Ever After at the Paper Mill- Page 2

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/22/15 at 11:51pm

This show is just the definition of basic. There's some good stuff (the music, the leads), but the rest is so mediocre. The drama isn't dramatic enough, the comedy isn't funny enough. 

The score: There are some fun melodies, the opening is cute. But then every song kind of sounds like the same song, which isn't terrible since I happen to dig those melodies, but nothing really stood out. The Prince's big song was a bit of a let down musically. It just didn't really have any sort of catchy tune or say anything. Just kind of bland filler. Both Seibert's "Who Needs Love" and Ebersole's "After All" were great solos, but they didn't quite seem suited for either's voices. Seibert's last note in "Who Needs Love" didn't quite land like I know she can do. Their duet together in Act 2 "It's Done" is quite nice. 

The Lyrics: The score is just super wordy. Everything is kind of speak singing. It almost felt sung-thru. None of the jokes in the lyrics could land because they were too quick or too many other words surrounding the jokes. 

The Book: The book is pretty lame. There's literally no comedy. I mean, we're given a chubby Stepsister, but she's sweet, she's not funny. The bigger girl dates the black guy? I mean, c'mon. That's funny. But not here. It's just bland. Everything is bland. Oh, Cinderella's locked behind a door! Drama! Oh wait, it's easily fixed. The Prince is mad! Oh wait, he's over it. I was never wondering what was going to happen, etc. There was nothing exciting going on. The only time I was genuinely surprised is when Cinderella and the Prince are stalked by some gay, French gypsies? They have a lively dancer number, and call her their queen, for some reason? I wasn't sure why that was even in the show? Is that suppose to be the comedic moment? Was that their "Master of the House" cause we (the audience) didn't get it. 

The staging: Now this is where it all just dies. The staging is so terrible. It felt like high school direction. Characters were just walking around themselves. No one had any purpose in any scene. The aforementioned door is upstage, but it's just a wall, we can see there's nothing behind it. I know, suspend your disbelief, but c'mon. You couldn't find anywhere else to put the door? And the choreography was just a hot bland mess. It all just felt so basic. 

The actors: No one was bad, but no one was really a stand-out either. Siebert was probably the best. I just wish the show allowed her to be a little more quirky in the role. She was trying to throw in some stuff, but the show doesn't really allow for a ton of personality. Her singing was great though. Ebersole was fine and selling the comedy as best she could, but I wanted her to be bitchier. She's the stepmother! C'mon! Bring the bitch. Davi, as her daughter, was bitchy, but kind of a predictable bitchiness. I wasn't surprised by her choices. Funke wasn't left much to do. Charl Brown, I thought, was just offensively bad. His acting was just...terrible. He didn't seem like he was in the same play as everyone else, and he looked like he felt awkward. Kenna-Bolger was great, but didn't have much to do. Snyder was charming, but again, I wish we could have seem more of his chemistry with Siebert because I really feel like they have a great report. He cracked on his big solo and missed a few dance steps in the big dance number and looked a little flustered during it, but he got through it. After it was over he and Margo looked at each other and were just laughing. That felt like a genuine moment, which I wish we had more of. 

The set: You can see it in that picture above, and it's that for the entire show. The back wall has projections on it, but the projections are terrible. The set was boring, and everything is played downstage center, so there's not much to look at. I was quite surprised. Nothing about it said "We're in France." I wanted more scope. I mean we're talking about castles and horses and carriages and whatnot, and the whole set felt like they had leftovers from Hunchback and just left them. I was quite disappointed in the design. Very lackluster and uninspired. 

Costumes: The costumes felt very cheap to me. Hem lines were all wonky and wavy (I watch Project Runway), and there was never a wow moment. I was waiting for that moment when Cinderella walks out and the audience just gasps at her beauty, but we never see that. Margo's a pretty girl, but we never get a chance to take in a transformation. 

Does Papermill have a very rushed rehearsal period? I know it's the first real preview, but it felt very...not ready? Like it seemed like they had just learned that dance? To be missing steps, etc. I don't know. The whole thing felt messy. 

[Robbie2]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 12:48am

A friend of mine reported back and said stay in NY no reason to go over and see it as your not missing a thing and it won't make it to Broadway...All around a mess and utterly boring!

 

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 1:50am

I've liked the music i've heard that's sad its not very good. And such a shame they've been working on it for years.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 10:00am

Not sure what they were working on? The man next to me said it was exactly like the movie. Passages of dialogue were taken directly from the movie, etc. For a princess musical, it lacked everything that would make it exciting. There were cute moments like when she tells the prince "You're suppose to be charming." It's cute, but not really a laugh out loud line. 

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 2:57pm

I'm sad to hear it's so mediocre. I really like the movie and thought it could be a really enchanting elegant musical. And the cast is so talented.

