Merrily was amazing -- up to a point

[dumboneinatree]

Posted: 11/7/23 at 2:57pm

I think Maria Friedman, Lindasy Mendez, Jonathan Groff and Daniel Radcliffe did everything they possibly could to elevate the material. But paradoxically, their finesse and skill just highlighted the underlying flaws in the script and years of revisions. The book still feels clunky and trite, never really showing you convincingly how and why their friendship cratered -- Frank goes on a cruise and comes back greedy? Really? Also, the female characters are underwritten and are given little to do except obsess about Frank. Mary's unrequited love, in particular, feels totally unmerited. What's her book about? What kind of writer is she? What are her artistic goals? Seems like nobody cared enough to write those details into the script. 

On top of this, some of the musical changes over the years have made the show worse, not better. "That Frank" is an inferior number to "Rich and Happy." "The Blob" is dumb and unnecessary. The rest of the score is amazing, though, and I've never seen It's a Hit or Bobby and Jackie and Jack done to such wonderful effect. 

I loved this production. But the show itself...it's still not perfect. 

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 11/7/23 at 3:46pm

I disagree. I think the show is as close as perfection as it gets, and Sondheim's best show by far. The mistake by Maria Friedman was not putting dancers in Gussie Carnegie's number. The other mistake was to hire the actresses playing Gussie and Beth. Why the production of Encores with Manuel Lin Miranda, Collin, Elizabeth, Betsy and Celia was much superior to this current production.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 11/7/23 at 5:57pm

I guess it's kind of a known thing now, but my impression of Gussie's Opening Number was that it was supposed to start off as sounding like she's singing a soliloquy about her relationship to Frank and then when the dancers/curtain come in, it's revealed it's actually a number from their musical.

I do agree that the female characters are terribly underwritten, especially poor Mary, but it really impresses me how much Lindsay Mendez (along with other actors before her) are able to wring from that role.  I'm also in agreement that Rich and Happy is a better number, but it does start off the show with a different tone as well.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 1:33am

Not sure why the lead opinion warranted an e new thread. It could've been added to the existing ''Merrily'' thread.

Updated On: 11/8/23 at 01:33 AM

[simplecactus]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 4:43am

Wayman_Wong said: "Not sure why the lead opinion warranted an e new thread. It could've been added to the existing ''Merrily'' thread."

It’s a public forum. There’s no rules against creating threads. People can create threads on what they want and on whatever topic they want. They do not need to comment on an already established thread if they don’t want to. 

[JasonC3]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 5:34am

simplecactus said: "Wayman_Wong said: "Not sure why the lead opinion warranted an e new thread. It could've been added to the existing ''Merrily'' thread."

It’s a public forum. There’s no rules against creating threads. People can create threads on what they want and on whatever topic they want. They do not need to comment on an already established thread if they don’t want to."

True of course, but a quick look at the board shows most people abide by the norm to not start a new thread unless the topic really merits it and their comment would be out of place on an existing thread.  Otherwise, we'd have thread after thread of one person's take on a show.

Updated On: 11/8/23 at 05:34 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 8:31am

And it looks like reddit, a billion posts asking the same exact question, thinking it's somehow profound.

 

 

[joevitus]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 10:34am

Wayman_Wong said: "Not sure why the lead opinion warranted an e new thread. It could've been added to the existing ''Merrily'' thread."

Considering the defensiveness that can occur, I think a separate thread to say "It doesn't really work" isn't a bad idea. There's a respectfulness to it--"here's the thread for people who were underwhelmed that doesn't intrude on the people who love this revival."

Haven't seen this production, but the comments about the book fit the show as I know it--poor characterization all around and no real grounding for the three leads being so infatuated with Frank. 

[dumboneinatree]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 10:48am

Please cut me a break -- I've never posted here before. Never will again.

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 11:37am

It’s a shame how often new users and scared away, especially for something as petty as this. There’s no list of rules (like Reddit) on the main page to keep people reminded of little cues such as this - but on the other hand, we’ve had seventeen threads about the same stupid shows before and people didn’t have a fuss about it. It’s just annoying and I think it likely could become the cause for the downfall of the board in a few years. Big whoop if a new thread was created, you didn’t care when you favorite show had three threads on the first page. 

[inception]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 12:10pm

It used to be much easier to find the threads about specific shows.  Now things get hidden so easily.   It is hard enough for regular users to find some threads, I don't know how new users have a hope?

But probably people should lurk for a while before jumping in & starting new threads.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 12:41pm

Don't let these bitter low life rejects deter you from posting on here, I thought your post was totally relevant and valid. I hope you see other Broadway shows and post about them soon. 

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 12:51pm

When was the Merrily thread last on top of the board?

The search function is not functional. We can see dumboneinatree only joined yesterday. He gave a considered opinion on a current show. That's what the board is for. Blustering misanthropes is who was there as a welcome. Sad.

