Big Fish Chicago previews- Page 4

[Starship]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 2:06pm

Some of the scenic elements look great, but overall from reading all the reviews, it looks as if there really isn't much that stands out.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 12:16pm

***Spoilers Abound***

My boyfriend surprised me with tickets Friday and I was pretty excited. Unfortunately, I was more baffled than thrilled by the show itself. I wasn't a fan of the film mainly because of its lack of depth and conflict. I was really hoping the musical would remedy that, but it really doesn't. If anything, it makes the story even more incomprehensible. Opening the show with the fish story just felt like I was being tossed into the deep end of the plot that I'm left to sort out on my own for the rest of the show. The musical itself appears to be a string of short stories with snippets of a book that attempt to string everything together with a thin inconsequential plot. The show desperately needs a narrative device (especially for the opening) allowing the audience to know why the son resents his father so much and why the father can't connect with his son. Dropping hints along the way in between big long production numbers of fanciful tales only distracts the audience from connecting the dots, of which there are already too few.

The score itself has a couple of nice moments, chiefly in the father/son scenes like This River Between Us (immediately reminiscent of Next to Normal) and Fight the Dragons. Most of the production numbers are stylistically diverse, but overly long and forgettable. But like the show itself, the score is so wildly inconsistent in style. The story scenes are sometimes pastiche or sometimes contemporary. Like the Witch scene, for example. The Witch and her Witchettes are utilized and staged remarkably similarly to the dragon in the Broadway production of Shrek belting out a fun poppy snazzy number about how the Witch can see the future, including a completely pointless dance break for the Wichettes to feature their costumes (think of the Hyenas dance break in Lion King). The climax of the number relies on an effect with projections shining on the Witchettes' costumes which was completely lost on me because I just saw some blobs, but luckily, the dialogue anticipates the audience confusion and details what we're supposed to be looking at (though it doesn't help that the sound design was extremely poor and the lyrics were difficult to hear throughout the first act).

The Showdown number in the second act simply has to go. Previously, all the fanciful scenes were the father's stories and then we're suddenly hit with this...delerium? Fever dream? Where the father assumes the chief concern of his son without his son having actually confronted him on the issue and this issue is treated as an offense worthy of execution. Of course, we learn the truth later and it all seems like a major false conflict, especially the way it was just represented by the father himself.

The cast was mostly strong. Butz does well and manages to make a few jokes land in a script over seasoned with stale joke after stale joke (especially in the excruciating "vaudeville" Giant song), though he does often slip into a Tommy Lee Jones impersonation the older the character gets. Steggert was okay in the second act, but barely audible in the first act, partly because of the awful sound, but partly because he seemed to make no attempt to project when singing or speaking. Baldwin is a trouper and makes the most of a character who has little to do other than say how much she loves her husband. Sure, she gets a flashback with a fun little feature number that does nothing for the plot and a romantic duet about daffodils, but I really felt sorry for her when she forced her way through the treacly redundant lyrics of her solo about...how much she loves her husband. A number expressing the frustrations of a wife with a traveling husband whom she barely sees, raising a kid practically on her own, and having a husband who rarely takes anything seriously would only help to add some much needed balance to the book. Or maybe a mother/son number? Has he ever talked to her about his resentment of his father or how she puts up with him?

If the catalyst for the story is the son's resentment and the core is their relationship. it is completely drowned in a sea of flashy production numbers and flashbacks that never really tie together. Are we supposed to connect the big dots or the little ones? Is the results two pictures or one? Is the "message" found in the son's discovery of his father or in the father's summation of his life? PICK ONE! The show has way too many things to say and giving them all equal importance results in nothing said in the end.

The elephant butts were cute, if unnecessary, but were featured briefly enough that they were a total non-issue when compared to the rest of the show. The dancing fire is a WTF cutesy moment that has nothing to do with anything except maybe trying to fill out some time for a scene change.

