rOcKS @ 'Guys & Dolls'

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 5:30pm

I was there last night. Let's start with my first thought of the evening. The Nederlander looks absolutely stunning. What they did to the theater in the last few months is really impressive. It looks wonderful and you can still smell the paint. Now, onto the show..

There are three major issues with this production of GUYS AND DOLLS (which is in my mind pretty damn close to flawlessly written). I'll get those issues out of the way first:

1) Des McAnuff's methodical, static, joyless direction. There's nothing inventive here but there's also nothing that feels like old-school classic Broadway. It's just very blandly directed and it takes a lot away from the experience. The group scenes feel cramped and uncomfortable and the less group-oriented scenes feel empty and lifeless. This is a true strikeout for McAnuff who did such a strong job with JERSEY BOYS. I think he completely missed the point of the show and directed it like a high school play...it's just all so predictable and boring. Honestly, this is the biggest issue with the show. He just completely and totally has taken the joy out of what is quite possibly the most joyous show ever written. It's a huge handicap for this production. (PS: The Damon Runyon throughline is just pointless and ridiculous...)

2) Oh. Dear. God. Oliver Platt as Nathan Detroit. Just plain terrible. I actually felt bad for him. Not only is he miscast as well but he is also a pretty awful singer and his characterization of Nathan is pretty close to painful to watch. When NATHAN LANE can play Detroit as more of a striaght man than Oliver Platt, there's something to be said about Platt's talents being far less developed than Lane's. Platt plays Detroit effemintely and at the level of a high school drama player. I hate to be so hard on him but it's true. He's constantly playing with his hands and going in and out of accent. Just...the less time spent talking about him, the better. He should be replaced. Obviously not gonna happen but he should be cut. Plus, he and Graham have no chemistry whatsoever. Which leads to me to....

3) Lauren Graham as Adelaide. Miscast, miscast, mis-freaking-cast. Honestly, it's not Graham's fault completely. She tries her hardest to get the laughs (and lands some but not most) and has a very strong voice...she's just not Adelaide. She kinda looked confused the whole time and uncomfortable with the part. The critics will not be kind to her but I hope this doesn't keep her from taking another stab at the stage. She really has the chops. This just is not the right role for her. I blame her awkwardness on her just not being right for the role and not completely on her talents. She hasn't found her character yet, as others have complained, but I don't think she ever fully will as it's just not a role for her.

Alright so with the three main issues of the show out of the way, onto the rest.

Kate Jennings Grant and Craig Bierko are strong in their roles. I didn't find them to be incredible as many others have, but I thought they were leagues better than Graham and Platt. Jennings Grant and Bierko have great chemistry and much more stage presence than the aforementioned pair. She sings very well for a musical debut and he exudes charm and intrigue.

The ensemble of this show is truly wonderful. The best moments of the show are the ensemble dance sequences. They work like a charm (thanks mainly to Sergio Trujillo's bouncy, atheltic choreography) and really take off. It's always wonderful to see John Selya doing what he does best...he's a brilliant dancer.

The highlight of my night? By leaps and bounds, Mary Testa (who got entrance applause!). She has all of ten-fifteen minutes of stage time altogether and is the best performer on the stage. I just kept wondering why no ones cast her as a lead or written a leading role of her. She is a freaking riot and does NOT (as I had read on the boards) need to be reigned in. In fact, she should be let even more loose as her moment during SIT DOWN was one of the only times the audience genuinely laughed. And when I say laughed, I mean roared. She's just incomparably hilarious. I love this woman.

I liked the sets by Robert Brill but thought they were a bit unneccesarrily cumbersome. Paul Tazewell has designed another crop of gorgeous costumes and Howell Binkley's lights are really well-suited for the show. I despised the projections. (I would also recommend sitting in the mezzanine for a full "experience" of the show so you can clearly see the projections/lights/sets etc.)

So all in all, it's hard to completely screw up this great, great show but McAnuff has done quite a number on it. It's great to see the material back on a Broadway stage but I would have rather waited for the London production to transfer...even if it took years...than to see this pretty routine, joyless production. The leads both melt into the scenery and don't make their marks (for very different reasons though...one is just terrible and the other just miscast) and it takes a lot away from the show.

It's worth seeing the show if you've never seen it before and I'm sure it will be a hit no matter what but I left very underwhelmed. The only time the production meshed and everything seemed to be working in tandem was SIT DOWN YOU'RE ROCKING THE BOAT which left the theater in a state of pure euphoria, something that should have happened much more often during the rest of the show.

** out of ****


Updated On: 2/21/09 at 05:30 PM

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 5:33pm

My favorite part of this production...

the shoes.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 5:34pm

Oh God how I wish that Patrick Wilson/Anne Hathaway/John C. Reilly/Debra Messing production had come to fruition.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 5:34pm

Ha..basically.


And I would ABSOLUTELY KILL to see Messing play Adelaide. She'd be perfect. Updated On: 2/21/09 at 05:34 PM

[Drunk Chita Rivera]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 6:05pm

I completely agree about Lauren. She can obviously sing but she was so held back by the accent and the Adelaide's sickness.

I would love to see her in a roe where she can actually sing.

[nlm]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 6:27pm

And I would ABSOLUTELY KILL to see Messing play Adelaide. She'd be perfect.
Megan Mullally. Enough said.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 6:32pm

I agree, Drunk Chita Rivera. She can belt like crazy but this is the farthest thing from a belty role that you can get.

nlm, I thought about Mullally too. She auditioned for YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN with "Adelaide's Lament" apparently and I'm sure she knocked it out of the park. Too bad she's filming a new TV show for ABC...but Messing would be a simply PERFECT Adelaide.

