2009 revival of "Guys and Dolls"
2009 revival of "Guys and Dolls"
RW3
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/13
#12009 revival of "Guys and Dolls"
Posted: 5/31/16 at 7:41pm
Whenever my musical theater friends and I talk about classic musicals "Guys and Dolls" always comes up. Also, what comes up is the apparent disdain for the 2009 revival of the show. Then, whenever I ask them about it, they really never go into any detail about it. Admittedly, I am not that well versed in "Guys and Dolls" so I can't make a sound judgment about it. So, if y'all could tell me what was so wrong about that revival, it would be very appreciative.
BroadwayPeasent
Stand-by Joined: 5/6/16
#22009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 7:42pm
did not see it but I saw clips of silly projections bad acting and stupid direction
#32009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 7:45pm
It was dreadful. Platt and Graham were so miscast. Bierko and Grant were fine but not exciting in any way. The direction was lazy. If it was your first time seeing the show, you'd have had no idea why it's considered a classic.
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
#42009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 7:53pm
I am going to forgo any snark, cattiness or trivialized lists. It really boils down to one thing. It was an ill-conceived evening where the director sought to ad dramatic gravitas and urban grit to a show that is meant as a cartooned love letter to a certain type of NYC character and wrapped in a bow of comedic joy and tried to cinematic storytelling with a libretto that is very traditional in structure. The cast was not bad, the designers were not bad... They had no chance to succed because of the production concept.
#52009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 7:58pmSay what you will about the production but I still wish they had recorded a cast album. That arrangement of "Sit Down You're Rockin' the Boat" was complete merriment.
sabrelady
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
#62009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 8:23pm
I agree re the projections. The rapid movement frequently made me nauseous until I began watching peripherally . Graham didn't quite capture Adelaide's mixture of sweetness and sexuality either.
morosco
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/10/04
#72009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 9:05pm
Want to see how desperate this production was for a laugh? Check out Mary Testa's shameless shtick in this clip as she plays General Cartwright spanking her ass and proclaiming that she's "been a very bad girl". Wait, what?
Updated On: 5/31/16 at 09:05 PM
AnnieBlack
Leading Actor Joined: 4/3/14
#82009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 9:07pm
The projections. I literally became physically ill due to them at intermission. Whoever designed the projections clearly never sat and watched them, because I wasn't the only person who didn't just think they were hideous, but caused illness!
BroadwayMan5
Featured Actor Joined: 7/30/15
#92009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 9:42pm
Completely agree about the projections. The cast ranged from OK (Bierko) to horrible (Platt). Not only was the show itself uninspired, it was a bad idea to do a revival when the celebrated 92 revival was still reasonably fresh for a lot of people. I wish I could have seen that one instead of this one
BroadwayConcierge
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/24/15
#102009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 9:45pm
It's really quite sad to look at the "Awards and nominations" section of the Guys and Dolls Wikpedia page. Scroll after scroll of accolades for several previous productions... and then a measly two for this production. Not even any acting acknowledgements. It was terrible.
#112009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 9:48pm
Simply put, it wasn't funny. Guys and Dolls should be filled with laughs and this production wasn't.
The supporting cast (specifically Testa and Burgess) just decided to go chew the scenery and put a contemporary spin on the material. It was as if they were in an entirely different show.
Whether that lies with the direction or the casting (or some combination of the two) is debatable.
chanel
Broadway Star Joined: 1/28/04
#122009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 10:33pm
Imagine an "Adelaide's Lament" that didn't get a single laugh.
As bouyantly great as the Nathan Lane/Faith Prince revival directed by Jerry Zaks was, this one was dire.
#132009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 10:38pm
Between the Windows 95 screensaver being used and the miscasting of Lauren Graham and Oliver Platt, the thing was an absolute mess. Poor Craig Bierko and Kate Jennings Grant tired so hard, and were both very good, but couldn't save it. A friend and I always say - I didn't know you could screw up Guys and Dolls, until that production.
BroadwayMan5
Featured Actor Joined: 7/30/15
#142009 revival of
Posted: 5/31/16 at 11:11pm
ClumsyDude15 said: "A friend and I always say - I didn't know you could screw up Guys and Dolls, until that production.
"
Agreed... I feel like Guys & Dolls is one of those shows that is hard to mess up but this revival proved me wrong. I've seen HS productions of the show that were more inspired
¿Macavity?
Broadway Star Joined: 1/29/16
#162009 revival of
Posted: 6/1/16 at 6:57am
You knew there was something wrong the minute you stepped into the theater and saw those huge neon dice. Had Guys & Dolls be reset in Reno? The direction was terrible and as others have mentioned, there wasn't a laugh to be found. It was almost embarrassing to watch; you got the sense that the actors knew it wasn't working too and a quiet desperation set into their performances.
