Robert Reviews "A Tale of Two Cities'" First Preview!

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 10:24am

Everything about Charles Dickens' classic "A Tale of Two Cities" is epic, beginning with its name. It's not about a single person's saga like "Nicholas Nickleby" or a household and its secrets like "Bleak House," it's about two of the biggest cities in the world at a time of political upset over two generations involving multiple families who have motives within motives. It's huge.

Broadway's interpretation of the novel, which began previews last night at the Al Hirschfield Theater, is also epic in all the right ways. It's a gigantic, sprawling, lush and, yes, literate production of the masterpiece.

To go into the story in any major detail would be confusing for readers, but the broad strokes are as follows: The two cities in the title are London and Paris, and the time is the end of the 18th century. You might remember from history class that there was a little uprising going on in Paris at that time, and the show threads that into a love triangle between Sydney (James Barbour), a heavy-drinking lawyer who (seems to) hate life, Charles (Aaron Lazar), an upright Frenchman, and Lucie, the woman they both love. There is more, of course. A lot more.

The show's pace never lags during its just-under-three hours running time thanks to a book by Jill Santoriello (who also wrote the music and lyrics) that knows when to paint in broad strokes and when to go subtle. For example, the show takes its time setting up the multiple family trees that inhabit "Cities'" huge forest, making sure the viewer is never adrift, but Santoriello also knows that love between characters can also come at first sight, and burgeon into marriage over the course of one showstopping tune. If you are unfamiliar with the subject matter or have not read the book or its cliffnotes (it is unread by me), you'll be able to follow the production fine. It's a fine balance that so many other shows fall short on, but Santoriello succeeds.

Of course with over twenty main and supporting characters, some of the roles are thinnly written and aren't given the exposition or characterization they need in the book. Look at Charles, whose character never quite becomes anything more than a one-dimensional Ken doll in the script. Or Madame Therese, who has two layers: rage and homicidal.

Luckily for Santoriello and director/choreographer Warren Carlyle, the stage is filled with hugely talented individuals who bring power and depth to the paper characters. Lazer is hugely charismatic and charming as Charles, and makes an excellent romantic hero despite his barely-there characterization in the script. Likewise, Natalie Toro brings unexpected depth to Madame Therese, and when her fate is delivered in a dangerous gun battle, there is much more suspense than the book has earned.

The entire cast is uniformly excellent. Barbour is phenomenal as the boozing slob, crafting a cocktail of James Spader's character from "Boston Legal" and Johnny Depp. Brandi Burkhardt brings a surprising amount of power to her mostly powerless (this was, after all the 18th century) female character, and convinces the viewers that she deserves the attention of both of her suitors. As written previously, Lazar shines as Charles and holds up against Barbour's brilliance, which is not an easy feat. Supporting cast members Craig Bennett, Katherine McGrath and Michael Hayward-Jones also deliver knockout performances.

"Cities" will, no doubt, be compared greatly to Broadway's now-defunct classic "Les Miserables." Both tackle an epic novel that does not scream Broadway, both have a first act that ends with a war cry, and both have very similar costume designs. Are the comparisons fair? Yes and no. The similarities in the costumes (and some set designs) are almost shocking at times, but where "Miserables" embraced the epic war nature of its story, "Cities" has a different agenda in embracing the intimate aspect of families put in an impossible situation.

The score, which Santoriello began composing during Reagan's administration, is lush, lively and achingly romantic. This is Santoriello's Broadway debut, and also marks the arrival of a new major name in composing. There are multiple showstoppers integrated seamlessly into the production, beginning with the powerhouse "The Way It Ought To Be" which is performed by most of the cast. Barbour gets two beautiful ballads to belt out: "Reflection" and "I Can't Recall, and Lazar and Burkhardt get the beautiful love song "Now at Last."

There are, of course, some clunkers within the production as well. Despite Toro selling "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" with all she's got, her beautiful voice cannot hide the innane lyrics and unsuitable melody. A comedic song between grave diggers also fails to ignite despite the best efforts of those involved.

The set (and the set pieces that take place therein) is huge, consisting mainly of four wooden two-floored rolling contraptions that serve as drawing rooms, prisons, bars, brothels and everything in between. While annoying at first glance and not in keeping with the otherwise expensive production values, the set decorators pull off making these rolling see-through rooms work by filling them with interesting things and using the empty space to its advantage when necessary.