[Fantod]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 3:01pm

I just think the problem is that the movie is just a second-rate Cinderella movie (sorry Nowack!) and musicalizing it just gives you another musical Cinderella, and we already have two perfect Cinderella musicals (Rodgers and Hammerstein and Disney's) as well as three perfect movies (Rodgers and Hammerstein, Disney's, and the 2015 one [my favorite]), and if this one fails to offer anything new, its purpose really becomes negligible.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 3:05pm

Do they still use the Brothers' Grimm framing device from the film?

[lambchop2]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 5:12pm

I think if they stuck true to the spirit of the film it would be at least something new. The film was quasi-historical (not historically accurate by any means, but 'grounded' in a historical way, if that makes any sense?) but from everything I've seen/read so far, the musical makes things a lot sillier and over the top.

I don't get the point of making Rodmilla de Ghent, a haughty baroness who prizes her social superiority and who is terrifying because she can be so terrible and cruel with a look or single barb, into a scene-chewing, OTT, ridiculous woman.

 

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 5:25pm

"I'm sad to hear it's so mediocre. I really like the movie and thought it could be a really enchanting elegant musical. And the cast is so talented."

Yes, because *all* opinions on this board equal fact.

[JayG 2]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 6:38pm

Why is Leonardo DeVinci in it?

Why is the silver slipper in it?

Why is the overweight step-sister in it?

Why is the ridiculous gypsy queen number in it?

Why does the first act end with nothing to bring the audience back?

Why is the first act over an hour when NOTHING happens?

Why is the set made up of remnants of Hunchback and nothing remotely magical?

Why is the transformation from young Danielle to old Danielle totally uninspired?

Why are contemporary names, such as Danielle and Nicole, given to the heroine?

Why did anyone think this retelling of Cinderella was any good to begin with?

Why were people on their feet applauding at the end of this ordinary, very messy musical?

Why are the creators of musical theater pandering to 10 year old girls? (Oh, never mind.)

 

 

 

 

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 7:11pm

If this doesn't make it to Broadway i know a lot of people will be disappointed. This show has been worked on for like ten years. 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 8:39pm

"I think if they stuck true to the spirit of the film it would be at least something new. The film was quasi-historical (not historically accurate by any means, but 'grounded' in a historical way, if that makes any sense?) but from everything I've seen/read so far, the musical makes things a lot sillier and over the top."

I am finding these reports about the jokes not landing and such worrying. Sure, there's humor in the movie but I wouldn't call it a comedy. I agree that this shouldn't be a standard romantic princess fairytale. R&H's Cinderella already does that perfectly. I was expecting this to be more serious. That's the strength of the movie. It's more of period piece version of Cinderella. Sure, I didn't expect them to devote a song to Thomas More's Utopia but it should be a slightly more grounded and adult story. I don't know what to think. I'm still trying to stay away from the videos and too much info about the show before I go. 

[lambchop2]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 10:33pm

JayG 2: To answer your first three questions: Because they're in the film.

"Why are contemporary names, such as Danielle and Nicole, given to the heroine?

Nicole isn't a contemporary name. Danielle is out of place, since that variant wasn't really popular until the 20th century, and even before then, other feminine variants of Daniel weren't common. As for why they chose those names--probably because the original writers wanted teenagers in 1998 to connect with the character, so giving her names that were (in the case of Danielle) vaguely historical sounding but also modern would help with that.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 11:24pm

I've never seen the film, so I have nothing to say in that regard, but the inclusion of Da Vinci did seem a bit odd? He has this little line at the end like "if you can't make it there, I'll give you wings." And then she shows up in some gown with some wings? The gown wasn't particularly pretty or memorable. And the wings were wings? It just all seemed so pointless. Why is this retelling so important? Did it add anything new to the lexicon of Cinderella? No. In fact, the newest movie actually explained the name behind Cinderella far simpler. The whole thing was quite a bore and a mess. But I would like to hear some of the songs again. I don't think it was a total waste of time, but they also need to figure out who their target audience is. I mean they had kids in the aisles in tiaras and whatnot and they're talking about Da Vinci and Moore and I'm sure all they wanted was to see her in some big, over-the-top ball gown. 

[lambchop2]

Posted: 5/23/15 at 11:47pm

I haven't seen the show but:

In the film, Da Vinci is in France because the king is commissioning him for something; Da Vinci is attacked by gypsies while traveling and they steal a painting. Henry comes across the immediate aftermath while running away and Da Vinci asks him to get the painting back, which he does. The two strike up a friendship and he becomes like Henry's mentor, particularly in regards to finding love. The line in the film is: "Then I shall have to make you wings," in response to Danielle saying "A bird may love a fish, but where will they live?" when she is hesitant about going to the ball after he frees her.

In the film, the ball is a masquerade, so the addition of the wings is because everyone else is in a costume. Is it still a masquerade in the show?

I don't know that there's a particular reason he was in the film over an original character, other than to give the film more of a historical feel. Da Vinci does draw a portrait of Danielle in the film that was inspired by a real life Da Vinci piece, 'Head of a Young Woman.'

