TARZAN 3/24...mixed feelings---extended review inside

[jedwards]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 3:14am

Just got back from the first preview of TARZAN. I realize it was a preview, but I was underwhelmed and not all that impressed. This show is missing it's magic.

-The book needs to be tightened up. There are so many two person dialogue scenes that just bog the whole thing down. Some shining moments that made me go "wow that was well written", but a lot of fluff that just seemed amateurish. What strikes me is that the book is such a far departure from the original movie. The dialogue in the original was surprisingly well written. Its like they wanted to set themselves apart from the movie dialogue and so they just rewrote it all in the same context. It just sounds jumbled and incomplete in some places. Not to mention they need way more scenes between Tarzan and Jane.

-The new music, while extremely well written, does not have the same feeling both lyrically and musically as the originals from the movie. This is the same problem they are having with Act 1 being musically different than Act 2 in LESTAT right now. The new music is very musical theatre, while the original songs are very pop. They create this weird congruity that just doesn't sound right. Actually what it sounds like is music written ten years ago mixed in with music that was written last year. They really need to get the 'flavor' of the score consistent to make a deeper emotional impact as most of it is forgettable right now.

-The lighting is great, no qualms about this. Thank god there is no more rock concert vari-lighting like in AIDA.

-The set is where the largest problem lies. Simply, there is none. With the exception of the beginning boat crash, and the camp, the majority of the show takes place either in the air, or on the ground without any set. I can see the vision of a very simplistic set, but after an hour of staring into the green background with nothing else, it starts to get to you. It's like they tried to do a SWEENEY TODD with little to no set, but where as SWEENEY pulls it off magnificently with the music and orchestra, this doesn't. Its redundant, boring, and unimaginative. Now I'm not saying we need flying bubbles, but you can have a minimalistic set and still have beauty in it. I guess I just keep thinking, "Disney, thats the best you could do?"

-Costumes are ok, but slightly weird at times. I am on the fence about these. They look cool, very hard to describe. Lots of little 'dreadlocks?" of fabric twisted up and hanging off the clothing. Maybe the thing that is weird about it are the streaks of blue, red, brown and green paint on their legs, torso and arms. Looks like some kids were playing with paint and got it on themselves. It looks like the actor's did it themselves and wasn't consistent or professional looking at all. Especially looked weird on tarzan, which brings me to my next topic, the performances.

-The performances really need to be not only tightened up, but matched closer together. There seems to be quite a lot of directorial problems here. You want your actors strengths to be used to help bring their character to life. Vocal strength, grounded acting, emotion that comes from within, charisma, tone purity, enunciation, eye contact or lack their of, and physicality are all tools that you use to put a character together. We get a spattering of all the above, but never consistent. In fact all it really does is highlight the flaws in whomever the actor is playing opposite of.

-Merle Dandridge was very impressive as Kala. You could tell there was something going on behind her eyes every second she was on stage. An arm gesture was not just a gesture, but a part of her being and what she was saying. She was grand and majestic, everything a mother should be.
-Chester Gregory was pretty good. He has amazing charisma and a natural stage presence.
-Shuler Hensley steals the show of course. He is so phenomenal I only wish there was more of him. I don't know why is character wasn't built up even more. Some of the cast should really take note of what he is doing as he is a stupendous actor. Sounds great in the duet between him and Kala at the end of Act 1.
-Jenn Gambatese was ok as Jane. I thought she was fabulous in ASU, but when she walked in and had this british RP dialect I was not sold. It continued that way throughout the night. Don't get me wrong, she has a great voice, but this just didn't seem to be her character. Jenn is a wild child, but Jane is very dainty and reserved. She pulls it off well at times, but her instincts get in the way at times.
-Finally the big T, Josh Strickland. Man does he look ridiculous. I'm sorry, but first of all you need to shave your chest, and second of all, you need to go to the gym because it is not pretty. I don't know if this was a directorial choice, but Tarzan should be in very good shape. Not a muscle man, but the way a man would look if he lived with apes his whole life and swung around on vines and climbed up trees and ran through the forest. He only looks like a Tarzan from the shoulders up. I'm sorry but it brought me out of the moment everytime he was on stage. I was very impressed with his voice, and his acting was pretty good as well. Very good in a few scenes, but there were pieces missing. It was slightly vanilla throughout the arch of the show. Not rugged and animalistic, strong and powerful. We need to see Tarzan move and grow from an animal that is rough and broken-in to a being that starts to feel human emotions, and love and pain. We need to see the way he moves, the way he acts, the way he holds himself and the way he talks and sings all change throughout the arc of the show from an animal to a human. Some of this exists in his scenes with Jenn, but it comes and goes. I may be being harsh, but the name of the show is TARZAN right? You have to do more than walk on all fours and sing beautifully. This character is so multi-faceted and is ripe with dramatic purpose and meaning. I would really love to see him try and tap into some of this over the next six weeks.
-Daniel Manche as the boy tarzan is simply incredible. Enough said.
-Ensemble is problematic as well. They don't help support the movement with their endless ground slapping and very unusual choreography. This needs some work.

