Violet at Encores

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 10:19pm

I'm getting home from Violet tonight and had an enjoyable evening, although the show left me a little unsatisfied.

Violet, both the show and the title character, are done disservices when performed in such a large venue as City Center. Violet's struggles are so internalized, and her greatest musical moment is a quiet lullaby. The supporting characters are much bigger and easily steal the show from her. Joshua Henry owned the night with "Let It Sing," and the big Leap of Faith gospel number was a close second.

This isn't to say that Sutton Foster wasn't good- in fact I thought she did a great job. It was just that the psychological drama playing out in her mind doesn't easily carry throughout the theater.

Violet shares settings and plot points with another play currently facing intimacy issues in New York: The Trip To Bountiful. Violet must take a bus ride to Oklahoma in order to find healing and spiritual release, meeting a colorful cast of characters along the way. It's a small story, and the score often washes over you, painting pictures with friendly melodies.

Christopher Sieber did a good job as the preacher, but come on! If ever there was a role for Raul Esparza to poke a little fun at himself with, this was it.

I don't mean to come across as negative as it might seem because I really did enjoy hearing the score performed so wonderfully tonight, but it was problematic nonetheless to put on such a small show in such a cavernous space.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 10:36pm

I couldn't agree more. With basically everything you said.

I had a good time, but I have some big problems with the piece as a whole (although the music is mostly very good, and sounded wonderful tonight) and I do think it would have benefitted from a smaller space. The cast, however was an embarrassment of riches. Joshua Henry's solo was absolutely electric and Sutton did a very good job (as usual) and managed to imbue the character with some really nice, subtle moments (which is unusual for her). Everyone was great, really, even Christopher Sieber in an entirely thankless role, but Rema Webb stole the show for me. Someone give this woman a substantial part in ANYTHING. What a voice! I mean, wow. I was just knocked out by her singing, which was very J.Hud-esque.

Thankfully, the cast made up for the shortcomings in the piece, and the direction was mostly smooth. But I do agree, as much as I enjoyed myself, I wasn't blown away by it, emotionally at least.

[Sauja]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 10:39pm

I had a different experience. I didn't know the show and, to be honest, I've never been Sutton's biggest fan. She won me over in an enormous way tonight.

This was an incredible, thrilling, devastating night at te theater, even from up in the nose-bleeds. I wept through much of the show, was a wreck during Violet's number with her father, and had room in my heart for bursts of joy and laughter as the incredibly well balanced show (in tone and presentation) allowed.

The cast was flawless, the music soul-stirring, and moments genuinely have me chills. I understand your criticisms, Whizzer, but for me, happily, it was a perfect, thrilling, enriching night at the theater.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 10:44pm

I know for a fact that they originally intended this series to take place in the City Center MTC Stage 2 space, but someone must have seen dollar signs and decided to shove small shows into cavernous halls, just to make a lot more bucks, which is clearly all they care about.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 10:53pm

I wish I had that experience, Sauja! I really wanted to, but I felt so emotionally detached from it, which I guess is par for the course in a one night only concert version of the show. It was my first exposure to the piece and I just didn't really feel the emotional kick I was hoping/waiting for.

[wonkit]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 10:54pm

The problem with your "more bucks" theory, Matt Rogers, is that most of the tickets for this summer Encores! season are $25.

[dave1606]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 11:00pm

Matt, too big a space or not, I was VERY grateful to be here tonight, especially for such a special event for $25.

From the front row of the balcony, I really was taken with show. I have been listening to the score for months leading up to this show, and tonight did not disappoint.

Sutton was great, though I would have loved to see her take some more time with the character without a script. It was hard for me to get emotionally involved with such a harrowing experience as she had her head buried in the script. I am not faulting her as this was a once night only experience, and she did quite well, I just had to admit that did take away from my experience slightly.

Joshua Henry totally stole the show for me. I thought he was excellent.Also, as WickedRocks said Rema Webb was AMAZING. Her solo was electrifying.

I actually really fell in love with the show. I loved the score and the story really touched me too, though there were definitely moments that didn't work, especially in the Encores staging. I think part of the problem is that Encores has gotten so strong as of late with basically full scale productions of their shows, that when we see a more basic staging it isn't quite as satisfying. The flashbacks, much like the scenes outside the courtroom in Cradle will Rock were just clunky staged the way they were.

