Threepenny Opera Reviews- Page 4

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 9:32pm

Hm. I'm not sure what you mean self-aware.

I think he played a lot of the anger to the audience.

It seemed more like a directorial thing. The whole awareness that he is an actor demonstrating the character of Lucy.

Or I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying.


ETA: bwayondabrain - that nasty review was posted a few pages back.
Updated On: 4/20/06 at 09:32 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 9:33pm

I think the negative reviewers are having in issue with Elliott's over all concept and frankly, if the Ben Brantley "Studio 54" comparisons are correct - that is neither timely or shocking in the sense Brecht meant. He wasn't going for "glam rock," even in the days of decadent Weimer Berlin when it was first written.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 9:34pm

Will EVERY show performed in STUDIO 54 be compared to "Cabaret."

[senortenor]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 9:35pm

I think the main problem with the show is that it goes just too far from its original intent. They have tried to "modernize" it, but in doing so, too many of the choices they have made are just so overboard that they turn what was an incredibly intelligently created political and social commentary into something that lacks focus and in too many places is just utterly obscene (as was delineated in Brantley's review). I admit I was incredibly excited to see this show, but left a bit boggled. I wasn't sure what they had done to it, or for that matter, couldn't even begin to pick apart how many things had been so strangely outfitted.

What worked so well in the Brechtian tradition was conscious ambiguity and the constant subtlety of the writing, performance, set, etc. Some of these elements still existed in the set of the new 3penny, but I think everything else is lost by the choices that they made. I am now disappointed in the fact that they didn't choose to keep it simple, and let Brecht's writing speak for itself.

[wexy]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 9:35pm

I have to pick my day tomorrow since I was in the hospital when I was supposed to see the first preview.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 9:42pm

Tenor says it very eloquently. I mean I don't think Brecht imagined his scene changes being broadcast in neon signs. He would probably be horrified at the costume and set budget for this production. Splashy is just not what he was going for.
Updated On: 4/20/06 at 09:42 PM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 9:46pm

senortenor, wow, you eloquently, and perfectly conveyed my thoughts on this production.

Then again, I'm more of a Brecht "purist", which I admit is a hindrance when appreciating a new adaptation... I just couldn't help feeling disappointed in this production.

And I loved Rooney, and hated McKay.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 9:53pm

Brecht's productions used painted signs. What's the difference interpretationally between using those or using neon signs that say the exact same thing?

And set is mostly bare and minimalist with a couple of individual seedy-looking couches and chairs coming on and off to suggest each particular scene. And the costumes are mostly stuff you can find at Trash & Vaudeville, the thrift store on St. Marks in the East Village (Mizrahi actually bought several pieces for the production there). With the exception of Gasteyer's faux Chanel suit (which is appropriate for this take on the character), most of the outfits in the show are reminiscent of the kinds of vintage leather and punk wear my friends in the East Village of the 80s and 90s used to wear when they went out (and trust me, given that most were poor waiters, bartenders, and "actors" by day, none of that stuff cost much of anything).

Updated On: 4/20/06 at 09:53 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 9:58pm

Well, budget is the difference, Margo - I mean how much do those neon signs cost compared to paint on a piece of wood? And the fact that a haute couture fashion designer did the costumes is kind of bourgeois too - even if he did buy a few things at an over expensive now chic boutique thrift shop.

And what exactly is the point of setting the show in the East Village of the 1980s? I ask that with all honesty because I haven't seen the show, but its not exactly "modern" and definitely not the period the show was originally set in by Brecht.
Updated On: 4/20/06 at 09:58 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:00pm

Reuters/Hollywood Report is Negative:

"Redefining the term "eclectic," the Roundabout's new Broadway revival of the classic Brecht/Weill musical "The Threepenny Opera" is like an overstuffed stew composed of ingredients that have begun to spoil.

This production, featuring a cast of stars from the worlds of theater (Alan Cumming, Jim Dale), television (Ana Gasteyer) and pop music (Cyndi Lauper, Nellie McKay) and using a new translation by playwright-actor Wallace Shawn, is confoundingly wrongheaded in its concept and execution.

Director Scott Elliott and adapter Shawn have adopted a modernistic, highly vulgar take on the material, no doubt in an effort to provide contemporary shock value to match the anarchic impact of the 1928 original. Unfortunately, the net effect is far more alienating than even Brecht would have approved of.
______________________________________________________________

It takes a theatrical pro like Dale to illustrate what the show could have achieved. Playing Peachum with a highly entertaining, loose-limbed oiliness, he brings down the house with his bravura renditions of such numbers as "The Song of Inadequacy of Human Striving."

