A musical or play you disliked the first time, but now like/love?- Page 2

[dreaming]

Posted: 11/21/11 at 11:29am

I echo Philly completely-Ragtime. I detested the original, found it dull and excessively long. I adored the revival and the new cast blew me away.

I still want info on getting the recording for the revival. I miss that show so much now thanks to that production.

[AMH]

Posted: 11/21/11 at 11:50am

The first time I watched SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE (the DVD), I kind of hated it. I thought the first act was okay, but I really didn't like the second act. But after watching it again, I really enjoyed it!

(Because of this show, Georges Seurat is now my absolute favorite artist.)

[brettarnett]

Posted: 11/21/11 at 12:32pm

Most of Shakespeare but now that I am older I am able to appreciate it. But for a musical it was definately Into The Woods. For some reason I was bored out of my mind and the music didn't really do anything for me for some reason. It was probably had to do with age now that I think of it. But now that show is one of my favorites.

[pinoyidol2006]

Posted: 11/21/11 at 1:18pm

I hated Act 2 of Into the Woods. I love it now.
I used to think A Little Night Music and Sweeney were overrated. I now join the ranks of those in love with both shows.
I think most Sondheim scores, actually.

I hated Oklahoma! before. Now, I've kind of started to tolerate it a bit more.

I used to love Miss Saigon. Now, not so much.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/21/11 at 3:10pm

pinoyidol2006, I think the second act of INTO THE WOODS *is* problematic and the fault is not yours. For reasons that I hope to find explained in FINISHING THE HAT, Sondheim fills the second act with abstract lyrics that may reflect philosophical thinking, but lack the use of metaphor, simile and other poetic devices that make a theater lyric come to life in the listener's mind. (I.e., given all the distractions of a musical on stage, a picture in the listener's mind counts for more than an abstract concept. A lyric is not a lecture, as Sondheim would be the first to argue.)

Those songs grow on us with repeated playings of the CD, but they struck me as remote and occasionally baffling when I first heard them in the theater. "You are on your own." "You are not alone." "No one is alone." Huh?

(These songs are to be contrasted with the vivid and dramatic fairy tale imagery of the score in Act I.)

And late in the second act, Sondheim indulges in several ballads in a row, something I don't believe Prince would have ever allowed. I've seen the show in all sorts of settings, from Broadway to amateur productions, and I've yet to see an audience that didn't grow restless at some point during "You Are Not Alone" or "Fathers and Sons" (which come on the heels of other ballads).

Of course, I now love the late songs as much as the early ones. I'm writing here of the first impression they convey in the theater.

[dragonlp86]

Posted: 11/21/11 at 11:39pm

In the Heights, when I had only heard the recording. Now it's one of my favourites.

Also, Sweeney Todd.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 2:11pm

To the people who didn't like SWEENEY TODD, I'd be interested in knowing which version you first saw.

I took a lot of guests to the original, including many members of my family who weren't regular theater-goers, and I don't recall anyone not liking it. Perhaps I was so enthusiastic that they didn't dare...

[voteforsaraberry]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 4:55pm

Smile. It was a huge flop on Broadway, but I remember when I was in it at Summer camp I hated the show. Now I love it.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 6:37pm

I fell in love with ITW as a kid when I was 9 and caught it on PBS just by chance--only the second act (luckily I found a repeat showing), so I've never got the problems some have with the second act, ut your point is interesting, Gaveston. (I'm assuming Fathers and Sons is "No More"?) However I DO think it's a bit ballad heavy, and, something I believe Sondheim has conceeded, "moral heavy" at the end --ie we get about a dozen morals in the end it seems. The second act is heavy, and fairly klong--and coming off of the full farce of the first act, that can be a hard adjustment for audiences, but I do feel it's important to make the show a success overall, even if it's flawed. (Maybe if they had kept the Second Midnight in Act I, which sets up Children Will Listen and the whole parent/child things quite heavily, some would have less problems with Act II, but it really does slow down the great pace Act I has).

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/23/11 at 2:53pm

Yes, Mysterious Poster with No Name, I did mean "No More." Apparently I had a very senior moment and I appreciate the correction. (ETA Eric, when I first responded to your post, your name didn't appear to the left of it. I don't know why.)

