A CATERED AFFAIR Reviews- Page 9

[WaltSummersPI]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:27pm

Shrek and Spiderman are both huge characters. I'm not sure what your point is.

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:28pm

'Evil Dead' flopped and look how big a following that movies had in the last 20 odd years!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:30pm

But how was Evil Dead executed? Was it the best possible?

Of course, these examples seem preposterous. Now, let's get back to classic dramatic films, which certainly wouldn't seem as ridiculous but some here feel could never be musicalized. Why not?

And, no, Walt, huge characters does not cover all musicals--even the ones only in the canon.

[WaltSummersPI]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:38pm

OK, whatever you say.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:38pm

Yes, musicals can me made about ordinary folks...A CHORUS LINE, PROMISES, PROMISES, COMPANY, CAROLINE OR CHANGE and many others have, in a word, worked.

The problem with A CATERED AFFAIR, for me, was that the conventions of the teleplay were at odds with the conventions of musical theater. Oddly, it's actually not unlike THE LITTLE MERMAID or any of these other corporate, too-faithful adaptations of popular movies. For instance, they have a screenplay to adhere to because that's what people (or the creators) love, then they have the music to add without disrupting the structure of the story, but sometimes this book/screenplay/play/teleplay hybrid doesn't support the dramatic moment and it can't be changed without disrupting the original source material. As before, I pointed out that the moment when Faith Prince's character is in her most emotional place, she cries out in an agonized howl. Watching this, I thought "why didn't they make a song out of this moment?" but at the same time, structurally, it wouldn't fly if there was a song there because later, Tom Wopat enters and delivers an anguished song. Two songs of anger and sadness back to back? They'd cancel each other out. I suppose if A CATERED AFFAIR were an original book, the writer could have made the moment into a two-scene going into a duet, but...Chayevsky's teleplay doesn't do that, so...

It's such a catch-22 because when you go the opposite direction and open up a moment, scene, or idea, it can overwhelm the flavor of the source material. Jerry Herman tried to open up DEAR WORLD from a two set play to a multi-scene musical and--in material that would seem ideal for musicalizing--it didn't work. LaChiusa was chastised by more than one critic for including a song where the "men" (chorus women in semi-drag) sing a number in his adaptation of the all-female play THE HOUSE OF BERNARDA ALBA (another low-key, small piece that bored a lot of people but happened to be my favorite musical of its season).

And I respectfully disagree with you, Jerby that anything can be musicalized. Even Sondheim stated that he felt DO I HEAR A WALTZ? didn't work because it was about a woman who, in essence, "couldn't sing".

Makin' them musicals is a tough, tough business.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:40pm

"Of course, these examples seem preposterous. Now, let's get back to classic dramatic films, which certainly wouldn't seem as ridiculous but some here feel could never be musicalized. Why not?"

But thats not what you said, you said ANY film could be musicalized lol

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:44pm

No, I said anyTHING could be musicalized. No need for your snarkiness.

I think it's perfectly fair to have a debate about whether or not this creative team succeeded in their creation of A Catered Affair as a musical. But, I will not concede that it never should have been done in the first place. And considering that some of us--reviewers and audience think the piece is absolutely beautiful as is, I don't think it's fair to say conclusively that this show is an artistic failure. Some feel it is, some do not.

Walt, it's about time you realize whatever I say is right! lol

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:45pm

killer clowns from outer space the musical? XXXXx

[MungoGypsy8232]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:45pm

I wonder what Harvey's blog is going to say

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:47pm

I wasn't being snarky. I thought that's what you said. Do I need to do a robbiej imitation for you?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:48pm

A play where they take the Peanuts characters and show them grown up and all screwed up. XXXXX

Seriously, don't limit yourself when it comes to ideas.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:49pm

lolololol

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:50pm

I wasn't calling you snarky, borstal. I was referring to songanddanceman.

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 2:50pm

Evil Dead?

