they were STILL doing curtain call !!!

would love to know if she is ok !!!

ok...

here's the link for those who missed it...

http://thetheaterbuff.typepad.com/the-theater-buff/

missed you GUYS !!!!

[peachesr]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 8:09am

The thing is, if people had been to see it and no one posted a review there would have been whining on mass about that. Opinions are opinions.It's nice to have review of the first preview for people to compare to as the run goes on, we can all hear what changes have been made etc. It's never been a particularly strong show as far as I'm concerned but this sounds like a big old car crash at the moment; chicken dance, jacuzzi's, Wicked references...eek!

[darquegk]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 8:49am

The original production was not given a "timeless" staging, it was, much like this, given an "of its time" staging full of then-topical references. Performers who were still in the public consciousness were referenced- Eddie Cantor, Shirley Temple, not to mention the fact that many people today have had to ask the question, "what is 'slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch' supposed to mean?"

The humor and the presentation was of its time- it was Laugh-In and Hee-Haw and the ghost of Jewish Vaudeville hovering just overhead. Ask a performer, let alone an audience member in the target demographic, to describe any of those phenomena, and chances are you'll get blank stares or a wrong answer. But those were the media of humor back then. Today's Godspell tends to veer more towards Mad TV, Saturday Night Live, the Internet and Whose Line Is It Anyway, since those are the styles and media. Where once we had Jewish vaudeville and Hee-Haw, now we have improv troupes and sketch shows as the closest analogues.

I've seen GREAT topical Godspells, and I've seen some AWFUL topical Godspells. But I've never seen anything above an okay "intact" Godspell. Like the note says, the show thrives on innovation, improvisation and reinvention... but only if you do it WELL. It sounds like these guys haven't quite got the hang of that, and it's sad, because Godspell could do so much better.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 10:44am

Wow....this sounds....bad....it's funny, a few years back, I saw a production that managed to work with practically no pop culture references whatsoever, the only one being a Sarah Palin joke. I was kinda hoping this would be along the same lines. But they lost me at Shake Weights.

[kyle4]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 10:45am

yes, blaxie...

a GODDAMN jacuzzi...

http://thetheaterbuff.typepad.com/the-theater-buff/

and a TON of MOPPING goes on... A TON !!!

[newintown]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 10:53am

I was expecting something really low-brow and pandering, having seen this director's work before, but this sounds so excessively and unbearably dumb, I can easily imagine the cattle eating it up with relish.

I've seen enough Godspells and won't be attending; to me, it's not a piece that improves with each viewing, nor are there hidden depths to be revealed. It's a silly little 70's-cute christian sketch show. I can imagine a very straight/sincere production with children being interesting; this one, though, sounds unbearably coy.

[AGermano]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 10:56am

"The question is, will it even get to opening night? When the other Jesus arrives, it's going to get it's holy ass kicked out of Broadway."

I strongly disagree.

[Goldenboy2]

Posted: 10/14/11 at 11:05am

I agree with u! Amazeballs indeed!!!! Just out right enjoyable dumbness!!!
The theater was packed and on this thread 71 people have made comments. So that's not even half of the people present last night. The negativity is the minority not the majority.
I think there are a lot of people on this thread that are a buy upset that the audience had what seemed to be an amazing experience. They want Godspell to suck, praying that its wack and u can see that because who gets upset for making a show, that was contemporary in its time, contemporary now???
Haters do. If the production of Godspell would've been done like the eighties version...or the movie for Christ sake, NO ONE would come see it except the audience that goes to see follies or little night music. It reaches torque generation and thank God it does. Godspell has no strong script and never has. It's the bible mad funny in whatever way u choose. Hair is a completely different ball of wax. It was based on the 60s not a book written over 2000 years ago. Having said that, opinions are like butt holes, everybody has one. But the people that get on these blogs to try and ruin a show as if they could, is what makes our country what it is...a pool of critics.