2009 revival of "Guys and Dolls" — Page 2

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.

CATSNYrevival said: "I liked the Sweet Charity revival quite a bit, but I didn't see it on Broadway. I saw the tour."

The SWEET CHARITY tour was altered from the Broadway production, but the crappy choreography stayed.

nasty_khakis said: "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" Adelaide."

I disagree. Graham lacked any sort of stage presence or charisma, she looked so lost on stage. As others have said, you almost have to work hard to keep "Adelaide's Lament" from being funny, and she did it. This role calls for a great comedian and a great actress, someone who can bring pathos while making you laugh. Graham can be funny in the sort of modern, naturalistic way she did in GILMORE GIRLS. But she doesn't have the comedic instinct to ground "Adelaide's Lament" while finding humor. This is what makes Jane Krakowski's take on the role such a masterclass, her Adelaide was "real," and her "Adelaide's Lament" is hilarious and heartbreaking all at once, sometimes within the same lyric. Oliver Platt obviously played a major role in the mess that was Graham's performance but she was equally terrible in her scene with Sky and in "Marry the Man Today"--though the latter was raised by Grant who worked overtime to make the show work.