Another TALE OF TWO CITIES review

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 5:04pm

I saw the show this past weekend as well. It is certainly not a bad show, but the score is hopelessly bland with the exception of only two or three songs, and the book, while generally well-written, lacks focus. Since they are trying to tell the story of an enormous novel in less than two-and-a-half hours, they need to cut the fat and focus more on Carton--which they have done for the most part, but not enough. I've heard they have been and will continue to cut excess stuff from the show (i.e. the now deleted graverobbers scene), but while they are doing that they need to give Carton a little more to do in the first act.

As for the cast, they are almost all great, especially Barbour. Without him it would be a much lesser show--which is obviously why they've kept him attached to the project for years, despite his um, legal problems. He really is very, very talented and deserved the rapturous applause he got at his curtain call. Aaron Lazar is good, although it really bothered me that he is so much smaller physically than Barbour and that their faces are only vaguely similar, since it's a key plot point that they look very much alike. This production has broken with tradition and cut all but one reference to their physical similarity, but that doesn't solve the lack of credibility of **SPOILER ALERT** Carton's ability to switch with Darnay in prison, or the fact that people like me who already know the story will be scratching their heads at the casting choice of Lazar. Too bad Derek Keeling left to do "Grease"--he physically would have made a lot more sense.

There are, inevitably, loud echos of "Les Mis" and especially "The Scarlet Pimpernel", as others have pointed out (it doesn't help either their red and black ad design and even letter font is very, very similar to "Pimpernel"'s). The act one finale, "Until Tomorrow" is especially problematic, given that's it's basically the poor man's "One Day More."

All that being said, it is still a great story, and Barbour's performance alone is worth the trip. However, it is certainly not worth the $110 ticket price (very few shows are, actually), so if you're going to go, I recommend getting tickets in the back of the mezzanine for $60 or if you're a student, get rush tickets for only $27.

It's a decent show, but certainly not great. It will run for a few months, close, and then have a healthy life in regional theatre--where it belongs.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 5:08pm

I feel sorry for the creative team, given the amount of fodder they're practically handing to Ben Brantley for a "High Fidelity"-sarcasm-level-review.

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 5:10pm

I'm surprised Lazar is small compared to anyone, especially since he was towering over everybody at the Piazza SD.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 5:13pm

Well, Barbour is like, 6'3" and rather broad-shouldered. They at least should have given Lazar thicker-soled boots and some padding under his waistcoat!
Updated On: 9/1/08 at 05:13 PM

[Eris0303]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 5:36pm

Derek is 6'0 and wore specially made shoes to his audition to make him seem taller. All of the shoes he wore during the Florida run were, also, specially made to add the height. Why that was abandoned for the Broadway run I don't know.

I was never confused by the switching of the two men in prison - even with the lack of mentions of the physical similarities. The way I, personally, see it is how many of the guards would truly be able to pick Charles out of a line up? With all of the people being shuffled in and out of that prison and the mayhem surrounding the revolution would one face stick out to them? I'm not so sure about that. If I recall correctly only two revolutionists could recognize Charles and those are the DeFarges. Neither of them were guarding the prison. So, really, I don't think it would be so difficult to slip something like this past the guards. The producers can get away with casting two actors who don't look alike.

Updated On: 9/1/08 at 05:36 PM

[johnnyg]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 5:45pm

SPOILER!!!!
you're right Eris. But the most important reason why the switch is believable is this: who would ever suspect that someone would switch places with a man condemned to die? It's actually more realistic in this version than in Dickens because in Dickens, since they are identical, how does the Seamstress alone know that he is not the same man? Charlie sort of dropped the ball on that one.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 5:54pm

"who would ever suspect that someone would switch places with a man condemned to die?"

That's a great point - one I hadn't even considered before.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 7:19pm

Oh my goodness....we're now saying Jill Santoriello did a better job with storytelling than Charles Dickens did.

I love it.

[winston89]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 7:30pm

SPOLIER ALERT.

The one thing that I had trouble with is at the very end with the scene between Carton and the seamstress. She was able to realize that Charles wasn't Charles just by looking at Carton. If Charles and Sydney looked exactly the same, then she wouldn't have known the difference.

END OF SPOLIER ALERT.

I think that this is a good show that will get a healthy run. The audiences that I have seen during my two trips to this show have been loving it. I feel that in this day and age with internet message boards and things of that nature, that the critics aren't as powerful as they once were. I still think that this show will get mixed reviews but a great word of mouth will help this show run.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 8:55pm

Where are the rush seats?

[adamgreer]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 9:00pm

The first row of the orchestra.

[philly03]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 9:09pm

The rush tickets are first row of the orchestra. I was sitting in L or M (LOL I can't recall my ticket!) and they did not look like pretty seats at all. High stage.

And interesting you say about $110 tickets. It's $120 for Tale.

Also, if no one is willing to pay full price, then no shows would exist. And besides, just about all ofthe orchestra is full price if I'm not mistaken.

And in regards to Barbour + Lazar, at the stagedoor Lazar looked me right in the eye, and I'm 6'1ish. I don't think it was the height so much that bothered me, but you can certainly tell that Lazar is less boxy? Is that the word? Than Barbour. Neither are fat (LOL), but Barbour has a bit more muscle/bone to him.

And I wish a healthy run to Tale, but with so many people on here concerned about rushing it, and general interest (based off of the name alone) not exactly booming, I question it. I have to agree though, I sadly cannot see it running any longer after this cast leaves, if it can make it out that long. Just speaking the truth, because I actually really really liked it and I plan to go back after the opening!