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/24/15 at 12:14am

Literally all of that happens in the musical. But, it still somehow seems pointless? Yeah, it's a masquerade, but no one else is wearing a lavish costume, so her wearing wings seems an odd choice? The whole gypsy thing is just beyond weird in the stage show. They all come across as chorus members from Chicago. It's weird.

[degrassifan]

Posted: 5/24/15 at 2:05am

I saw this a few hours ago, but I'm too tired to write a review, plus I'm writing this from my phone. But to answer some questions, I think it helps if you have seen the film. The dialogue in the musical wasn't word-for-word from the film, but the majority of the dialogue comes from the film. The film itself, while having some humor, wasn't a comedy. It's a romance/drama. The musical to me felt like something for 12 year olds and up. I think the musical really needed the Brothers Grimm framing device. In the film, the Brothers Grimm visit an old Grande Dame, who tells them that their version of Cinderella got it all wrong. In fact, Cinderella was a real person called Danielle de Barbarac. The Grande Dame proves this by presenting a portrait of Danielle (painted by da Vinci) and Danielle's silver-satin slipper with a glass heel. The movie then flashes back to the 16th century. At the end, the movie closes with the Grande Dame saying that Danielle was her great-great grandmother, and by the time of the French Revolution, the romance between Danielle and Prince Henry was reduced to a simple fairy tale, Cinderella. I think this needed to be in the musical so that people will understand that they are seeing the true story of Cinderella. Without it, it's just another Cinderella adaptation. In fact, the last line of the film is "The point, gentlemen, is that they lived." This should be the point of the musical too. 

 

Leonardo is there because Ever After is supposed to be historically "accurate," so it used real people and real events. In real life, da Vinci was a guest at the royal court of King Francis of France in 1516, and he stayed there until his death in 1519. King Francis was a real person and he also had a son called Prince Henry. However, Henry didn't marry a commoner named Danielle, but his favorite mistress was called Diane. 

 

Oh, as for the meaning behind Cinderella's name in this version: In Ever After, Danielle often read by the fireplace. While reading, she would fall asleep by the dying embers, so the soot and cinders from the fireplace would stain her clothes and face. This led to Marguerite calling Danielle Cindersoot or Cinderella.

Updated On: 5/24/15 at 02:05 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/24/15 at 10:26pm

That's the same meaning as the most recent film version of Cinderella. So that's nothing new. 

[LightsOut90]

Posted: 5/24/15 at 10:50pm

yikes paper mill strikes out again 0-3 for pre-broadway premieres this year huh. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/24/15 at 11:51pm

Eh. I can't fault them. I mean, on paper them all seem like slam dunks. A pre-Disney tryout? C'mon. Kathleen Marshall and a fairy-tale musical? C'mon. But nope. 

[AKarp2013]

Posted: 5/25/15 at 12:11am

And I don't believe "Hunchback" or "Ever After" ever actually stated that they ever intend(ed) on a Broadway run. "Hunchback" was promoted as being part of the US Premier while "Ever After" is being promoted as the "World Premier".

In fact, wasn't it just "Can-Can" that promoted itself as the Pre-Broadway run with the intention of a future Broadway production? I didn't see "Can-Can" but I clearly remember reading that plans were already secured for a Broadway run.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/25/15 at 12:45am

I mean, sure. That's what's been "said," but I'm sure all these Broadway actors, etc didn't sign on for a world premiere? I'm sure everyone hoped it would have legs after Papermill. I mean look at Arden's tweet. Obviously it was assumed it would go to Broadway. 

[Amalia3]

Posted: 5/25/15 at 9:45pm

"That's the same meaning as the most recent film version of Cinderella. So that's nothing new. "

Wasn't the recent Cinderella movie made 17 years after "Ever After?" 

There have been 8 million versions of Cinderella since the beginning of storytelling.  Expecting something shockingly new is unrealistic.

 

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/25/15 at 10:35pm

I feel like this would be too soon to put on Broadway right now following the closing of R+H's Cinderella. Douglas Carter Beane's new book even seemed to borrow a bit from Ever After in the way that he had Ella become friends with one of her stepsisters. I love the movie and I love the idea of an Ever After musical but I don't think this is the right time for it on Broadway.

 

 

Updated On: 5/26/15 at 10:35 PM

[degrassifan]

Posted: 5/26/15 at 1:15am

That's the same meaning as the most recent film version of Cinderella. So that's nothing new.

 

Like another poster noted, Ever After came out in 1998, while the new Disney Cinderella came out in 2015. The new Cinderella borrowed a few things from Ever After, and so did the recent Rodgers and Hammerstein Broadway version. It's just that you haven't seen the film yet. The Cinderella story has been in existence for centuries, so looking for something new is sort of moot. I will say that the Ever After film was the first Cinderella story that I know of that told the story from a very unique point of view, which was making it a historical romance. Also, it is the only Cinderella story I know where the heroine got her awful nickname because she read by the fireplace, instead of either just sitting or sleeping among the ashes.