The rest of the cast doesn't fare nearly as well. Cumming, sporting a Mohawk, is an effectively charismatic Macheath, but his performance seems too reminiscent of his work in another revival staged by the Roundabout at Studio 54, "Cabaret." Lauper and McKay, both making their stage debuts, are unable to bring much shading to their turns as Jenny and Polly Peachum, respectively -- though, as might be expected, they do more than decently by their musical numbers. Gasteyer displays a surprisingly strong singing voice as Mrs. Peachum, but her performance lapses into caricature."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002383772

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:01pm

Seeing that some Broadway fans weren't crazy about McKay, and now seeing that most critics are praising her..

I have a real interest in seeing the show now. Mostly for McKay. Which is odd, because I didn't even know of her before this!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:13pm

Trash and Vaudeville is NOT a chic thrift shop. It's a dump. I see I wasn't clear with my earlier statement. My indigent friends used to actually shop there because so much stuff there is ridiculously cheap. Used leather jackets cost as little as $50. It's where all the broke Ramone clones and the bands who played at CBGBs used to get their outfits, back before they started making any money. You could find something cool-looking for next to nothing. Friends used to get whole outfits, including shoes for $100. THAT'S a lot of what Mizrahi was buying and has put on the stage at Studio 54. Yes, some stuff probably cost more and some stuff was custom made, but a LOT of it I know for a fact can be bought at places like Trash & Vaudeville for next to nothing.

Nothing in the program or anything says where it is set or what time period, but if you go out right now in this many other cities you can find clubs where people are dressed exactly as they are on the stage at 54 (I just came back from Chiacgo and passed people in similar leather gear). I just mentioned 80s as a personal memory (and that's roughly when that look started to find widespread popularity, though if I'm being completely accurate, it all stems from the punk scene in London of the early 70s). I take it Elliott wanted to convey a contemporary sense of decadence and danger which the costume design definitely suggests.

Updated On: 4/20/06 at 10:13 PM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:22pm

I understand dd. Maybe he was experimenting? I don't think he was ever stifling in any way when I saw it...

Anyway, I think people want a more risque version than the Blitzstein, but when that happens people are afraid of it.

Yes, the costumes are anti-Brecht, in that way. But the neon lights add a whole new sentiment to the play.

I think Roundabout should have gotten rights to the Donamr version, or called it a transfer. It's so perfect. But, then, Cyndi, Nellie, Alan, Ana could never be in this production.

I can't believe Lauper is not getting raves. I guess critics really are THAT pissy.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:37pm

Hey! If bad reviews mean discounts will pop up, I say we trash the show!

Yes, for twisted logic
I would like to see the show

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:42pm

USA Today gives it One-and-a-half Stars out of Four:

"Brecht, where is thy sting?
The 1989 Broadway production of Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill's musical masterpiece The Threepenny Opera had it, literally, with a capital S. Sting's performance as that ne'er-do-well Macheath wasn't embraced by all critics. But I'll wager the biggest naysayers would recall the rock star's run fondly if asked to compare it with the version that just landed, with a thud, at Studio 54.

The Roundabout Theatre Company's staging of Threepenny (* ½ out of four), which opened Thursday, looks intriguing on paper. Director Scott Elliott has shown his flair for socially charged material, and Alan Cumming exuded a witty sensuality and menace in Roundabout's Cabaret that would seem to bode well for Macheath.

There's even a fresh pair of pop singers: rebellious troubadour Nellie McKay as rebellious ingénue Polly Peachum, and Cyndi Lauper as Jenny, Mack's not-quite-true love.

When stirred together, though, the ingredients add up to a mess. Elliott and translator Wallace Shawn try really hard to make Brecht's ferocious material newly subversive, but their four-letter words and gender-bending touches merely seem gratuitous and silly.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:43pm

Now see when I lived in the East Village, I was REALLY poor, Margo, so 100 bucks to me always seemed like an over priced thrift store to me :) But you are right - the way the city is now - that's cheap for vintage. I'd be pissed though if my costume smelled like TRASH AND VAUDEVILLE though - yuck!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:49pm

LOL. Yeah I was rather surprised when I heard Mizrahi was ACTUALLY using some real thrift stuff in the show (I thought he was just going around to gather ideas). Hopefully they have a very good dry cleaner

PS When I said $100, I meant the whole outfit INCLUDING the shoes.

[Come Back to Me]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:51pm

I saw this show on it's 5th preview performance, 3/26, and I loved it!!! I hope it doesn't close before the limited engagement is scheduled to finish

Has the Wall Street Journal put out a review yet?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:53pm

Wall Street Journal is usually not out until the morning.

[senortenor]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 10:56pm

Thanks Broadway Chica. I gave myself a few days to think about this show. I saw it last Saturday, and even though I called into Roundabout only days before that, somehow I ended up with one of the best seats in the house-- in the second row, with an absolute direct view to the stage (no seats in front of me), which afforded me also the most leg room I have ever had at a B'way theater! The couple next to me told me they had waited 20 years for those tickets to become available on their subscription. I also think they were a little taken back with the content of the show.