[A Director]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 3:15pm

As for La Jolla - I think its pretty over for try-outs there... So far... they produced the following shows: FARNSWORTH INVENTION, A CATERED AFFAIR & (brace yourself for next week) CRY-BABY...you fill the blanks...not saying anything!

jaystar - A Catered Affair first done at THE OLD GLOBE which is not LA JOLLA. La Jolla first staged a show called JERSEY BOYS. Have you heard of it?

[tzohar]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 6:55pm

I saw this show months ago here at the Old Globe... I saw it for free because a friend of mine works at the box office there. I went with a bunch of friends, we're all in theatre here in San Diego and just to give you some background: I'm an actor, I love The Light in the Piazza, I really enjoyed Doyle's productions of Sweeney Todd and Company (I especially loved Company and thought it was a brilliant production), I'm generally a HUGE fan of small chamber musicals and plays that avoid sentimentalism in favor of stark honesty. I went to see Catered Affair here in San Diego right after it opened and knew NOTHING about it at all so I really didn't know what to expect.

Myself-- and the rest of the group I came with-- were all horribly disappointed.

Look, none of us are idiots. I pride myself and my friends in having very good taste when it comes to theatre. We've been in the business for a while, we're far from being high-school drama kids (too old to be that in any case), I'm not exactly jumping around from Hairspray to Legally Blonde to Wicked here (not to say those shows don't have their own frothy merits). I thought Caroline or Change was wonderful and again, I believe Light in the Piazza is the finest new musical to come out of Broadway in perhaps a decade. I BELIEVE in intimate, minimalistic, bare theatre and I definitely believe musical theatre deserves to be approached that way as well. Look at Sondheim-- you KNOW it can be done well. Look at Sunday in the Park or Assassins.

So I totally understand the plea to "think outside the box".

But you know what? I don't think minimalism, starkness and the refusal to go for sentiment should equal "boring". A story still needs to be told. Characters still need to be defined. Emotions still need to be explored. I saw this show for free but let me tell you, I cannot IMAGINE actually paying upwards of 100 dollars to watch this 90 minute exercise in drabness. Nothing in Catered Affair grabbed me in any way, nothing touched me. Faith Prince is great and Kritzer is very effective in an understated sort of way, but why should I care? I didn't. The Gossiping Neighbors conceit is tired and used here with no comic effect or even wit... Nothing ever seem to come to anything. The lyrics are plodding and often don't seem to mesh with with the music ("I remember you and me as kids/ the day we went to/ Coney Island and I made you ride/ the rollercoaster") and score itself is unremarkable and unmemorable. I'm not saying I need showtunes here, but there needs to be a REASON for these people to sing and I just didn't feel it. Meanwhile, Harvey's character is terribly written and does not fit the world of the musical at all, which only further makes the whole thing seem ill-conceived, and it just seems very obvious that Fierstein wrote himself a vanity role without much thought as to how the character affects the rest of the musical. Winston simply seems to live in a totally different dimension than everyone else, like this weird time-traveling clown that just arrived from 1996 to crack a few gay jokes.

Simply put, I was bored and unaffected. I agree with the reviews-- I found it drab, lifeless, and very much lacking in anything that could grab the audience in any way. Look, to each their own. If you liked it, that's fantastic. I like LOTS of things that ots of other people don't like. But these are my two cents as someone who saw it months ago for free and still wanted their money back afterwards. I would never recommend for anyone to pay a cent to go see this on Broadway, and everyone I know who has seen it here agrees with me.
Updated On: 4/18/08 at 06:55 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 7:12pm

the first gay civil rights group in the us formed in 1924. Later came The Mattachine Society. People didnt just start trying to be open in 1969. His character is absolutely realistic and that fact was proven to me the night members of SAGE held a post-show talk back.

I have said all along this would be a love it or hate it show. I have not quibbled with anyone's not liking the show but I have quibbled some of the reasons thrown out that I have found ridiculous.