I saw the show in Laguna Beach when, I presume, "Second Midnight" was still in it, but I've seen the revised version so many times I don't trust my memory of the preview. (For example, I would swear Ellen Foley as the Witch did more rapping than Peters did when the show got to Broadway, but maybe I'm just remembering the opening patter.)
Updated On: 11/28/11 at 02:53 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 9:26am

The second act of Into the Woods was revolutionary. It launched an audience hitherto savoring a colorful exploration of classic fairy tales, deliciously smattered with typical Sondheimian personal/interpersonal angst, into unchartered and highly demanding intellectual territory. Suddenly this community of characters was faced with very adult sexual and political decisions and responsibilities and the audience confronted with life's profound (but still beautiful!) imperfections, not just of individuals, relationships and desires, but of their consequences, often tragic, in the world at large. A great deal of compassion and mindfulness was required (with the score, dialogue and even the laughter by and large maintaining the high standards of the first act's). It is easy to understand how this unexpected adjustment may have been difficult for many to make, especially in the original production.

Now that the show has become a widely performed international classic, frequently in high schools, it seems the second act, both the depth of its conception and the power, humor, and grace of its execution, is much more understood and respected. To me, no Sondheim show has a finer libretto.


Updated On: 11/26/11 at 09:26 AM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 9:48am

I can't think of many. My first exposures to GYPSY, THE MUSIC MAN, and MAN OF LA MANCHA weren't great, and now I quite like all of them.

But my biggest turnaround has been SUNDAY IN THE PARK...

I got the VHS when I was maybe 14, after falling in love with ITW, as so many of my generation did.

It took two or three years before I even got through the whole thing.

Oftentimes, I'd put it on and fall right to sleep.

It's now my favorite Sondheim show and easily sits among my favorites overall.

For the most part, I've had the opposite experience, where I turn on shows that I once loved, which I chalk up to the follies of youth.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 11:05pm

"The second act of Into the Woods was revolutionary...."

I agree with every word you wrote, henrik, but no less an authority than Sondheim himself has argued repeatedly that theater has to be accessible in the moment. What we glean from detailed and repeated studies is something else.

I think Act II of ITW attempts nothing less than a history of the human race, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been done more clearly and without trying our patience with that long string of ballads (however lovely) late in the evening.

[TheLadyoftheWood]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 11:06pm

The first time I saw Titanic i absolutely hated it with every fiber of my being. I could not understand why they would put up a production of such a sad time in history. I was too caught up in the history and did not follow the story and actually the music bored me. Now That I have listened to it and since seen a production of it at the Muny I was able appreciate both the score and the book.

[brian.klimowski]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 12:21am

I couldn't get through the first 10 minutes of the OBCR of Into the Woods. After seeing a production, I loved it, did a production of it, and bought the Regent's Park production.

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 1:45am

I always reject the idea that people are "too young" to understand something. Either it affects you or, it doesn't. Either you get it, or you don't. Shakespeare is not my thing. Has nothing to do with my age. You don't have to experience something yourself to comprehend it in production. Give yourselves some credit people. Age does not equate to wisdom, nor youth a lack of comprehension.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 3:23am

But a lack of sophistication and/or focus CAN make a difference. Is Shakespeare for everyone? No, of course not, but age/maturity certainly can make a difference. I do believe there are shows that cannot be FULLY appreciated at a young age. I performed Follies when I was 18. I had NO idea about the comnplexity/depth of what the show was really trying to relay.

For me, the only show I can think of that I abhorred that I no longer do? HAIR. I saw a national tour about 17 years ago. Wanted to stick hot forks into my eyeballs. Went reluctantly to the production in the Park -- utterly fell in love.

Updated On: 11/28/11 at 03:23 AM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 2:06pm

And in addition to what dramamama writes, there are what I call "old fart plays", plays usually written in the playwright's later years, that academics love to teach, but which young students only understand at a distance. Among the old fart plays most often inflicted on undergrads:

OEDIPUS AT COLONUS
KING LEAR or THE TEMPEST
WHEN WE DEAD AWAKEN
THE NIGHT OF THE IGUANA

The above are all great works; they just aren't very accessible to most 18-year-olds.

[Emmaloucbway]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 7:31pm

I didn't really like A Little Night Music when i first saw it (the 2010 revival with CZJ). Then loved the show after i saw Bernadette Peters as Desiree.

[someone.else's.story2]

Posted: 11/29/11 at 7:46pm

Definitely, PASSION. I didn't exactly hate it the first time, but I was kind of meh. However, I have grown to love that show deeply and its probably my favorite Sondheim, which is saying a lot.

I've also heard others say that it took a few viewings of PASSION to really love it.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 11/29/11 at 8:56pm

WICKED. I thought it was overblown and underwritten.

But with the passing years I've come to enjoy the silly thing. It's still overblown and underwritten, but heck, what isnt these days>