"9 to 5: The Musical" - 2009.04.29 - A Review

[logan0215]

Posted: 4/30/09 at 2:54pm

I saw 9 to 5 the Musical last night. I didn't see it fit to post my review in the "love thread" because I'm not entirely sure I've fallen in love with the show.

In searching my mind to think of a proper adjective or feeling to describe the production, I could only come up with one time after time: cute. In fact, the friends who I saw the show with when asked how they felt about it seemed to open their statements of opinion with that same adjective every single time. "It was cute, but..."

Individual Performances:

Allison Janney is truly wonderful. I was afraid that her voice would not suffice after the opening scenes but she really warmed up and settled into her character nicely. I found her voice in the marijuana trip to be especially pleasurable displaying a very pretty head voice that I wish she had more opportunity to show off. My only problem is that in creating the score around her specific vocal talents, the songs relied on the ensemble "backing" or even covering up many of Janney's notes which became distracting to me. I really felt she had a nice voice had they just given her the chance to sing in her proper range and without the obligatory backing. It reminded me of "Woman of the Year." Lauren Bacall did not have a pretty singing voice by any stretch of the imagination, but she had the gusto to give a thrilling performance and sell a song without being coddled by the rest of the ensemble. Janney's acting and comic timing was of course spot-on and she was terribly sweet at the stage door.

Stephanie J. Block brought her A-game vocally as she do. Her acting was perfect as the coy Judy and she really landed some great comedic moments. "Get Out and Stay Out" was one of the only times during the entire show I sat there mouth agape. I think that is what is missing in this show; there is nothing truly inspiring to latch on to..

Megan Hilty is giving a great performance but I feel never really has the chance to shine. For all intents and purposes she is doing a spot-on Dolly Parton impression and therefore shines in the country-heavy songs which Dolly would perform herself. The emulation is so accurate that it actually elicited laughter from the audience during her first set of dialogue. I personally chuckled throughout the show because I felt that at many points her Dolly impression had more shades of Stephanie Weir doing Anna Nicole Smith on MadTV (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjUeFpmsq18 ) than Dolly.

I found Marc Kudish was largely wasted in his role albeit giving a sufficient performance. His songs were the ones I saw most fit to be cut so I don't have much more to say about him aside from him being in fine voice.

The Show Overall:

Having seen the film not too long ago and being a fan of Parton's work I felt as though this show succeeded in just adding more exposition to the plot already well executed in the movie version. I never found myself bored during the show (save during Marc's 2nd act song), but don?t feel that is criteria for great musical theater (not to say that I went in to the show expecting a musical theater masterpiece, but if I had paid $100+ for the ticket I'd have hoped for that).

I give kudos to Dolly for the achievement of writing her first full-length Broadway score and found it to be quite fitting with the themes and timbre of the show, but alas cannot single out any specific songs as being show-stoppers or songs I "left the theatre humming." The catchiest tune of the night was the opening and closing title song "9 to 5" (Mantello ain't no fool) which I hummed the entire time waiting interminably for Megan Hilty to come out of the stage door to sign my friend's poster. I could feel myself slightly rolling my eyes when another tune would begin because more times than not it felt as though the songs were put in out of obligation rather than out of inspiration (or needing language beyond words to express an idea or feeling)- although many times tapping my foot along at the song's conclusion.

The reason I don't think I fell in love entirely with this show or its score would be how formulaic the entire production felt to me. I'm sure this can be said for many screen to stage transfers, but it felt as though the movie was put on stage,
"Pause" was pressed, a song was inserted, and then we resumed. A friend compared it to "The Wedding Singer" which I at first balked at considering I really did not enjoy TWS, but as I look back they used a lot of the same mechanisms to transfer the films to stage. I think what rubbed me the wrong way about TWS was the inability to get the rights to the amazing 80's score of the film and therefore creating "Broadway" versions which paled in comparison. That is of course not an issue here as "9 to 5" was not a musical film.