I started a thread on Barbara's new book, not knowing there was already one in existence. It had not appeared since April. These things happen.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 3:51pm

Not sure if I'm one of the "lowlife" and I certainly wasn't trying to discourage anyone from posting. 

The search function here is horrible.  I'll often just put the show name + broadwayworld.com and it will quickly pull up the threads.

Do others have shortcuts that they find helpful?

The only other approach I have found successful is to fill in at least one of the date fields when searching.  For example putting "merrily" in the search term field, selecting subject only, and then putting 01/01/2023 as the start date (didn't add an ending date) pulled up a dozen threads in reverse chronological order.

We would have fewer issues with so many threads if moderators simply merged like-minded threads, something Jordan Catalano and myself have both found to be quite positive on the UK theatreboard site.  It really keeps the conversations going when they generally are all in the same home.

 

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 4:27pm

Let's be honest--if the OP is going to get this huffy about the relatively mild criticism offered in this thread, they weren't going to last long in the nest of vipers that is this board, so better to find out now. Can you imagine how they'd react when JSquared or Sutton or any of the other terrors around here come for them? Gotta have thick skin around here, because too many people (none of whom are here so far) are simply...not nice.

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 4:36pm

Sometimes it's easier to just do a Google search to find a thread. For instance, if you enter "Merrily We Roll Along Reviews Broadway World," the fourth hit is a link to the main reviews thread on this message board.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 6:08pm

To the subject at hand, the late Michael Feingold wrote a fascinating review of the 1994 Off-Broadway revival of Merrily We Roll Along. In it, he expressed the feeling that Merrily as revised worked better than many "hits" of that era. He wrote something that really stuck with me - how perfect do our musicals truly need to be in order to be considered a worthy evening. Some critics and theatre fans will say this show "can't" work because the original production failed, and therefore it will never be viable. And yet, the show has more laughs, great songs and more of an emotional punch than shows that were greater successes. London has always been kinder to Merrily than New York has been, up until this current production, largely because they don't approach it with the same baggage that we do. 

I've seen the revised Merrily in four productions and I feel this production makes the strongest case by far for the rewrite. It is immensely satisfying, with no apologies or cavils required. To the OP's point about the women's roles being underwritten, I think there is as much to them as the show can reasonably hold. The characters circulate around Frank and they are largely defined by their relationship to him. Knowing more about Mary's novel, or Beth's greater hopes and desires would be ancillary. 

[ashley0139]

Posted: 11/8/23 at 10:03pm

muscle23ftl said: "I disagree. I think the show is as close as perfection as it gets, and Sondheim's best show by far. The mistake by Maria Friedman was not putting dancers in Gussie Carnegie's number. The other mistake was to hire the actresses playing Gussie and Beth. Why the production of Encores with Manuel Lin Miranda, Collin, Elizabeth, Betsy and Celia was much superior to this current production."

I thought Katie Rose Clark was an absolutely beautiful, heartbreaking Beth. Beyond the three leads I've been left most thinking about her performance.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 11/9/23 at 1:08am

It's sad that an actress has to cry her lines because she simply can't hit the notes required. Even worse, is that people hire her! She couldn't hit the notes in Wicked or in Piazza, and she does it again here in Merrily. She can't sing the roles she is given, but I blame the casting people and producers, that are absolutely incompetent nowadays. Not Katie, she wants to work and has bills to pay, so she should take the roles she gets, the issues is that she keeps getting them despite the fact that hundreds of other actresses have the talent to sing those songs and don't get a chance. The same regarding the actress playing Gussie, I blame the incompetent casting people ruining most shows on Broadway, when there is so much appropriate talent to cast.

I can name plenty of actresses, who are not working right now, who could play those roles much MUCH better. Elizabeth Stanley is a much better Gussie, who can sing the part much better and has the pizzazz required and Betsy Wolfe for Beth, not sure if she is still in &Juliet. She can act and hit the notes required! 

Updated On: 11/9/23 at 01:08 AM

[BETTY22]

Posted: 11/9/23 at 4:38pm

I thought it was magnificent. Maybe the best revival I have ever seen. That great. Really, that great! Close to perfect. 

[JSquared2]

Posted: 11/9/23 at 5:14pm

muscle23ftl said: "It's sad that an actress has to cry her lines because she simply can't hit the notes required. Even worse, is that people hire her! She couldn't hit the notes in Wicked or in Piazza, and she does it again here in Merrily. She can't sing the roles she is given, but I blame the casting people and producers, that are absolutely incompetent nowadays. Not Katie, she wants to work and has bills to pay, so she should take the roles she gets, the issues is that she keeps getting them despite the fact that hundreds of other actresses have the talent to sing those songs and don't get a chance. The same regarding the actress playing Gussie, I blame the incompetent casting people ruining most shows on Broadway, when there is so much appropriate talent to cast.

