Jarethan said: "I think the show would only work in reverse. Were it played in chronological order, with the same script, art would be just another trivial Hollywood story, not very well fleshed out. By telling it backwards, you are more of a detective discovering pieces and putting them together. I missed a couple of things that were discussed here...I don't even think they would matter if it were told chronologically.
I also think we would be back to the 'what age should the actors be? debate. By viewing it in reverse, I at least was fine with the 35 - 40 year old actors playing 20 year olds, because I knew so much about them by that time. If I knew nothing at a cold opening, I would probably think the casting decisionwas just as stupidas I did when I originally sawthe show and thought that having 20 year-olds play 40 year-olds in crisis was just dumb and distracting to such an extent that I had pretty much written the show off after 15 - 20 minutes."
Oh, I agree, I wouldn't want to see it in reverse I was just wondering if directors, as an exercise for the actors, run it in reverse so they can make new discoveries. Unfortunately a first time viewer doesn't get a lot of the references during one viewing. For example they talk about the "Downtown club" that they're going to go to when Frank gets back from the cruise but you don't really see/hear about the club until Act 2 when they're doing their review in the club.
I saw it again. Even though, as somebody said here, it doesn't have a difficult plot, I realized tonight that the first time I saw it, I was spending a bunch of brain energy following the causations, just because of the reverse chronology. This time, I was able to watch in an "all-heart" way. It was SO GOOD. This cast -- wow, wow, wow. The singing level is fantastic. I feel so lucky that this came to Boston. Mark Umbers' acting job in terms of changing his facial shape and body language as his personality shifts -- I've never seen anything quite like that.
I couldn't get my slash goggles off. I'd wrench them off and then something on stage would reach out, pick them up, and place them back on my face.
barcelona20 said: "Feels like a transfer that would be good for Roundabout."
Yep. I've always been saying it seems like a perfect production for Roundabout to transfer. Merrily will likely never get a commercial revival on Broadway.
I would love for this to transfer but alas it wouldn't make any money. As good as the production is there are a lot of empty seats in the theatre. I don't even think they open the mezzanine on week nights (looking at the seating chart you can't even buy them and it's not because it's full).
Coming home tonight from my second time seeing this. I am so glad I went again (and that I managed to finally convince my mother to join me - she enjoyed it very much). I absolutely adore this show. I wish I had a cast recording of it that I could revisit over and over once their run ends.
Brantley: "For the first time in my experience, Frank is the beating, shattered heart of the show. That’s partly a matter of how Ms. Friedman has ingeniously framed her production. But it’s also a consequence Mr. Umbers’s startlingly sympathetic performance of a (usually unsympathetic) man to whom fame happens."
I saw this production two weeks ago in Boston (made a Boston weekend out of the trip) and I still think about it from time to time. That was the first and only time I've ever seen the show and since then I have watched the documentary Best Worst Thing That Ever Could Have Happened and been watching the encores snippets on youtube.
I really hope it goes either to Broadway or to another pre-Broadway run in the USA or to off-Bway just to see the NYC response to it. Does anyone know what is next for this show?
So on this rainy day in NYC, I learned they videotaped the London production of Merrily from 2013 (Jenna Russell plays Mary)? Does anyone know where I may rent or watch it?