Choreography deserves its own personal shout-out, as well as set design and lighting which were all extremely well done. The sets were well thought-out and made good use of the very large stage and lighting was able to capture the varying moods of the show perfectly. For one of the first times I felt as though the projections were not a detracting factor in this show as they have been in so many lately. Being in the mezzanine I had the advantage of seeing the actual floor of the stage and the many patterns created by the varying lights and set pieces that cast shadows across it which made for amazing visuals throughout. Costumes were fine but were virtually carbon copies of the film's so not too much to say in that department.

The subject of longevity came up whilst waiting at the stage door for Hilty. I can certainly picture replacements that would work well in the varying roles (Christine Baranski for Violet comes to mind), but I think it is anyone's guess how long it will actually run. In my heart of hearts, I would say that it doesn't need to run 10 years nor does it have the strong backbone of material to do so, but judging by the number of Drama Desk nominations and what may be shining reviews coming out tonight that very well may happen. I will put the requisite "I wouldn't wish actors out of jobs" statement here, but I would wish better material for the musical theater debut of a gem like Janney or a show that makes people really say "Wow!" and see Block and Hilty for their amazing talents and allow them to originate roles (as in not adapted from a film) in something new but can say with some certainty that this show is not any of those things. Cute, but no cigar. Updated On: 4/30/09 at 02:54 PM

[JazzSquare55]

Posted: 4/30/09 at 2:59pm

it is much better than just "cute"

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 4/30/09 at 3:32pm

Logan, out of 5 stars what would you say?

[logan0215]

Posted: 4/30/09 at 3:40pm

I find it really hard to judge things by "stars" because there is so much to take into account here (great performances, passable score, costumes, great set plus the fact that it is adapted from an pre-existing commodity) but if you put a gun to my head I'd give it:

2.75 for content

4.5 for performances

Overall: 3.25 stars

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 4/30/09 at 3:44pm

I was there last night too (and waited for Megan Hilty, wow it was cold waiting for her that long), and while I more or less agree with you, I had such a good time. It's no masterpiece, but I was bopping my head to the music, had a smile on my face the whole time, and laughed a lot. Megan Hilty stole the show for me, even without an 11 o'clock number. Yes, she was giving a spot-on Dolly impression, but her singing and acting really stood out to me. I do wish she were given more, but her arc was pretty much what it was in the movie. (Now, if they extended it a little further, then she would have really been able to shine.) I thought Megan gave the most memorable performance of the trio, and that's not to say anything bad about the other two because I thoroughly enjoyed them too. The show in general is not as good or not even on the same level as Billy Elliot (I have yet to see Next to Normal), but it deserves at least a couple of Tonys (what a great design!). I wouldn't be surprised if the reviews are merely just positive and not raves.

~Steven

[logan0215]

Posted: 4/30/09 at 3:54pm

I am certainly not saying that I didn't have a good time, but I feel as though with the climate the economy is in people are looking for either a "sure bet" (meaning husbands being forced to bring their wives to shows so only shelling out that kind of money they barely have on shows that have received raves) or something that is really giving a bang worth it's buck (a show that deserves the buzz it receives because it is a true artistic achievement).

I feel for the same price of a ticket I could buy 10 copies of the DVD and enjoy myself just about as much. Oh, and be able to eat Ben & Jerry's "Super Fudge Chunk" while doing so.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/30/09 at 4:43pm

JazzSquare55

Understudy
joined: 4/28/09
re: '9 to 5: The Musical' - 2009.04.29 - A Review
Posted On: 4/30/09 at 02:59 PM


it is much better than just "cute"


_________________________

Say more about that newbie!

[bardolator]

Posted: 4/30/09 at 5:12pm

Oh, come on--the newbie didn't post a rave, just a generic comment. I doubt it's a shill.

[JazzSquare55]

Posted: 4/30/09 at 6:09pm

If I were a shill, I would be posting about it like crazy.

I think it is a good musical - not great but deff better than "cute". Amazing cast and fabulous score!

The book and staging could use a little tweaking but I don't mind.
Updated On: 4/30/09 at 06:09 PM

[logan0215]

Posted: 4/30/09 at 11:35pm

What's wrong with the "staging?"

Of all the things you listed, staging is the thing I think needs the least work...