THE COLOR PURPLE

[jess20882]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 11:34am

I was just curious as to people's opinions about THE COLOR PURPLE. I have seen it a few times and absolutely love it - give me LaChanze, Felicia Fields, and Brandon Victor Dixon any day.

But I was just wondering what other people thought, since I have heard a ton of reviews and it seems that people either really love it or really dislike it.

Any thoughts?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 11:52am

I found it an enjoyable night out, but I think the show is horrible.

There are some great performances, beautiful sets and lighting, nice choreography, and a couple of good songs, but as a musical based off of the pulitzer prize winning novel?

It's garbage. Gary Griffin had no business directing this show. The book is a mess, and it is a 2.5 hour hodge-podge.

I was so disappointed leaving that theatre. Elizabeth Withers-Mendes was brilliant. Felicia Fields, I found good. The rest of the cast = disposable.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 12:04pm

Having only seen the film-adaption ages ago when it first came out (loved it, but never watched it again since), I wasn't interested if I ever saw the Broadway musical adaption or not.

Eventually, I gave in and went. LOVED IT! It turned-out to be one magical evening. The show breezed by with amazing speed -- not one moment was stagnant. No words can describe the genuis of the score. Though I'm quite the savy NY theatre junkie (seen mostly everything since 1972 to 2 weeks ago), I'm not a big 'show tunes' fan. "The Color Purple" has one 'easy-to-take-in' score.

Was also lucky to catch LaChanze, so I don't know if this musters-in why I loved the show so much.

Needless to say, thanks to me I can easily say about 30 people have seen the show due to my remarks about it AND they also weren't drawn to see it.

"Who de daddy? Who de daddy? Who de daddy?"

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 12:11pm

The "daddy" part is very funny.

BUT.

THE COLOR PURPLE should not be a comedy! Absolutely not! You she feel depressed and want to die until Celie finally sticks up for herself. Then, her revelation is also the audiences release, and both can let go simultaneously and you can cheer for her.

The film and the book made me want to stand up and cheer for her. The show made me want to say "So what?"

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 12:14pm

This is what I wrote after seeing the second preview:

The score ranges from funk and rock to southern blues, and even a few Broadway-style ballads in there. Overall, the score is generally good, if not trite at some points. Many of the songs begin to sound like repeats - whether they are or aren't, I have no idea. The lyrics are your general run of the mill decent theatre lyrics. They're not Sondheim (or even Guettel,) but they're not like LITTLE WOMEN either.

The book is generally okay as well, capturing enough of the spirit of the original novel.

Before I get to the individual actors, I really need to say that this show just really doesn't work. There are some brilliant attempts made all around, but it just doesn't add up to much.

The show starts off with this bizzare, frazzled, pointless opening number - the lyrics are unintelligible, and people are just running around amuck onstage - it needs to go.

After the not-so-good opening, the show begins to take off - but never really quite reaches the level it needs to be at. Yes, it's only the second performance and yes, they have a month. But quite honestly, the show needs too much to be brilliant by the time it opens. This show would have worked better as a straight play.

From the beginning, Celie appears more independant and sure of herself than she should - certainly more confident than the Celie of the novel and the film. If Celie starts off too independant, she has no where to grow. Shug has nothing to teach her. When Mr. ___ tells her that she's ugly, and no one wants her, it is delivered (and received) as a joke. Is Celie really ugly, or are you just kidding around? It's obvious to anyone that knows the material that it is no joke. We are supposed to feel so deeply for this poor woman that by the time she makes her grand departure, we weep for her. The stakes aren't high enough from the very beginning - and if they're not - the entire story is a failure.

Mr. ___ is never quite as mean as he needs to be. None of the characters express pure fear of him, like they need to. From the very first time they meet, Celie looks like she could kick his ass.

One of my favorite scenes in the film is when Mr. ___ seperates Nettie from Celie and kicks her off his land. In the film, it is a monumentally difficult scene to watch - which it needs to be. The girls are violently weeping - not caring about the pain he's inflicting on them - all they care about is that they're together. In the musical, if you blink - you could miss it. It's executed in such a non-chalant "whatever, you guys saw the movie" way that the audience never quite sees the urgency and and utter love these girls have for each other. When Celie finds the letters at the end of act one, we almost have to remind ourselves that the point of the story is that she hasn't heard from her sister in all these years.

The love between Celie and Nettie is very apparant - and well executed- in the earlier scenes. But, as soon as they're forceably separated, it seems like a non-issue.

I could go through the show scene by scene, but really, the entire thing needs to be taken to the next level. My other favorite scene is when Celie decides to go to Memphis with Shug, leaving Mr. __ behind. When Celie finally tells him off, we're supposed to want to stand up, and cheer her on. In the film, I cry tears of absolute joy when she delivers those famous lines from the back of the car. Mr. ___ believes that Celie HAS put a curse on him - and it's apparant to the audience and him - maybe for the first time - that he NEEDS her in his life.

In the play, the scene is as flat as flat can be. I can't express enough disappointment.