I can name plenty of actresses, who are not working right now, who could play those roles much MUCH better. Elizabeth Stanley is a much better Gussie, who can sing the part much better and has the pizzazz required and Betsy Wolfe for Beth, not sure if she is still in &Juliet. She can act and hit the notes required!"

 

You sound ridiculous.

 

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 11/9/23 at 5:32pm

muscle23ftl said: "It's sad that an actress has to cry her lines because she simply can't hit the notes required. Even worse, is that people hire her! She couldn't hit the notes in Wicked or in Piazza, and she does it again here in Merrily. She can't sing the roles she is given, but I blame the casting people and producers, that are absolutely incompetent nowadays. Not Katie, she wants to work and has bills to pay, so she should take the roles she gets, the issues is that she keeps getting them despite the fact that hundreds of other actresses have the talent to sing those songs and don't get a chance. The same regarding the actress playing Gussie, I blame the incompetent casting people ruining most shows on Broadway, when there is so much appropriate talent to cast.

I can name plenty of actresses, who are not working right now, who could play those roles much MUCH better. Elizabeth Stanley is a much better Gussie, who can sing the part much better and has the pizzazz required and Betsy Wolfe for Beth, not sure if she is still in &Juliet. She can act and hit the notes required!"

I mean, if you can hit the notes in Opening Doors, which Katie obviously does, you would have no problem with Not a Day Goes By, at least musically. The way she sings it feels more like a choice to me and actually makes sense given that to an unwitting audience, this is the first time they are introduced to Betty despite a few passing mentions. To sing it like a classic Sondheim torch song does not make sense here. This is a problem with the script and probably why they first went with Frank singing the song, but at least with Katie's choice it establishes the scene and her character to make her later scenes and act 2 reprise mor effective.

[bear88]

Posted: 11/10/23 at 2:52am

Smaxie said: "To the subject at hand, the late Michael Feingold wrote a fascinating review of the 1994 Off-Broadway revival of Merrily We Roll Along. In it, he expressed the feeling that Merrily as revised worked better than many "hits" of that era. He wrote something that really stuck with me - how perfect do our musicals truly need to be in order to be considered a worthy evening. Some critics and theatre fans will say this show "can't" work because the original production failed, and therefore it will never be viable. And yet, the show has more laughs, great songs and more of an emotional punch than shows that were greater successes. London has always been kinder to Merrily than New York has been, up until this current production, largely because they don't approach it with the same baggage that we do.

I've seen the revised Merrily in four productions and I feel this production makes the strongest case by far for the rewrite. It is immensely satisfying, with no apologies or cavils required. To the OP's point about the women's roles being underwritten, I think there is as much to them as the show can reasonably hold. The characters circulate around Frank and they are largely defined by their relationship to him. Knowing more about Mary's novel, or Beth's greater hopes and desires would be ancillary."

While I think Mary is underwritten and portrayed as too pathetic, with a quick and glib explanation of her alcohol problems, I agree that the role has a lot of juicy lines to speak and songs to sing. Lindsay Mendez does a marvelous job at portraying someone who is trying, desperately, to keep a friendship together. A lot of people have been there, even if we don't have decades-long crushes or substance abuse problems to go with it. This is the first time I had seen a Merrily We Roll Along production in person, but I thought the show was effective even in the videotaped versions I've watched on YouTube. Not this effective, though. It was the best revival I've ever seen, emphasizing every one of its strengths and covering up what I've in the past thought were weaknesses or turning them into positives.

I'm still not sure if this Merrily revival is a great revival of a flawed musical or the revival that reveals the great musical that's been there since it was tweaked decades ago. I'm in the middle of reading, Look, I Made a Hat, and was recently reading through the 100+ pages Stephen Sondheim wrote recounting the Wise Guys/Bounce/Road Show saga. I can understand why Sondheim was attracted to the material and have never seen the show, but part of me wondered, "Why did he and John Weidman keep banging away at this musical for years, revising it countless times?" And the best answer I have is: Maybe Sondheim thought - or hoped - that he had another Merrily. Because look how that one is turning out. It just took 42 years.

Updated On: 11/10/23 at 02:52 AM

[getatme]

Posted: 11/10/23 at 2:29pm

I don't think Clarke is "[crying] her lines because she simply can't hit the notes." It is pretty obviously a deliberate choice being made. She is mining the emotional depths of Beth in a way I do not think other actors have. When it comes to Sondheim I will take incredible actors over pitch perfect vocalists every single time.

I've been lucky enough to see this production a handful of times both at NYTW and on Broadway and have been moved by the performances each time in new ways--most especially those of Groff, Mendez, and Clarke.

I don't think Merrily is a perfect show, but I think Friedman's direction paired with a mostly phenomenal group of actors makes a case for this being a sort of diamond in the rough of Sondheim's oeuvre.

[joevitus]

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

Can someone tell me--is the set as ugly and bland as it looks in photos? I realize this is a pretty shallow question, but every time I see pictures from the production, I just think it looks awful. I'll never get to see the show myself, so I'm curious what people think.