I have to say that my seat was one of the most amazing parts of going, so I feel on that note, that I got my money's worth! [I splurged this weekend, as I was waiting and waiting to hear back on a couple of jobs I had interviewed for, and I couldn't sit around... It was making me nervewracked.]

I know that sometimes the more I spend on a show, the more I am willing to overlook its flaws to validate the amount I have spent! But, I refuse to do that when more and more low quality productions are being produced, with most of their budgets being put into bringing in big name celebrities or high tech sets and special effects. Brecht was one of the ingenious minds who showed that the simplest is often the most effective and giving the audience the upperhand by recognizing their intelligence and ability to think is a benefit that doesn't cost a cent!

[senortenor]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 11:02pm

I love the way McKay talks and sings when in her lower range, but I agree with many of the things said before in that she was a bit out of her element in this production. I am only slightly familiar with her cabaret work, but I did tend to recall that she sang MUCH lower. So, sitting there listening to her, I was thinking, is this stuff too high for her or am I just imagining things? I didn't think such a poor casting decision would have been made.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 11:14pm

AP is Negative:

"It would be nice, perhaps, to get a little entertainment with our alienation. But there's not much to be found at Studio 54 where the Roundabout Theatre Company opened a strenuous, slow-moving revival of Bertolt Brecht-Kurt Weill's "The Threepenny Opera" on Thursday.

Things are kind of a drag - and not only because of frequent cast cross-dressing, most prominently by an actor named Brian Charles Rooney who plays the love-struck Lucy Brown. At one point, Rooney literally flaunts all his credentials in what could be the season's most unnecessary moment of overexposure.

But then excess seems to be the hallmark of this lengthy (nearly three hours), misguided production, with a coarse new translation by Wallace Shawn.
______________________________________________________________

Dale has things down exactly right. Physically, he looks like a macabre vaudevillian, a creepy marionette who never stops moving. And verbally, he handles the often tongue-twisting lyrics and dialogue with ease. It's a magnetic performance.

The same can't be said for Alan Cumming's take on Mack the Knife, the musical's pivotal character. Sporting a Mohawk haircut and wearing basic black, the actor, while creepy and sexually provocative, doesn't register on the Richter scale of menace. He's provocateur-lite.
______________________________________________________________

A campy yet unfunny Cyndi Lauper, on the other hand, is largely wasted in the role of Pirate Jenny, the woman who sells out Mack to the authorities.

But then Elliott's staging is practically wit-free. The book's black humor disappears into a black hole of obviousness. Only in one scene, when Lucy Brown tries to poison her rival, Polly, with a large, roiling glass of gin, do laughs make an appearance.

Broadway's last revival of this classic show, the 1989 version starring Sting as a colorless Mack the Knife, was equally difficult to sit through. This "Threepenny" continues that depressing tradition."

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/entertainment/gossip/14391543.htm

[senortenor]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 11:21pm

How do actors and the creative team take to reviews? Can anyone speak from experience? Does it get people really down and depressed and angry when they get a whole slew of bad or mixed reviews?

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 11:36pm

Am I really missing things - or am I just really missing things?

Didn't Lenya once say that the song PIRATE JENNY has nothing to do with Jenny, the character - who is called low-dive Jenny?

I mean, people keep referring to Cyndi as playing Pirate Jenny....but there's no such role. And just because Lotte Lenya took the song for herself (not that I'm complaining), the song itself was written for Polly.

Also, I hate the term underrated unless the part was specifically WRITTEN for a person. I mean, the part of Jenny was made big because of, once again, everyone's favortie German, Lotte Lenya. But the role of Jenny isn't that big. And, in fact, was extended by giving her the MAC THE KNIFE song. (Too bad Cyndi didn't sing it alone.) Anyway, how can Cyndi be underused? If anything, she is given MORE to do than Brecht ORIGINALLY intended.

And how is this production NOT entertaining?

I think I am passionate about this not only because I enjoyed it (as crazy as THAT may sound) but because Elliot went very far out on a limb to make this production as new as possible. I can't believe he isn't getting credit for that (failed or not). I mean, the reason we don't see such innovative staging anymore is BECAUSE they get trashed.

I would be OK with the critics saying he failed (though I don't think he did). But some aknowledgement (THANK YOU MICHAEL MURRAY FOR BEING SMART) that Scott Elliot is doing something new would be nice.

Sorry Harry Connick, Jr. doesn't come onstage shirtless, Ben Brantley.

Updated On: 4/20/06 at 11:36 PM

[leefowler]

Posted: 4/20/06 at 11:51pm

The problem is, what Scott Elliott thinks is new and daring wouldn't have ruffled anyone's hair back in the 60's. People snorting coke? Men in tight leather pants? Two boys kissing? This stuff hasn't been shocking in about 40 years.It's a lazy mind's idea of "daring".

Bring back Tom O'Horgan!