On the Stroman scale, I'd rank this with Young Frankenstein. And unless they think Butz is enough a draw to sell tickets, I wouldn't expect it to last long on Broadway without a massive overhaul to the book and score (which rarely ever happens). Lippa ain't gonna have Lane and Neuwirth to bail him out of this one. Complete and total lack of focus.

Updated On: 5/5/13 at 12:16 PM

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 1:05pm

IMO, there is a "conceit" that needs to be accepted if the story is to succeed. ...at least I felt so regarding the movie, and it seems as if that conceit is carried through for the musical version, too.

To my mind, the conceit is that the "fish tales" are so enchanting and spectacular that you choose to overlook the major holes in how Will is written as a character. From all the comments, it seems that most people aren't buying it.

The biggest "hole" in logic for me is in regards to why Will is so dissatisfied with his father - even into his adulthood. Some issues I can make excuses for. His father was absent from his childhood, his father can't be honest with him, etc.

But why, when she sees how "broken" Will is over this, is his mother (who apparently understands Edward and his character) so ineffective in turning him around? Has she never sat him down to have a "heart to heart" about his attitude, or to be honest about his father's stories?

With all the people Edward actually DID encounter in his life, there was never ANY person who could set Will straight regarding his search for "the truth"?

And what boy wouldn't be enchanted by a father who could weave such marvelous tales?

It seems like Will's angst could have been nipped in the bud pretty easily. But in order to take the rest of the ride and get the sentimental payoff, you have to be willing to accept the conceit.

Ironically, "accepting the conceit" is kind of what this show is about.



Updated On: 5/5/13 at 01:05 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/6/13 at 10:27am

The biggest "hole" in logic for me is in regards to why Will is so dissatisfied with his father - even into his adulthood. Some issues I can make excuses for. His father was absent from his childhood, his father can't be honest with him, etc.

Bingo. We have no idea why Will resents his father SO MUCH. The show opens with his father's fish tale and young Will is enchanted. The next scene they are adults and Will hates his father. We know the father tells tall tales and wasn't around much because he was a traveling salesman. Will's mother seems happy and content and loves Edward so very much. So what was the unforgivable damage done to Will? The second act doesn't help to clarify. There is a scene at the top of the act where Edward tells a story to young Will and his scout troop. At the end, Will suddenly gets petulant and angry and the campfire jumps up and dances off the stage. Later, there is a lovely father/son bonding scene (and song) with Edward and young Will that is probably the most interesting and touching moment in the entire show. When Will learns of his father's possible infidelity, we finally get an "AHA!" moment of motivation that could finally start driving the plot (but no until halfway through the second act) and the most absurd incongruous number in the show introduces the plot point, which is squashed in the next scene and Edward's anxiety played out in his fever dream of his son's accusations is simply unjustified and unearned.

It seems like Will's angst could have been nipped in the bud pretty easily. But in order to take the rest of the ride and get the sentimental payoff, you have to be willing to accept the conceit.

Ironically, "accepting the conceit" is kind of what this show is about.

Possibly for the novel or the film (never read the novel and remember very little of the film), but the way the book is structured, it's nearly impossible to accept the conceit because it is so fragmented and only introduced to the audience in little pieces throughout the show. We really don't know the conceit to accept until we've had a few of these baffling tales with giant fish eggs and a vaudeville routine in a cave play out.

It's a big fish stew loaded with lots of big chunky ingredients and nothing but water for stock. I had no idea what I was supposed to be eating.

[theaterdrew]

Posted: 5/6/13 at 1:03pm

"We really don't know the conceit to accept until we've had a few of these baffling tales with giant fish eggs and a vaudeville routine in a cave play out."

Especially if you're unfamiliar with the movie or book, which limits their potential audience.

The story has several potential paths it could follow. It could set up the idea of the child pining for his father, who comes home only to spend their time together telling another one of his tall tales. The child would need to interrupt or speak over the tale in order to provide this context (not wait to whine to the audience after it is over), and then not undermine it later with a scene of father & child bonding over a story. Or, it could show how the father is always stealing the spotlight, aka what happens at the wedding. The campfire scene doesn't convey that like it could, for example. Or, it could craft an alternative narrative where the child is enthralled by the father's tales, only to discover that the father was covering up a secret. The wedding scene, for example, would make much more sense if it came after Will found out about the secret but didn't want to hurt his mother.