The technical aspects and flying really do work, but can be cheesy at times. Especially when you see an actor zip up a tree at super-human speeds. I am sad that there is no 'tree-surfing', and I wish there was more swinging for the apes and tarzan to do. While the show is full of aerials, they are very artsy and improvisational. I wish they were grittier or dirtier. I hate to say it, but the aerial aspects of the show need to take a hint from cirque du soleil and become less 'safe'. It's very theatrical and it needs to elicit the "holy sh** that was awesome" reaction. There were some neat moments like when Tarzan swung down from the mez, but the flying is overall not in touch with the coolness feel of the movie. Yes, I can tell this was a choice, and i know they went with a theatrical flying unit, instead of a acrobatic flying unit like cirque or dragone, but personally I don't know if they made the right choice. My opinion, but just based on the fact that there really isn't anything original or uncompromising about the flying. Its just plain old flying, and we had that forty years ago with Mary Martin.



Overall, the show has great bone structure, but needs to be lasso'd in a lot. Book tightened up, music pushed stylistically closer together, performances tuned, and characters focused They have work to do. Its a lot like a road through the mountains that straightens out at times, but then takes a drastic hairpin turn and leaves you thinking "what was that??". As you can tell, I am a fan of the movie and my children enjoy it a lot. Regardless of how this tunes up, children will love it, but I'm hoping for something deeper. Not a disney themepark revue.
Updated On: 3/25/06 at 03:14 AM

[ruthiefan_felix]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 3:34am

Hopefully it will become better! But I have never really thought about how Josh looks like shoulders down! haha!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 4:07am

This is very surprising...not at all in the performance remarks, but mostly about your remarks regarding the set. I seemed to envision that the "flying" and set would be more along to lines of what you thought it would be. Does Disney finally have a flop on their hands? Hm...

[magic168]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 4:15am

I dunno what to think now -- the set looks amazing from the picture liotte posted earlier, but if that lush green landscape in pretty much static throughout most of the show, that'd be disappointing.

I was really hoping for more "cirque" style acrobatics rather than the utilitarian, almost "mode of transport" wire work you describe. Where's the vine swinging, the tree surfing???

Now I'm ery concerned about the show.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 7:03am

"Now I'm ery concerned about the show."

There done one preview, maybe you should see it yourself before writing it off..

Just an idea.. :)

[Smaxie]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 7:06am

And better to not take the advice of someone who thinks a young man raised in the jungle would have a shaved chest.

[tophertilson]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 7:20am

Actually, I get the shaved chest comment. No, in real life he would not have a shaved chest. But this is the theatre. And I always found Tarzan's appearance in all the old movies (as well as the Disney cartoon) to be artistically, aesthetically appropriate. The contrast between the hairy apes and the hairless human just points out the differences between Tarzan and his adopted parents. A very important visual motif, given the theme of the story.

TT

[TheOneAndOnly]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 11:29am

Ya'll are acting like he is Robin Williams-hairy. He has a littttttle bit of hair on his chest and abdomen, but he's not furry at all. His legs have very little hair, almost none. I thought he looked perfectly in character.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 11:33am

Please. There is nothing wrong with a slightly hairy chest for the character.

Tarzan isn't a smooth queen.

[Sleeper2]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 11:35am

I like hairy chests.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 11:37am

What's wrong with a little hair? We certainly don't want a metrosexual Tarzan! ; But in regards to his performance, it is DISNEY'S Tarzan, and while I've never seen the movie, I can understand if they don't want to make him too aggresive to make sure he remains a likeable character.

Then again, it was the first preview, so maybe they're testing how far they can take the character with a real audience.

It'll be interesting to see how the staggered preview schedule will shape the show, I think.

[Sleeper2]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 11:39am

Does he shave anything?

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 11:45am

He's totally hairy. It's way gross. I say he shaves and we go with the line of thinking that his genetics just did not allow for him to grow chest hair.


I love all this nutty speculation after the first preview.

"Will he win the Tony?!"

"I bet Disney has a flop on its hands!!!!"

"Will it be best musical!?"

"I can't believe they aren't fully inhabiting their roles yet in the first performance in front of an audience!!!"

You go to the first preview, you get an uneven performance.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 11:47am

But what is wrong with hairy?

Just because your sexual preference may be smooth. Does not mean Tarzan has to be smooth.

[Sleeper2]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 11:47am

Actually, my motto is you go to the first preview, you get a Brazilian wax.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 11:54am

I told you what's wrong. It's gross ;P I am a slave to media culture.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 12:01pm

I vote for shaving the chest and I volunteer to shave it.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 12:03pm

Hairy = a real and natural man

Smooth = a prissy have to be perfect guy

I am proud to be hairy.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 12:09pm

No set? The visuals are why I see the Disney shows. God knows it's not for the book or acting or, in the case of a Phil Collins score, the songs. People really need to start realizing that in some cases, less is simply LESS.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 12:12pm

This may or may not be a stupid question, but is that sarcasm?

[ScottInLA]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 12:51pm

Not to beat the shaved dead horse, but I think there could be an argument for shaving to match the look of Tarzan from the animated film. Other than that, I can't see that it matters that much.

[Sleeper2]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 1:03pm

I think we've found a balance (or an obsession) between Tarzan's hairiness and Sweeney's lack thereof

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 1:16pm

what? no pics???

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/26/06 at 12:39am

Let's Grab him as he leaves the stage door
Tie Him Down and Shave him next week!
TARZAN has always had a smooth chest.
No More Discussion!
(taking tongue out of cheek)

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/26/06 at 12:44am

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=891358&dt=146

had you searched, or just looked at the first page, you would have seen a thread already there, and could have posted those comments there, RATHER than starting another thread....I mean just the 2,378 Wicked threads should have been enough to make you search

.......did you join BWW today JUST to give this review?