I am sorry any of you were so bored by this show. I wasn't in the least.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 7:13pm

The nobodies enjoyed it but seemed a bit unenthused...
http://www.broadway.com/gen/general.aspx?ci=563950

[tzohar]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 8:56pm

jrb_actor, you're allowed to like it.

However I never said anything about the character being unrealistic. He just doesn't fit in with the rest of the piece. It's not about him not being accurate to the time period-- it's about him existing in a completely different universe from everything else in the piece.

[jaystarr]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 8:59pm

Honestly after I saw -Harvey's The Bachelor Uncle. (Multimedia)
http://theater.nytimes.com/pages/theater/index.html

I got more interested about the musical. I thought he did something different which I really admire a lot! If he just adapted it word for word..you can just rent the DVD, why bother see the show? I thought that was a bold move!

I heard some of the music and I thought it was beautiful... Am I worried about the reviews? Not a bit! I will see it with an open mind next week. (fyi- I did not like THE SEAFARER and all the critics love it!)

J*
Updated On: 4/18/08 at 08:59 PM

[mc1227]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 12:11am

I really have a hard time accepting that someone could see this show and not be moved by many moments of it. I totally agree that this show does not fit into any specific category and tries to bring a humanness that you don't always get to see in a musical. Is it mellow and a bit subdued? Yes it is and I'm not sure that in the current world of musical theatre that subdued is bad. I'm a bit tired of conventional pop culture "hits", even the ones that are good. It's nice to see something done differently and even if they didn't hit a home run, it's still worth seeing.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 9:31am

A few comments on critics: Clive Barnes joined the NY Times as dance critic in 1965 and became its drama critic in 1967, leaving for the Post in 1977. I have a friend who used to work at the Times who told me that Barnes would typically snooze at his desk and that he drank a lot. His review of ACA is the most positive review I have read from him in a long, long time. His words will provide copy for the advertising guys for this show. I am glad that he no longer works for the more influential NY Times. Brantley is a good reviewer but not as good as Frank Rich was, despite Rich's nick name as "The Butcher of Broadway". He reviewd theatre for the Times from 1980-1993. My NY Times friend told me that Frank Rich used to spend an entire day writing a review, carefully weighing his words. His review of the Tyne Daly GYPSY, provided by PalJoey a few months ago, is a classic example of his fine writing. He is now an excellent Op-Ed columnist for the Times, liberal, like me.

[Sleeper2]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 12:43pm

I tended to agree with nearly everything Brantley said about ACA. I saw the show three times, including once in San Diego. It improved a lot over time, but there are still major problems. Harvey is way too much while everyone else I'm not talking about too much GAYness. I mean, much too much hammy overacting. The ever-arched eyebrow, the cuts to the audience, the indications, the unnecessary lurking upstage spying on the scene...

The show has great advance and will run. So all the shills here who constantly promote the show on BWW are safely employed. But in my estimation and clearly in that of nearly every critic, it is not great musical theater.

Oy, brother, enough already about this second-rate show!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 4:34pm

my involvement with the show has nothing to do with my praise of it. I don't always praise or defend everything I work on. Ive spoken entirely as a fan.

And there have been plenty of people on bww praising the show who have nothing to do with it.

I just love when people fancy themself as some kind of theatre god.

[buddharich]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 9:02pm

Stephen Sondheim said it best, referring to his own (with Richard Rodgers) Do I Hear a Waltz?, some characters aren't meant to "sing", which I believe is true of Paddy Chayefsky's A Catered Affair. The reason so many dramatic musicals have failed has been because the characters really shouldn't be singing. This doesn't mean that small intimate musicals can't be wonderful! Falsettos was a particularly terrific small intimate show, but those characters WERE meant to sing.

One of the big reasons that so many of the younger composers aren't having the great careers nowadays is that they are choosing material that really shouldn't be musicalized. The material could be made into interesting PLAYS; it's that the characters aren't meant (or able) to sing. This is the thesis in Ken Mandelbaum's chapter on musicals that shouldn't have been musicals. (I love "not since carrie"!)