As it is, it leaves you trying to figure out why we care about how any of these people feel.

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 5/6/13 at 1:57pm

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS THROUGHOUT***

I understand what you mean about being thrown into the plot beginning with the fish number, but for me it worked as a way to see Will’s perspective right off the bat. Especially as a child, when not everything is fully understood and it is often hard to tell the difference between fact and fiction, I felt like beginning with a big sweeping tale helped us see how young Will may have felt watching his father. It’s a bit overwhelming to start out with such a large, important number, but it’s exciting and confusing and, even if not everything makes sense, you so badly want to believe it because it is so enchanting (which is how I imagine young Will felt, as this was before he realized these stories were not completely true).

While I agree that it would be nice to see more of Will’s character, for me it is easy to understand Will’s behavior, based on two things: The first is that, as we saw at the top of the show, Will was absolutely enthralled with these wonderful stories of his father’s journeys. When you grow up and have one idea of your parent your whole life (and it’s a wonderful idea of that at that!), it can be heartbreaking and damaging as a child to realize nearly everything you thought to be true of the person you look up to and trust is a lie. Once young Will realized this, his father still didn’t stop the stories, so each time he told another story (or told them again), it was like another twist of the knife.

The second thing is that I think it is okay for the audience to feel Will’s attitude toward his father is sometimes petty and childish. I don’t think the story is trying to act as though they aren’t. How many adults still hold on to issues with their parents from childhood, no matter how small it may seem now (or no matter how petty and childish it is)? As long as we can understand that the seed was planted long ago for Will to resent his father, it makes absolute sense that he, as a young adult, still has yet to move past these things as a young adult. Is Will often petty and childish? Absolutely. His wife often points this out in the show (in terms of expressing how harmless things Will gets extremely angry about actually are). But, he has “issues,” if you will, and things that felt damaging as a child can be extremely hard to overcome and put aside even when you are of an age where you should be able to see how petty it is. This is also why it’s extremely rewarding (and believable) to see Will come around at the end and start to understand his father’s outlook on life and motivations behind his stories and the way he led his life.

The Showdown number in the second act simply has to go. Previously, all the fanciful scenes were the father's stories and then we're suddenly hit with this...delerium? Fever dream? Where the father assumes the chief concern of his son without his son having actually confronted him on the issue and this issue is treated as an offense worthy of execution. Of course, we learn the truth later and it all seems like a major false conflict, especially the way it was just represented by the father himself.

While I completely agree on the inconsistency of “Showdown” (I have a feeling this will be cut or totally reworked), his son does confront him on the issue before this dream. Sure, he may not say it out loud, but I think it is clear that Edward understands what Will is accusing him of (and, while the truth is not nearly as horrific as Will believes it to be, Edward himself feels it is, which is why he is unable to fully correct his son’s misguided accusations). Also, to Edward, what he actually did WAS bad enough to be compared (in his fanciful mind) to something worthy of execution. Do I think Edward honestly thinks he should be executed? No. But, when relating it in his elaborate mind to a western resulting in execution? Yes. Also, while we from the outside (like Will) may see how small his “crime” actually was, Jenny Hill explains to us how big of an offense it is to Edward in his mind (so big, in fact, that he relayed elaborate stories of himself to his son so that his son would look up to him, as opposed to telling this truly heroic thing he ACTUALLY did).

A number expressing the frustrations of a wife with a traveling husband whom she barely sees, raising a kid practically on her own, and having a husband who rarely takes anything seriously would only help to add some much needed balance to the book.