That said I loved the opportunity to see this show staged at all. I really wish I could see a full production because I think this show has something very special that isn't seen in shows lately.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 11:00pm

Sauja, I've always been a Sutton fan, so this was just more evidence for me of her immeasurable talents. Now imagine seeing her performance tonight at Playwrights Horizons.

For you guys who don't know the score/cast recording you MUST get a copy and listen to Lauren Ward's performance.

[Skip2]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 11:00pm

The problem with this production was not just the large space. Sam Gold, the Director, really didn't use the space in an effective way. There's a lot of memory overlap in the show and Gold just had people sauntering on and off. The Playwrights Horizon re-opening production didn't have much more of a set, but the space was used more evocatively. True, there wasn't a lot of rehearsal time here, but still...

The other problem, for me, was Sutton Foster. Her star wattage was too bright for the character. Lauren Ward caught the proper "plainness" for Violet. So when Montgomery leaves, it's a triple punch. But what a voice on that woman!

The cast was fine, and Rema Webb...Wow! Nice to see the original Flick and Montgomery in the audience.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 11:04pm

Confused. I'm looking at the website right now and most of the tickets for these Encores performances (other shows) are $110.00 so I don't understand the whole $25 thing. Was that for advance purchase? Thanks a lot.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 11:08pm

http://www.nycitycenter.org/content/stage/off-center.aspx

It was part of the "mission" of the "Off Center" program. But Encores usually has quite a lot of $25 balcony seats available for their productions (and the view up there, while high up, is much better since the renovation).

[theatreguy]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 11:09pm

Skip 2, Violet was directed by Leigh Silverman. Sam Gold directed The Cradle Will Rock.

[Skip2]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 11:15pm

Oops...my mistake...thanks theatreguy.

And I almost ran right into her. She looks a lot like Janine Tesori.

[sowren1020]

Posted: 7/17/13 at 11:52pm

Leigh Silverman did a fine job directing Violet, I thought. Her cast was at least in costume suggestions, blocked simply with Mike stands so they didn't have to juggle mikes, scripts and a chair while singing, unlike The Cradle Will Rock cast. Everyone in the Violet cast was a fine singer, Joshua Henry taking the evening to a different level of singing and acting, just amazing. My only quibble in the cast was with the voice of the father. Good actor, but like the performer playing Monty, I wished the voices were a little stronger. The gospel number was very moving, great call and response. Strange story for the typical musical hall, it surely needed better acoustics and more intimacy.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:16am

One thing that was lost not only in the space, but the concert setting in general, was the veracity of whether or not Violet actually has a scar.

Lauren Ward never wore scar makeup in the original production, and it was no mistake that Sutton wasn't wearing any tonight. It is left up to the audience whether or not the scar truly developed as she claims or if she is simply imagining the ugliness upon herself.

I had a nice discussion with a friend after the show about whether we thought the scar was there or not. I think she may have had a faint mark, but that it was mostly imagined.

What do others think?

[Skip2]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:26am

Well, people on the bus react strongly to Violet's scarred face. I don't think Violet is imagining that.

Either that or she has incredible acne...

[Visceral_Fella]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:43am

There wasn't a scar in the NYU production either. I think that the scar is there. I remember how gruesome the reenactment felt with young Vi and her dad which sealed the deal for me that it was real. Yes, Violet could be fabricating that situation in her memory, but I don't think that she is.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 12:47am

I think she is imagining their overreactions. Like an anorexic person might imagine everyone around them thinking they are fat when in reality they are thin. The ugliness isn't the physical, but the emotional/psychological.

None of the characters actually ever mention her scar. Violet is the only one who talks about it.

My friend said that he had read someone's opinion piece when the show played at PH that the scar was supposed to represent incest of some kind. The scar was the manifestation of her shame and she wouldn't free herself from it until she had learned to love and accept herself. I wasn't on board with the incest angle as there isn't really anything in the text to support that (perhaps there is in the source novel), but I can totally be on board with the scar being a materialization of her insecurities and poor self-worth.

Visceral Fella, I don't think Violet is fabricating/imagining the incident with the axe. I think it happened, but perhaps healed to a greater extent than what she imagines her present condition to be.

ETA: For the record, I'm not saying this is the correct way to interpret it, just something that came up in discussion. Has anyone seen a copy of the licensed script? Is there a note from the authors about the use of makeup?

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 12:47 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 1:17am

Whizzer -- I strongly recommend reading the short novel VIOLET is based on - The Ugliest Pilgrim by Doris Betts. It's a beautifully written piece and I think you would love it.