[Steve2]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 11:44pm

I saw this the other day and don't recall any scene with a seamstress. I wonder if it has been cut?

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 9/1/08 at 11:56pm

The scene with the seamstress is at the very end. She is the one to get beheaded right before James Barbour. James is #23 and the seamstress is #22.

johnnyg was referring to the point in Act 2 where the seamstress sees James Barbour's face and immediately knows that he is not Charles Darney. I believe he is saying that, if the two are supposed to look exactly alike, how does the seamstress know it is not Charles Darnay?

I have never read the book, but I assume that if you see their faces up close, you can tell which is which...

[Eris0303]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 12:10am

They're not identical twins in the book. Anyone who knew either one of them and looked at them would know the difference. The seamstress knew who Charles was and he had been kind to her. So, when it was nearly time for her to go to her death she turned to him for comfort. And since she knew Charles and had spoken with him in the past she knew that this man was not Charles

In the book they are similar looking. From a distance they could be mistaken for each other or could be mistaken for each other by someone who did not know them well. But they are not 100% identical.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 12:17am

Thanks, Eris. Then the plot point makes total sense there. No confusion at all.

Saw it for the fourth time tonight, by the way, and it is SO MUCH TIGHTER and run so smoothly. Act 1 FLEW BY...and it works better without the resurrection scene.

Brandi's Act 2 number 'Without a Word' now has a button at the end...she hits this high note that is f***ing incredible. I was not a fan of hers after the first two times I saw it, but now, call me a converted Brandi Burkhardt fan. I think she is brilliant. She is absolutely gorgeous and she has a voice to die for. As soon as I got home this evening, I ordered the J&H Resurrection CD on amazon...can't wait to listen to it and get her to sign it the next time I see the show.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 12:32am

"Thanks, Eris. Then the plot point makes total sense there. No confusion at all."

Some people get that they're 100% identical from the book but I never felt that at all. I always imagined Carton as being more "rugged" and looking older than his age with Charles being more "clean cut" and youthful.

I haven't seen the NYC production yet though I do want to. From what I understand is seems like an almost different show. My knowledge is based on the Florida production and the novel and it's been nearly a year since I experienced either.

In the novel the similarities between the two men are built up a bit more but are simply glossed over in the show.

SPOILER...

In the novel Charles gets acquitted during his first trial because Carton shows the physical similarities the two men and suggests to Basard that he, himself, could have been the man he had seen with the papers. In the show Carton makes the same suggestion but what makes Basard stop is because he recognizes Carton as the man he had been drinking with the prevous night.

I don't think anyone is really suggesting that Jill is a better writer than Dickens. But, while a tremendous author, Dickens was paid by the word. There's a lot of unneeded stuff in there.

[winston89]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 12:50am

philly03, I wouldn't use the people asking about rush tickets on this forum as a way to figure out how long a run this or any show is going to have.


Most people outthere pay full price to see a show. And, yes it is true that a show wouldn't run on Broadway if people only paid rush prices. The people on this forum go so often that most of them can't afford to pay full price.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 1:17am

oh...and Erin Davie was there tonight...looking gorgeous!

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 1:27am

The problem with Broadway (okay, ONE of the problems) is that $110 or $120--whatever, ANYTHING above, say, $75 or $80 is too much for an orchestra seat. That's how much Broadway orchestra seats were when I was in high school, and I thought that was a a lot even then. I love the theatre more than anything, but it kind of takes some of the joy out of it for me when I'm paying so much for what is often only an average theatre experience. In Chicago I've had more moving experiences at a $30 ticket show at a little storefront theatre than I have at some Broadway shows where I paid at least three times that much money.

The only two recent shows I can think of that were actually worth $120 were "August: Osage County" and "The Light in the Piazza." If Broadway is going to continue to charge these prices, they need to bring us more shows of this caliber to match the rising cost of tickets.

By the way, I still think Barbour has a good three inches on Lazar, as well as a lot more bulk. No, they aren't supposed to be identical twins (that would be unrealistic), but they do need to look enough alike that the jailer and other people think Carton is Darnay unless they get a real good look (like the Seamstress). That's how I remember it from the book.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 1:08pm

Random question but are there a lot of gun shots in the show?

Gratuitous violence?

[GatorNY]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 1:17pm

Last night was my first trip the see ATOTC. It's funny because I had been following the thread on here about "scariest moments at the theater" and there was one rifle shot that scared *@#$ out of me!
There was a bit of stage blood- probably looked a bit much from my vantage point in the 6th row- but I bet from the rest of the house it looked appropriate.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 1:29pm

Gator, did you like the show? It was freakin' awesome last night!!!

[HollyDiver]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 2:14pm

I went last night (Monday) also! I went into this show thinking it was going to be the poor man's Les Mis, but honestly, I LOVED every minute. It goes without saying, but Barbour was incredible. I would compare his voice to Brian Stokes Mitchell- it was that great. The whole cast was really talented. Also, this is one of a few shows I have seen where even when the entire ensemble is singing, I could still understand every word clearly. Timing was excellent.

I can't wait for the Bway cast recording to come out, even though, the songs were admittedly lacking melody... they're great while watching the show and really tell the story, but I couldn't hum a tune from last night right now if I tried!

[commasplice]

Posted: 9/2/08 at 2:43pm

"But, while a tremendous author, Dickens was paid by the word."

That's actually not true -- because his novels were initially serialized, he was paid for a certain number of installments.

(And I say this as someone who does not care for Dickens at all. I WISH it were true, because then I could have something more to stand on when I lament how ridiculously long his books are, but it's just a popular myth.)