But, she has no frustrations about her husband creating these elaborate stories and taking nothing seriously. She isn’t even worried about whether or not she is going to be dumped with a big mortgage or be able to keep the house when her husband is gone. In fact, she seems to absolutely love his tales. As John Adams said earlier in this thread, those who love him and actually lived the truth of his life have no need to find the truth in his tales because they are a part of it, which is why I think Sandra has no issues with her husband’s stories herself. His tales are romantic and she loves them and, at least from how they are portraying it, she lives a very fulfilled and happy life, with possibly the only set back being that Edward had to be away for work (but, she even acts as though this is a small sacrifice for such a happy life when he is there). I personally loved her unconditional love for husband, which made her and Edward’s relationship all the stronger and sweeter for me (which the audience must feel to truly care about the possibility of his infidelity).

Has she never sat him down to have a "heart to heart" about his attitude, or to be honest about his father's stories?

I don’t think she feels like it’s her place to reveal the honesty/falsity in Edward’s stories. However, if she is going to be frustrated with anyone, I could see it being Will over Edward (because of all I said above), so I do think it would be interesting to more deeply explore her feelings on Will’s attitude (perhaps in a mother/son song as Mister Matt suggested).

I think that even if we, as the audience, can see that Will is holding on to issues he should let go and Edward is hiding a “dark secret” that is actually not so damning at all, we have to also realize that when placed in these situations we don’t always act in rational ways. These are natural human behaviors and, perhaps the reason I connected so much with the story and found such reward and joy at the end is because we see the maturity and realization of Will and the alleviation of Edward’s burden – even if Edward is not fully aware of it (which both of these, in a broader sense, give me that hope and faith in the fact that most humans truly just wish to do their best and, even if we can’t understand their actions, it is sometimes more important to understand their well meaning).

(Small note, I don’t mean to be contrary to everything, I just had such a different experience seeing the show and find it interesting to discuss what I got out of it that others didn’t. Thank you all for the intelligent discussion. :) )

Updated On: 5/6/13 at 01:57 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/6/13 at 3:55pm

While I agree that it would be nice to see more of Will’s character, for me it is easy to understand Will’s behavior, based on two things: The first is that, as we saw at the top of the show, Will was absolutely enthralled with these wonderful stories of his father’s journeys. When you grow up and have one idea of your parent your whole life (and it’s a wonderful idea of that at that!), it can be heartbreaking and damaging as a child to realize nearly everything you thought to be true of the person you look up to and trust is a lie. Once young Will realized this, his father still didn’t stop the stories, so each time he told another story (or told them again), it was like another twist of the knife.

But the scenes don't follow that order when you're watching the show. And the scene where young Will becomes disillusioned (if that is what is happening) with his father plays out more like an annoyed petulant child than a devastating life-changing realization. The "twist of the knife" therefore seems more like the typical frustration or annoyance every family or relationship has. Because the family narrative is fragmented and out of sequence (which I assume was to preserve the narrative sequence of his father's stories), it takes most of the show to piece together what Will's problem is.

The second thing is that I think it is okay for the audience to feel Will’s attitude toward his father is sometimes petty and childish. I don’t think the story is trying to act as though they aren’t. How many adults still hold on to issues with their parents from childhood, no matter how small it may seem now (or no matter how petty and childish it is)?

As an audience member, I really never understood what the big deal was or why it was important enough to be on stage. I knew it was somehow hugely important to Will, so there must be some reason we're being told all this, but the answer never really surfaced. If Will is just petty and immature, then play it that way. If there is something more important going on, let the audience in on it so they can follow the story. There was far more focus on Edward's stories than there was on the relationship, which is probably why the stories are chronological and the narrative of their relationship is scattered about left for the audience to try and decipher. Personally, I didn't get why his stories were given priority in this production.

But, he has “issues,” if you will, and things that felt damaging as a child can be extremely hard to overcome and put aside even when you are of an age where you should be able to see how petty it is.

What is it that was so damaging when he was a child? That's what we never really find out. Either he gets mad at his dad as a child or he whines about his dad as an adult, but there is really no indication that its anything other than a kid with a chip on his shoulder who becomes nice in the end. And that wasn't very interesting to me at all.