There are still things that need to be fixed before opening night, of course. In addition to some of the music, a very late moment that involves a guillotine that bathes the stage in darkness destroys emotional resonance in an otherwise moving scene, and an epilogue for the character of Charles and Lucie is unfortunately missing.

Fixable quibbles. "A Tale of Two Cities" is an enormously entertaining night at the theater that reminds you of the magic that can take place on stage when gifted actors perform strong material. It could have easily been a trainwreck or a blatant ripoff of "Les Miserables," but transcends and entertains in its own breathtaking way. It really is the best of times.

Star Rating: **** (out of 5)

*note: I happened upon the first preview completely by accident as I was looking for the [Title of Show] theater. I was going to that theater to get tickets to last night's performance and turned the wrong way down 45th, and saw the "Previews Begin August 19th" sign being removed from the theater and replaced with "The Revolution Begins!" I decided to see if the show was sold out and procured a fifth row center ticket (right by "Ugly Betty's" Judith Light, who is as charming in reality as on the show). How could I turn that down?

Updated On: 8/20/08 at 10:24 AM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 10:26am

Good read, you have just raised by expectations quite a bit above "none."

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 10:32am

I walked into the theater with absolutely no expectations as well, and was blown away.

I wasn't planning on seeing the show and did not read any advance buzz before the curtain went up. That made it all the more exciting for me.

[logan0215]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 10:42am

My interest is now piqued (both in this show and in getting your novel). Thanks Robert!

[winston89]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 10:47am

I also liked this one. At times I feel like the people on BWW saw a different show then what the people at the theatre saw last night. I only say this because the general buzz around intermission was very positive. Whereas, people are jumping on it and calling it a second rate Les Miserables etc, without even seeing it first.

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 11:08am

Awwww...thanks Logan0215, that is so sweet.

Winston, I was nervous at the beginning with all the applause at the open of the show, thinking the audience had already decided to love the show and would not honestly take it in and give it the applause it deserved. This was compounded by the fact that most of the orchestra was investors and guests of the cast and crew.

But the buzz I got at intermission from non-biased audience members was hugely encouraging. They loved the show.

[Kev14]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 11:32am

Great review!

I am excited for the production and think it can be amazing if it is done right. Sounds like they might be on the right foot.

I can't wait to hear more buzz about this show as more people begin seeing it.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 12:50pm

Robert, thank you for your lovely and well-written review of last night's first preview. I truly enjoyed reading it and I felt as if I were in Florida all over again watching the show unfold before me.

I agree with your comments on Toro's performance. I mentioned last night that I never cared for the character of Madame DeFarge in prior incarnations of the story. She was simply "the bad guy". But Toro made her into something new and lively.

I would not be shocked if "Resurrection Man" was cut from the show before opening night. Many of the Florida reviewers felt it was an unneeded song. And while the song itself is lively and well-performed it is also jarring and ill-fitting. Nearly every person who has reviewed last night's preview has made mention of that particular number.

I like your mention of wanting an epilogue for Charles and Lucie. I had read the book prior to seeing the show and my friend had not. I had mentioned to her that the book makes mention of another Darnay child born after these events. A son named Sydney. I wondered how they could have added that to the end of the show. Perhaps by having a small boy walk on stage to join Charles, Lucie, and Lucie as Sydney climbs the stairs. Signifying that not only is Sydney saving the life of Charles but as his life ends a new one begins. I don't know exactly - I'm no director.

[Theatreboy49]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 1:08pm

Robert thank you for the review. I will not be able to see a preview of it this time around (coming to NY) but am glad that the buzz is good as I like many others had low to no expecations. Im glad barbour was good (love his voice).

[johnsons]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 1:49pm

I was about to write a review for this show, but you summed up just about everything I would have to say. My only difference is that I actually loved "Out of Sight, Out of Mind". Also I would have a been a little more critical on the pacing than you were- I felt the first act dragged at times and could not compare to the powerful and beautifully paced second act. However, I would also reccomend this show.

[winston89]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 2:03pm

I also wanted an epilogue for Charles and Luci. I felt like I was leaving with a lot of unanswered questions about them. I think that they could have done without the birth of their son. But, I got the impression that they were leaving with the citizens of Paris wanting them dead. We spend the entire show watching those characters and we don't know if they made it out alive.