In the original short story, the scar is definitely real and pretty horrific. But certainly it's also true that Violet's own emotional weight of the accident carries strongly into her interaction and perception by others; as she finds 'lightness' in the journey, her scar does become something more of a metaphor for her spirit than a physical flaw.

I never got the incest vibe watching the original production (Lauren Ward's performance in the original, btw was one of my absolute favorites I've ever seen in a NY Theatre) and though there was no makeup used to indicate a scar -- Ward did have one long strand of hair that was loose and fell across her face, which was in some ways representative.

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 01:17 AM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 1:17am

While that's an interesting discussion to undertake, Whizzer, I think you're reading way into it. Not having the scar there is a stylistic choice. Jeanine Tesori has spoken openly about that in the past (Susan Schulman was heavily criticized when the original production opened by critics, who felt the scar not being there lowered the stakes and made it too easy for the audience). With 100% certainty, the scar is real. There was never any question of it being imagined.

Also, other characters do mention the scar. As others said, the people on the bus all react to it, the waiter reacts to it, the older woman tries to convince Violet to put some powder on and is visibly uncomfortable when she realizes Violet thinks the scar has disappeared after being at the revival, the father talks about the steps they took to get it treated, the preacher talks about beauty being on the inside and her physical imperfection not mattering, etc. It's very clear that it's real.

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 01:17 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 1:33am

Hi MB!

I just went on amazon and ordered the short story; I found it in a set of Southern Short Stories from 1829-1973.

I know you've spoken very highly of Ward's performance before.

somethingwicked, Ha, perhaps you are right that I'm reading too much into, but for some reason that's always how I've taken the message. That it is more allegory than anything else.

The people on the bus do react, but that isn't necessarily proof to me that the scar is real. It could either be Violet heightening their reactions in her mind or their ability to see the pain she so openly carries around on her sleeve, so to speak.

I think part of the reason I make these leaps is because this is the woman who musicalized a maid who sings with a dryer, radio and seven-cycle washing machine. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibilities that the scar is a similar device.

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 01:33 AM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 1:38am

I think you're on to something about what Tesori tried to accomplish with the theme of the show, Whizzer, but not in relation to the scar being real or imagined.

The reason most productions leave the scar out is because many people feel having it be there makes it too easy for the audience to simplify the story (as I said earlier, critics argued the opposite and said it sanitized the harsh reality Violet endures). By having the scar discussed but not seen, it liberates the audience to examine all the other emotional aspects of Violet's journey and really fully investigate the complexities of a story that can otherwise be viewed as quite simple and straightforward.

Basically, it sparks the analysis you're undertaking but without the legitimacy part. :)

Updated On: 7/18/13 at 01:38 AM

[Act4ever]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 1:41am

I love the fact that the actress who plays VIOLET doesn't "wear" a scar. It IS horrific and she was brutally injured. It gives us as an audience a very interesting job. This scar that has haunted her for her entire life and is the inciting incident for everything that happens in the story is OUR JOB to envision. What do we perceive as ugly or horrific? (Or what would be ugly or horrific to her) Does it matter how disfigured her face is?

I ADORED Shuler Hensley's performance in THE WHALE. But I had a moment of wishing he wasn't in a fat suit and that the audience had to rely on their imaginations to picture just how enormous this man was.

Saw the performance tonight as well. I thought it was really beautiful.

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 2:03am

MattRogers, it would be easy to take your belief that Encores is interested only in raking in the bucks as cynicism. But I actually find it sweet that you think putting up a piece of agitprop and a musical that ran in town only as part of a subscription season was done for purely mercenary reasons.

I imagine, if Violet ran only one night in a 200 seat house that people would complain about the unfairness of so few getting to see something that more would want to see.

These are not being pitched as typical Encores presentations, but instead as something more akin to slightly expanded readings. And I'm grateful they've done it, even if they'd be more effective in an intimate setting.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/18/13 at 7:22am

Chris,

Matt makes a valid point, epecially since the City Center was founded with the mission to provide performing arts to the public at affordable prices. I don't think tickets priced at over $100 is in keeping with that mission.

As for all this pretentious hogwash about the scar not being real, I'll put forth a novel and outrageous notion: how about just paying attention to what's plainly obvious in the text?

In any case, I enjoyed the performance last evening. The cast was excellent, as was the orchestra. I found the story affecting, the score in and out.