Okay, enough blabber.
Bottom line: The stakes are not high enough. Nothing in this show seems important to anyone. It's quite evident that the director is making his Broadway debut here. The show is also about 30 minutes too long. The opening of Act 2 is an Africa sequence that - while entertaining for about 2 minutes - it's completely pointless and just wastes time.

I think everyone was hoping that La Chanze would make a triumphant Broadway return in this brilliant role - and I regret to inform you all that that is not happening. She is quite good - YES. Amazing, even - but this production is so misguided and scattered that the show's weaknesses outshine even the greatest performances.

Renee Elise Goldsberry is truly fantastic as Nettie, and succeeds in every way possible. Kinglsey Leggs does not do the role of Mr. ___ justice. Not at all. Completely lacking. Brandon Victor Dixon is serviceable as Harpo, and Felicia P. Fields is entertaining, but not quite rock-solid enough as Sofia. Elisabeth Withers-Mendes is positively enchanting as Shug - and succeeds brilliantly in bringing this bigger-than-life character to the stage.

John Lee Beatty's scenic design is absolutely gorgeous and Award-worthy, as are the costumes by Paul Tazewell and Brian MacDevitt's always reliable lighting. The show has an amazing look to it.

All in all, this show is in trouble. They have a month to get their act together - and I have my fingers crossed that they will do so - but I highly doubt that they will re-work everything that needs to be re-worked

[InTheKnow2]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 1:06pm

Although somewhat ignored by the industry and certainly the Tony committee, it was by far the most meaningful show last season.

It reminds us that we go to the theatre not only to be entertained but to be changed in some way.

Although it takes a keen eye to absorb all the nuance and detail in the production, this production has already changed many lives as did the novel and the film.

Kudos to everyone involved.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 1:08pm

Meaningful show?

Meaningful novel and film - yes. But the show? How?

[jess20882]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 1:14pm

I personally found the show very meaningful as well, perhaps because it was being performed there, right in front of me, and I could almost feel the emotion coming off the actors. There is, at least for me, something more when watching live theatre as opposed to reading a book or watching a movie. Something about real people, making eye contact with me, seeing their sweat and their tears.

I don't know, it just feels more real for me. I cried during the show, but not once during the movie or while reading the book.

For me, it was one of the most meaninful and moving shows I have seen in a long time.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 1:21pm

I think people are confusing a meaningful story and source material with a meaningful show.

Meaningful story? Yes.

The show? How?

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 1:40pm

I really did love it. Yes, the production and direction were not flawless, but I thought that it was a wonderful interpretation of the story. Celie was always at the forefront of the action which kept the audience from getting lost in the expanse of the more complicated plot that the film version presents. I do agree that the African Homeland sequence ran too long, but I thought it was a brilliant way of beginning the second act. I felt that the message(s) rang loud and clear throughout the middle and end of the second act. I also like the more obvious development of Mister’s character (as oppose to the film’s take on it where his development is glossed over at the end). It proved to be a moving and enjoyable experience for me. At least, that’s my opinion.

[InTheKnow2]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 2:20pm

I don't think the definition of meaningful is being distorted in any way here. The emotion this show elicits in the audience is something I have rarely witnessed in the theatre.

Flawed as the production may be (they all are) it takes people on Celie's journey each and every time. The energy coming from the stage is palpable.

Audience members even become a part of the story by audibly responding to what is going on in front of them. Cast members are blown away in turn by the effect they are having all throughout and the title song in the end is almost a communal religious experience.

I think that qualifies as meaningful.

[imafantu]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 2:39pm

Well i think you said it yourself...

"There are some great performances, beautiful sets and lighting, nice choreography, and a couple of good songs"...

Those ARE some of the things that comprise a good show for some people. No it wasn't flawless, but the only way to make it so would have been to have a TCP I and a TCP II. Unlike film, you can't zap through 50 years of history and always reflect a realistic passage of time. to do what they did in under 3 hours is good.
Yes the source material and the story itself are meaningful...but it was Felicia Field's performance that showed me another playful, coy side to the "angry" sophia that I saw in the movie; how she was as stubborn as harpo was domineering and how it cost her years...It was Lachanze who brought to life how a grown woman grows with and endures physical abuse and rape and still carries out her daily life(as opposed to the movie-which only shows Mister physically abusing Celie at as a young child/woman. in the only scene of him abusing grown up "Celie", she almost slices his throat right afterward- even whoopi couldn't play both a subdued,submissive,timid and beaten woman-and a woman who comes into her own, they need 2 people to show that). It was Kingsley who brought out Mister's redeemable characteristics, the boy who tries to assert his manhood with his father by dominating women; that he wasn't all monster. Last but not least, it was Elisabeth Withers(who was my absolute favorite) who brought SHUG to life as a woman who has has many sex partners, but only one lover; who has realized that with all she has (beauty, money, admirers) she hasn't had a place where she is loved unconditionally that she doesn't have to share- until celie.
Put all those things together with lighting, set design, a catchy showtunes list, and nice choreography- and you have a meaningful show. It offered a closer interpretation of the book than the movie did- Alice Walker was quite pleased with the work. considering most people are not as faithful to the book as they are to steven spielberg's creative rendition (which leaves a lot of key points of the book out)- Broadway's The Color Purple overcomes a major hurdle by taking people BACK TO the original source material and intent of the story. It is truth that most people who saw the movie saw it before they read the book. On the other hand, more people who saw the stage production have already seen the movie. The book is the source of both movie and play, but most people believe that the book is the source for the movie, and the movie is the source for the play. that does an injustice to the stage and the book. TCP brings focus back to the book for the characters and story, and to the stage for the talent who interprets . And they do it without using the soundtrack or script from the movie! That's what makes it meaningful to me.