[nlm]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 6:38pm

Oh I didn't mean to take over the role ASAP I meant in general MM would make an awesome Adelaide, as you said, knowing she auditioned with it I'm surprised she's never done a production of the musical over the years.

[bwayboy976]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 6:39pm

wickedrocks, you always write the best reviews. thanks for yet another great one!

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 8:05pm

More than Messing, Mullally, and Graham, the one person who should have played the role is Jane Krakowski who was perfection in the London production creating a role completely different from the Faith Prince/Vivian Blaine mold. Her Hot Box numbers were sexy as all get out.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 2/21/09 at 8:11pm

rocks review reminded me of that old line "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?" When a director makes such utterly horrible casting decisions for two of the four leads, should we not, under all circumstances, say the show is a dismal flop?

And Krakowski was WONDERFUL. She was worth every single pound I paid to see her. She lit up the stage with a pitch-perfect Adelaide that I wish I could find for you on youtube because she was so so so good. That woman is sex-on-a-stick AND funny and sad at the same time.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 12:30am

Krakowski won the Olivier, didn't she? I would have loved to see her play Adelaide as well.

It seems to me that McAnuff (or maybe the casting directors moreso) figured they would put two solid B-list actors in the more iconic, lead roles to sell tickets and really cast relative unknowns (besides to the Broadway community) in the two more supporting roles. And by doing so, the result is exactly what you'd expect. Two stoic lead performances and two much stronger and well-thought-out supporting performances. I would have rather seen four unknowns or Broadway vets tackle all four roles than see two B-list celebrities half-ass it (one more than the other).

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 8:52am

All of My Life -- your comment put me in mind of a comment Dorothy Parker made when reviewing The Barretts of Wimpole Street, except in reverse. After praising the acting, the staging, the sets, etc., etc., she ended her review with "Come to think of it, the only thing I didn't like about BOWS was the play."

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 9:20am

WHY WHY WHY did they cast Oliver Platt? I wouldn't even call him B-list? You think the Joneses out in Michigan are going to come see Guys and Dolls because Oliver Platt's ini it? Ha. Lauren Graham I kind of could understand. I understand you had problems getting that four that were originally thrown around, and Jane Krawkowski is busy with 30 Rock (ridiculous - they could put her on that show as much as they do now and she could do eight shows a week), but still! Your show's title is a natural draw, and I guarantee it's not one of the top-selling shows on Broadway because of Oliver freakin' Platt. Cast some actors who can handle the material. May I suggest ANY GODDAMN HIGH SCHOOLER IN AMERICA?

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 9:29am

Great review Rocks as per usual

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 11:24am

Does anyone by any chance have pictures of the new nederlander?

[jv92]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 11:26am

What is so great about Testa in this role? She's hamming it up just a bit too much for me.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 1:11pm

jv92, I just thought she was one of the only cast members with A) a clearly and recognizably defined character and was the only cast member who was B) having a GOOD time with the material! She was just letting loose and getting (genuine) laughs and it showed.

CSonBroadway, I doubt there'll be official pictures yet as I noticed a few parts of the theater were not finished in terms of painting yet. But it's a lot of pale greens and golds...beautiful.

Thanks, songanddanceman!

And I'm with you 110% PiraguaGuy.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 1:18pm

Krakowski did win the Olivier for her turn as Miss Adelaide. As allofmylife said, she was incredibly sexy, hilarious, and sad all at the same time. Not only that, but she didn't imitate Faith Prince, she didn't ask for laughs (like it seems Graham is doing), and I've never loved the Hot Box number as much. I think the main reason she wasn't part of this revival is because it's not the Donmar production, it's a different director and a completely different production.
Here's a short bit of Krakowski in the part. Here's someone who commands the stage, who knows how to sing, and who is clearly having a great time with the material. From what I understand, not the same can be said for Graham.
Bushel and a Peck

[dg22894]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 1:51pm

Thanks for the review.

[being.jeremiah]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 4:02pm

How Krakowski as Adelaide exudes sexiness and elicits giggles, with more clothing on, compared to Graham just beats me.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 4:08pm

It's because Krakowski is a far more experienced stage actress. Graham just needs more training. And to not be cast as Adelaide...

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 4:29pm

She can belt like crazy but this is the farthest thing from a belty role that you can get.

Wow... really? That's actually kind of nice to know. When I did Guys and Dolls, the director said, "Those who sing in head voice, stand here to audition for Sarah, those who have a very strong belt, stand here to audition for Adelaide." I'm definitely an Adelaide-type character and a character voice performer, but I'm not a belter, so I sang for Sarah (and got the part of Arvide). Our Adelaide was a brilliant knock-your-socks-off belter and fantastic for the role, but I didn't know that all productions aren't like that.

It's really sad to hear that this show's not going so well. I had really high hopes for it.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 4:36pm

I think there are definitely moments in Adelaide's songs that call for a belty voice or are enhanced by one. For example, Krakowski belted parts of "Adelaide's Lament" (for example, the "big bad coooold" ending), and belted portions of "Take Back Your Mink" and it sounded fantastic. I imagine what WickedRocks means is that the role is no Elphaba or Momma Rose in terms of belting.

How Krakowski as Adelaide exudes sexiness and elicits giggles, with more clothing on, compared to Graham just beats me.

You either got it or you ain't, and boys Lauren Graham ain't got it.

[philly03]

Posted: 2/22/09 at 5:06pm

I've yet to see it (and actually debating it in general), but it's sad to hear about Des' directing...I usually find it to be in great skill, especially making Frank Wildhorn's "Dracula, the musical" go from awful to OK (Broadway-production wise; EDIT: also of course Act 1 Finale/ Life After Life was iffy too!). Ahh maybe they'll change some stuff..!

Thanks for the review!
Updated On: 2/22/09 at 05:06 PM