While I completely agree on the inconsistency of “Showdown” (I have a feeling this will be cut or totally reworked), his son does confront him on the issue before this dream. Sure, he may not say it out loud, but I think it is clear that Edward understands what Will is accusing him of (and, while the truth is not nearly as horrific as Will believes it to be, Edward himself feels it is, which is why he is unable to fully correct his son’s misguided accusations).

Will starts to confront Edward about something, but gets ejected from the room before he can actually breach the subject. The subject itself was so bizarrely convoluted, it just didn't add up. Are we supposed to believe that Edward feels that Will actually ferreted out the whole truth? Or that he suspects Edward is looking into the truth and making assumptions?

Also, while we from the outside (like Will) may see how small his “crime” actually was, Jenny Hill explains to us how big of an offense it is to Edward in his mind (so big, in fact, that he relayed elaborate stories of himself to his son so that his son would look up to him, as opposed to telling this truly heroic thing he ACTUALLY did).

And again, this is another "after the fact" moment that is a deflating letdown. We have absolutely NO evidence thus far that Edward would be so hypersensitive which makes the Showdown scene even more frustrating in hindsight.

But, she has no frustrations about her husband creating these elaborate stories and taking nothing seriously. She isn’t even worried about whether or not she is going to be dumped with a big mortgage or be able to keep the house when her husband is gone. In fact, she seems to absolutely love his tales.

And if all that is true, then the character will never be anything more than the "I Love You" two-dimensional cutout that is currently on stage. Luckily, she gets the flashbacks to illustrate when and how she fell in love to add to the scenes of how much she loves him, but it is still just a very one-note character, much like the fiancee, but with more scenes and songs.

I think that even if we, as the audience, can see that Will is holding on to issues he should let go and Edward is hiding a “dark secret” that is actually not so damning at all, we have to also realize that when placed in these situations we don’t always act in rational ways.

And to me, the stakes end up being so much lower than the anticipation, resulting in the feeling that the sequel should be Will in rehab having succumbed to alcoholism and drug abuse to feed his shame and regret in having wasted so many precious years resenting his father for no good reason. Sure, he had a precious moment with his father before he died, but it doesn't make me appreciate the son. I only feel sorry for the dad. Seriously, that's how I feel the payoff is to this story and show. Perhaps the problem is inherent in the source material because the end doesn't really justify the means at all.

But you can take my opinion with a grain of salt. I was with my dad when he died and the hospital scene did hit a little too close to home, visually. So I am a bit sensitive with the importance placed on the father/son relationship and the flaws in the construction and priority given to that relationship in the show.

(Small note, I don’t mean to be contrary to everything, I just had such a different experience seeing the show and find it interesting to discuss what I got out of it that others didn’t. Thank you all for the intelligent discussion. :) )

I don't believe you were being contrary and neither am I. I'm just enjoying the discussion!

Updated On: 5/6/13 at 03:55 PM

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 5/7/13 at 1:02pm

***Once again, POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

I guess I didn’t have a hard time (or didn’t mind) the out-of-order scene structure. I was happy that they found different ways to bring up Edward’s stories (telling them to the doctor, Will’s wife, etc.) and I understood pretty quickly what was going on in terms of adult Will’s resentment against his father. You do make a good point in terms of the campfire scene: young Will did seem more annoyed rather than the more dramatic emotions I would assume occur when realizing all of these tales his father tells him are false – the scene is set up as if it is a dramatic moment (Will talking about how he can remember the exact moment that he realized the stories were “lies”), so I think I just took it as is and attributed the lack of drama in the actual scene to the actor playing young Will. I do hope they make that more of a devastating moment, though. I think that also might help to answer, in your mind, what was so devastating as a child that he is still not over as an adult. If we see that moment of young Will suddenly losing faith in his father and feeling like the person he knew is completely made up, audience members may be able to understand how, as a young adult, Will still is not over it.