[InTheKnow2]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 3:41pm

imafantu:

I don't mean to quote the end of the show but that deserves an AMEN! Glad to hear not everyone is turned off by a production with such epic/artistic scope. Alice Walker gave the world a gift and the creative team for the musical gave it a new voice.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 3:43pm

I enjoyed the show very much and was blown away by the performances of the 3 leading ladies.

The thing that did it for me was the audience, many of whom were screaming "Praise the Lord" when Sophia was rejuvinated in Act 2, and shouting other random things to the stage. It's a great sight to see.

[catstagestud]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 4:51pm

I thought this show was really somethin' else. LaChanze was amazing and I called it that night at the stage door while talking with my friends from NH that she had the Tony in the bag; I was seeing Sweeney the night night and only felt LuPone would be the only possible competition after watching LaChanze's performance. The supporting cast was great; the music was wonderful. My grandma and I loved it; we laughed, we cried, etc. I would see this show again in a heartbeat.

Cheers,

Christopher

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 5:14pm

My favorite show of the year next to Jersey Boys! Go see it. For the love of God, go see it!

[Danielm]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 5:28pm

I had no interest in seeing the show the last time I was in NY, it was way down on my list. The reviews weren't good and though I loved the novel I didn't care much for the movie. But then two friends (who don't know each other) both performers, both not easy to please said they saw it and loved it so I got tickets at the tkts booth and went--I'm so glad I did. I didn't like the overature but after that I was completely swept into the story. LaChanze and the rest of the cast were amazing--the dancing is incredible. I actually quite liked the score and thought it served the material far better than the reviews had led me to believe it would--and a few were quite brilliant--the whole pants scene was a great way to show the passing of time and the change in their lifestyles. In general the score kept the show moving along at a brisk tempo--which was good because there's a lot of story. The set is beautiful and the costumes are fantastic. I found it a very satisfying show and whatever problems I had with it (LaChanze is too beautiful, the second act is rushed to get through all that plot) were negligable beside how happy it made me. Also, while there is humor in it, it is certainly not a "comedy".

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 5:35pm

i very much enjoyed this show, it is my 3rd favorite i have seen
i thought the cast was super-talented, the songs were awesome, the sets were very nice, and the story is beautiful!
id have to say my only complaint would be the lack of emotion in the part, as munk mentioned, in the scene where Celie and Nettie are taken away from each other. it definitely was not as sad as in the movie. and i also thought Celie had much more of a voice than i thought she shouldve, at least around the beginning
but i have read the book, seen the movie, and seen the show, and the show would have to be my favorite of the 3 mediums.
it was very enjoyable, and an overall amazing night in the theatre, one of the best ive ever had, and i DEFINITLEY reccomend seeing it
so yeah, THE COLOR PURPLE is incredible!

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 5:51pm

Who's hoochicoochin wid who?

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 5:53pm

SCANDALOUS!

:P

i love that part

but id have to say my favorite Church Lady part would have to be "A Tree Named Sofia"...

[MandaGurl]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 5:59pm

**Loved it**!!

-Amanda*

[sidneybruhl]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 7:15pm

I saw the show this past summer and loved it! I left the theatre feeling so uplifted.

[mint0621]

Posted: 9/27/06 at 11:52pm

i absolutely adored this show! Touching...I laughed, I cried...and I didn't even cry during the movie & book.

[HughE2030]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 12:02am

I thought the show was very good. I thought Felcia Fields was going to win the Tony. I thought Lachanze was good, but a bit weak in the first act, and I know she was supposed to be a women who was oppressed. I didn't think she was better than Lupone to win the Tony. The soundtrack is great. I think the only thing that really brings down the play is the long drawn out part about Celia's chosen profession and the song that went along with it.
At Broadway Cares the other day, I was fortunate enough to buy 2 posters signed by the cast. Monday I was even more fortunate to have Oprah sign them. Yesterday when I was out and about, a paparazi I know gave me photos of Oprah signing my posters:)


Confessions of A Celebrity Stalker

[PJ]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 12:20am

I agree with someone else who said the show was too long. I remember both times I saw it wondering when the hell it was going to be over. It should have been trimmed down by at least fifteen minutes during previews. The whole dance part in Act II was "neat" for a short while, but it quickly wore out it's welcome.

LaChanze is good. Very good, actually. But that Tony should have gone to another actress who's name begins with a "P" and ends in "atti."