Yes, Graham and Platt were miscast, but the leads just weren't playing as a cohesive group either. It wasn't just Burgess and Testa that felt like they were in a different show- all of them felt like they were in their own separate revivals. I blame the director for this, of course. It was like McAnuff was so caught up in his new concept for the show that he neglected to direct the actors and they were left to their own devices.
Add me to the list who hated the projections. Ugly, ugly, ugly.
#172009 revival of
Posted: 6/1/16 at 7:47am
It was horrendous. It's one of those shows that from the moment the curtain goes up, nothing clicks and the rest of the evening becomes a matter of seeing these people get through the show.
Oliver Platt had no idea who Nathan Detroit was or what was funny about him. Lauren Graham was absolutely miscast. Again, she had no grasp on the character or the humor, her comedic timing and delivery were nonexistent and I remember the only reason I knew who she was during the chorus numbers was because she had a different costume. Needless to say, Platt and Graham had no chemistry and looked like they had just met 30 minutes prior to curtain. Really, they didn't have chemistry with anyone in the cast.
Bierko and Kate Jennings Grant were sweet and at least were believable as a couple but the show around them was so atrocious that it didn't matter. I actually loved Testa and Burgess for at least getting that the audience was bored out of their minds and trying to entertain.
#182009 revival of
Posted: 6/1/16 at 10:47am
I'll never turn down a chance to talk about how bad that production was. Everything that has been said is true. The stage was literally hard to look at because the lights and projections were so bright and disorienting. I see some saying Platt was the worst in show, though for me Lauren Graham gave the deadliest performance. To be fair, this is splitting hairs. But Adelaide feels like the easier role to get laughs in (not that either seem particularly difficult), so for her performance to be as utterly joyless as it was felt like it was especially soul-sucking. Tituss Burgess and Mary Testa went hurtling over the top as though bound and determined to make the audience get a shred of joy out of SOMEthing. In a better production, their performances would have been terrible choices. In this one, they were breaths of fresh air because they at least seemed alive and like they were trying (desperately) to entertain the audience.
The framing device of Runyon typing out the stories didn't work which was the least of the show's problems. It truly was, as mentioned below, the ugliest and most lifeless version of the musical imaginable. I had always thought that Guys and Dolls was a show so perfect that you couldn't ruin it. Now I know there's no such thing.
10086sunset
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/8/16
#192009 revival of
Posted: 6/1/16 at 10:59am
This was the biggest train wreck of a Broadway production I have ever seen. The reasons why have been echoed by the majority.
Honestly, it was painful to watch such great material be butchered.
nasty_khakis
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/15/07
#202009 revival of
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:10am
While she was in no way great, I liked Graham. I think in an entirely different production with a better concept and stronger director she would be great. It didn't help that she and Platt did not get along (at least it was reported at the time) and she was clearly directed to be a more "real" Adalaide.
JM226
Broadway Star Joined: 11/10/15
#212009 revival of
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:17am
will second, third and fourth what everyone else has said. still a horrendous version that i try to push out of my memory from time to time. terrible production design, embarrassing acting performances and messy staging. basically the EXACT OPPOSITE of the magical '92 revival with Lane, which nailed the comedy and whimsy.
#222009 revival of
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:20amI don't mean to threadjack, but did anyone see the 2001 tour with Maurice Hines? How was that production? I seem to remember hopes of a Broadway run after the tour ended, but the tour began in August 2001. Broadway was a different place after September.
#232009 revival of
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:29am
It's interesting for me to read these reports, as I had tickets to see this production, but it closed before the ticket date. I was coming in from out of town as a young 13-year-old, having grown up watching the movie. I was incredibly disappointed at the time to show up to the theatre and find that the show had closed (I wasn't following Broadway news in those days). I guess it was for the best, though. I knew this revival was poorly-received, but I didn't realize until reading this thread just how much of a train-wreck it was.
JM226
Broadway Star Joined: 11/10/15
#242009 revival of
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:33am
JBroadway said: "It's interesting for me to read these reports, as I had tickets to see this production, but it closed before the ticket date. I was coming in from out of town as a young 13-year-old, having grown up watching the movie. I was incredibly disappointed at the time to show up to the theatre and find that the show had closed (I wasn't following Broadway news in those days). I guess it was for the best, though. I knew this revival was poorly-received, but I didn't realize until reading this thread just how much of a train-wreck it was.
"
i promise that you dodged a bullet. would have probably traumatized you for life and negatively impacted your love for theatre.
#252009 revival of
Posted: 6/1/16 at 11:35am
most has been said about this revival. Honestly it's hard to screw up GUYS & DOLLS, but they did. This along with the SWEET CHARITY revival are two of the worst revivals to have ever graced a Broadway stage. I've seen community theater & high school productions of GUYS & DOLLS that were better.
Videos