Will starts to confront Edward about something, but gets ejected from the room before he can actually breach the subject. The subject itself was so bizarrely convoluted, it just didn't add up. Are we supposed to believe that Edward feels that Will actually ferreted out the whole truth? Or that he suspects Edward is looking into the truth and making assumptions?

But, the reason that Edward ejects Will is because he knows what Will has found and what he probably assumes about his findings. Will doesn’t hide the red folder with the mortgage, he sets in on the TV. I believed that Edward figured out what Will probably believed (a double life/affair), yet Edward couldn’t set him straight, because Edward felt what he did do was just as bad or worse. (Which also explains the constant back and forth of Edward’s lines in “Showdown” between “It’s not what you think!” and “Yes, I am guilty.” This song definitely needs to be reworked or just cut all together, but this is what I got from it.)

And if all that is true, then the character will never be anything more than the "I Love You" two-dimensional cutout that is currently on stage. Luckily, she gets the flashbacks to illustrate when and how she fell in love to add to the scenes of how much she loves him, but it is still just a very one-note character, much like the fiancee, but with more scenes and songs.

I can see how, on paper, describing the wife as someone who just unconditionally loves her husband does make her come off quite two-dimensionally, but in the show, it came off to me more as another example of the deep understanding this woman has of her husband. I feel like she knows how he can be, but she so completely understands him and knows that it is meant out of good and is such an innate part of Edward that it’s not something that frustrates her, but makes her love him even more (which, in my mind, creates quite a strong and independent woman who is completely aware of her husband’s elaborateness, yet is able to not hold it against him). Perhaps attribute this to Kate Baldwin’s wonderful acting, but I never saw Sandra as a pushover or one note character. I do agree, though, getting to explore her feelings regarding her son’s attitude toward his father would deepen the character.

And to me, the stakes end up being so much lower than the anticipation, resulting in the feeling that the sequel should be Will in rehab having succumbed to alcoholism and drug abuse to feed his shame and regret in having wasted so many precious years resenting his father for no good reason. Sure, he had a precious moment with his father before he died, but it doesn't make me appreciate the son. I only feel sorry for the dad. Seriously, that's how I feel the payoff is to this story and show.

See, for me, I felt like, yes, he had one precious moment with his father before he died, but it doesn’t stop there. It wasn’t one nice moment and back to resentful Will or even, as you describe, shame-filled Will. After his realization, the character truly changed (which you see by him continuing his father’s legacy with his own son). If the last scene wasn’t in there, I would probably have felt more how you did, but it was so rewarding to see that, while he may have wasted many years being upset with his dad, Will did finally understand his father and made a change in his life to honor that.

And, perhaps, as I have not had a similar real-life situation to yours, there are things I am unable to see that are missing from the father/son relationship that you are able to note.

[BruceWayne5148]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 1:23pm

Katie Thompson isn't listed on the cast list and it isn't on her website anymore... Anyone know what's going on?

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 2:01pm

Don't know about that...

But I have a source in the show that says that the first act is getting an enormous overhaul before Broadway.

[ggersten]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 3:04pm

First Act? Most of the problems people have had have been with Act II especially the campfire/nazi story and showdown.
The problem with Act I has just been introducing the conflict between father and son...I don't know that a major overhaul of Act I was required.

[theaterdrew]

Posted: 6/16/13 at 4:46pm

^I'd have to disagree. The numbers you mention were minor annoyances compared to the head-scratching first part of the first act. If they want to reach people who've never seen the film (and don't have the plot in their heads already explaining what's going on), they need to present the father-son conflict from the get-go on a level that makes sense why we're going to watch a couple of hours of it being resolved.

I didn't have an interest in seeing this again but if they do a major overhaul of the first act, curiosity might draw me in.

[jarrett]

Posted: 8/30/13 at 3:13pm

Great info. Sorry to say I wasn't a fan of the movie, so I wondered how it'd translate to stage. Sounds as if the whimsy remains, as do the unanswered questions about Will's relationship w/ his father.

I'll pass.