I still can't figure out if I wanted an epilogue because I was so engrossed in the show and didn't want to see it end. Or if because I thought that the story itself needed it to be complete.


Also, I have a question. Something just hit me. I loved at first the whole storyline of Sydney giving his life for Charles so that Charles could be with his wife and daughter. But, something just hit me that I don't get. Don't the people at the jail know what Charles looks like? I mean, during the whole trial scene they were talking about how they wanted nothing more then Charles to be dead. I would think that they would realize that Sydney is not Charles and go out and do a manhunt for him or something.

[little_sally]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 2:12pm

You write fantastic reviews, and I am so glad you liked this!

[Kev14]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 2:12pm

I haven't seen the show. But my first thought would be that not having an epilogue would leave the audience with strong emotions at the end of the story. I feel as though sometimes shows shoot themselves in the foot by continuing the show after a good place to stop. It sounds from some of the reviewers this is a good place to stop. Besides there is something attractive about not answering every question. But I haven't seen the show, so that's is just my first impression

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 2:27pm

Winston- It is only fair that you are confused as to why they don't realize it's Carton and not Darnay in the prison. In the book they are supposed to look almost identical.

In fact in the first trial scene, where Darnay is successfully acquitted, it is because a witness is unable to identify Darnay from Carton. This is altered in the musical; actually the fact that they are supposed to look alike is never really brought up.

It is because they are so similar in appearance that Carton is able to swap places with Darnay in the prison and the guards aren't able to tell the difference. Maybe because Barbour and Lazar don't look all that much like they don't try to pull it off.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 2:28pm

In the book there is an uncanny resemblance between Charles and Sydney. They're considered mirror images of each other.

From what I saw in Florida the musical seemed to be playing down the physical resemblance and playing up the fact that many revolutionists were simply killing to kill. I doubt many of them truly knew what Charles looked like. There were probably only two revolutionists who could absolutely pick Charles out of a crowd - the DeFarges. I cannot remember exactly but I believe Madame DeFarge does indeed figure it out.

[philly03]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 2:37pm

Nice review! I'm seeing it in previews in about a week so I cannot wait.

The only thing I don't think I'm going to agree with you on is what you said about the costumes being Les Mis-ish. From the looks of them (from the pictures on the website), some of them look somewhat identical to The Scarlet Pimpernel's...colorful & vibrant rather then the gray of Les Mis! Who knows though those are only pictures!

[Eris0303]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 2:41pm

There is a lot of color to the costumes of this show. Darnay, for example, wears suits of green, blue, and burgandy. Sydney dresses in "muddier" tones.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 4:19pm

I can't wait to see this on fall break and Robert Taylor, your effervescent writing turns me on.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/20/08 at 6:24pm

I'm def going to try and get student rush for this when I'm in NYC! Also, is the orchestra big or did it at least sound lush?

[theatregirl2]

Posted: 8/21/08 at 1:58pm

I wouldn't be surprised either, but Resurrection Man was kept over Round and Round in the Sarasota production in order to keep at least one moment of comic relief. The show is so drama heavy, that they wanted at least one scene that was up lifting. Round and Round was a fun scene, where you actually see Lucy smiling, but it was a big dance number that all of a sudden happens. When it's not a dance show, it kind of feels out of place. But, RM also stand out like a sore thumb due to it's comedy, no matter how wonderful Craig and Tim are!

[Eris0303]

Posted: 8/21/08 at 2:32pm

Craig and Tim are indeed wonderful in Resurrection Man. The song, on it's own, is well done. But, as theatregirl2, said it does stick out.

There are moments of levity during the show. More in the first act than the second. I think the show could survive with out the number.

[Broadwayboy2631]

Posted: 8/21/08 at 6:45pm

Your reviews are so well written and professional. I almost feel uncomfortable reading them before the shows officially open. Nice work!

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 8/21/08 at 7:38pm

I don't think there needs to be an epilogue to the show, per se, but Lucie and Charles' story leaves Charles bruised and battered on Lucie's couch and barely able to speak while Lucie worries about the other man in her life. Perhaps a line or three, or even Charles being able to walk and appear strong would be enough to give the audience a sense that the crazy couple is going to be okay.

And the orchestra sounded lush and fine.

[susanlynn]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 11:07am

I agree Robert!

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 8/22/08 at 11:11am

It's a 17-piece orchestra.