A Little Night Music: No Strings Attached- Page 3

[Scripps2]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 10:40am

Isn't Henrik stepping out from behind the cello and then returning to it before the song is over not that much different from Dot stepping out of the dress in Sunday?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 10:44am

Henrik is dressed as a cello in this production?

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 12:10pm

LOL

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 1:09pm

Isn't Henrik stepping out from behind the cello and then returning to it before the song is over not that much different from Dot stepping out of the dress in Sunday?

Huh?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 1:16pm

Scripps, that image popped into my head as well when I read the description of the "Later" staging.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 1:18pm

"Isn't Henrik stepping out from behind the cello and then returning to it before the song is over not that much different from Dot stepping out of the dress in Sunday?"

Did Gabriel Vick have the same staging in London? I know he did actually play the cello himself. But did he have the "step away" staging?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 1:41pm

Maybe the cello continues to play itself when he walks away? That must be what Scripps means.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 3:49pm

When the dress opens in Sunday and Dot steps out of it, it is symbolic that she is no longer communicating with George but with the audience: George continues to see her in the dress not in her underwear. She shares her inner thoughts and feelings with the audience and then returns to the dress to continue the interaction with George.

Similarly, Henrik steps out from behind the cello to communicate directly with the audience: to enable them to understand his predicament and where he is coming from. The Egerman household continue to see and/or hear him playing because he does not literally leave the cello just like Dot does not literally step out of her dress.

In all honesty Ijay, I cannot remember whether it was staged like this in London or not. If it was then that is how I would have interpreted what I was seeing. What I can remember is that Gabriel Vick communicated Henrik's psychological journey better than I've ever seen it done before.

Ofcourse, if I were to be pedantic, it would all depend at what point in the lyric Dot steps out of the dress and Henrik steps out from behind the cello!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 3:59pm

It's not the same.

In Sunday, Dot longs to break out of the confining dress and be a Follies girl. In Night Music, Henrik uses the cello to express the turbulent feelings he has all dammed (I beg your pardon) up inside.

Dot breaking free of the dress expresses the meaning of the song. Henrik "breaking free" of the cello misses the point entirely.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 4:51pm

Dot is "concentrating" while she's modeling for George. She is looking out at the water and picturing what it might be like to be someone else---a Follies girl. She is "removing herself" from the current pain and discomfort of holding perfectly still in the hot sun. Sort of an out-of-body experience, brought on by her discipline of concentration.

I haven't seen the Night Music revival, but I somehow doubt Henrik is portrayed as "trapped" inside his cello, trying to break free while he sings "Later."



EDIT: As I mentioned earlier, if he hugs and "plays" his cello during the song, almost like a subconscious substitute lover (especially when "Later" follows an amusing short scene with Petra where he lunges for her romantically and almost rips her blouse), the staging with the cello can be funny as well as touching ... and impressive! Not cartoonish. And not someone who's trapped in a cello.

Updated On: 12/23/09 at 04:51 PM

[Scripps2]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 6:04pm

Thank you both.

I can see now that stepping out from behind the cello may demonstrate a confidence and self-realisation that Henrik doesn't achieve until much later in the show.

And, yes, from what I've listened to his portrayal in the Broadway revival does sound cartoonish, which is so different from how he was portrayed in the London production. This is surprising as so much else sounds similar.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 9:25pm

"And, yes, from what I've listened to his portrayal in the Broadway revival does sound cartoonish, which is so different from how he was portrayed in the London production. This is surprising as so much else sounds similar."

Fascinating, Scripps2! I wonder why Trevor Nunn changed directions on Henrik.

He took the sardonic comedy out of Charlotte and added a 'toonish Henrik ... presumably for more obvious laughs at the character's expense?

Strange choices.

Updated On: 12/23/09 at 09:25 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 9:38pm

Hunter, Ramona, and Leigh Ann have toned down their performances a bit since the first preview and the audio that is floating around out there. Hunter is a far superior vocalist to Gabriel Vick, in my opinion.

Erin Davie's Charlotte is still sardonic in act 2, and gets some huge laughs. Her dinner scene is fantastic.
Updated On: 12/23/09 at 09:38 PM

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 9:50pm

I recently saw NIGHT MUSIC for a second time and everyone has improved greatly since the first preview - well, everyone except Hunter that is. He actually got worse. "Later" was very difficult to watch and listen to. The man cannot act or sing at all, and I honestly don't understand why he was hired for this production.

I was mixed on Lazar and Davie at the first preview, but last night they were spot on...really enjoyed both of them.

Catherine was wonderful as well...and Leigh Ann nailed "The Miller's Son." Angela was perfection.

Can't wait to see this show again!!

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 10:00pm

^ Gee, once you decide you hate a performer, you really stick with it. Leigh Ann's reviews were far worse than Hunter's. But all of it is opinion anyway. I enjoyed both of them.
Updated On: 12/23/09 at 10:00 PM

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 12/23/09 at 10:18pm

Leigh Ann didn't deserve those pans. The audience ate her up. A bunch of tourists who I spoke to after the show said they LOVED Leigh Ann's performance (and they don't even know who the hell she is).

Hunter should have been let go from the production in previews. He's the male equivalent of Annaleigh Ashford when it comes to acting - horrendous.

...and I can think of many instances where I initially hated a performer and then ended up loving him/her...one example was Brandi Burkhardt in TALE OF TWO CITIES. So, no, I do not stick with it once I decide to hate a performer.

[musicfan123]

Posted: 12/27/09 at 12:14pm

I saw this last week and loved it. I had never seen the original and didn't know much about it but had a great time. I thought it was very funny and well performed.

I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this as I am new here -- I have a question for those of you who have gone -- as I'd like to go see it again -- Are the back mezzanine seats OK? I sat in the balcony and had no idea how unpleasant the seats were. I'm trying to find the best/most affordable ticket combination.

On top of the poor sightlines from the balcony, someone left for SRO during the opening number and someone put on their coat and packed up their bags to leave during Send in the Clowns. Sigh.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 12/27/09 at 12:33pm

To paraphrase David Cote in Time Out NY: Why are we turning to the Brits to "save" Sondheim for us?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/27/09 at 6:40pm

I saw the show yesterday, and I don't understand any of the great disdain for any of the performers. They were all lovely. 3 of those that are hit hardest on the board were quite fantastic in my opinion. This production is definitely worth seeing.


(I know some will think me biased, but I really can make an objective opinion (and have in the past--trust me. :) )

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/27/09 at 11:18pm

I would say that British directors of American musicals have demonstrated time and time again a blatant disregard for the true essence of Sondheim's style and menaing.

But after this season's abysmal direction of musical revivals by Des McAnuff, Joe Mantello, Robert Longbottom and (O monstrous! Most monstrous!) Arthur Laurents, I would have to say pretty much the same thing about American directors.

Perhaps Bartlett Sher is the only one who should be allowed anywhere near a classic Broadway musical.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 12/28/09 at 12:31am

Bartlett Sher, Michael Blakemore, and Nicholas Hytner all have, for me, proven to be great interpreters of classic texts (both in plays and musicals). In fact, aside from Sher, I thought that Blakemore would've been a PERFECT director for Night Music.