AN AMERICAN IN PARIS Previews- Page 3

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 12:45am

As a gay man and an actor, I'm confused as to why that's homophobic? It's not bashing gay people or anything? It's just saying these are not great actors? So...it's just an opinion?

[Fantod]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 12:46am

I believe one would consider it homophobic to say all gay men want to dress in women's attire, or that all gay men would want to trick straight men to have relations with them.

[BroadwayBen]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 12:49am

I saw the show tonight and thought it was at best okay. It's really an excuse to have some beautiful ballets set to Gershwin music. The story isn't that interesting, or coherent, but there are plenty of beautiful moments, but its like watching a series of paintings. It feels flat. The orchestra sounded great though. The leads are appealing, but not much beyond that. For all their dancing prowess, they feel a bit lost throughout the musical. Maybe they're still getting used to The Palace, and they will grow in confidence. I think it will please those who love ballet or love Gershwin music, so I bet it will be popular.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 1:12am

Oh okay. I took that to mean he was talking about these particular characters, etc. To each their own. I'm not easily offended....back to it...

[SharoninB]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 1:18am

The problem is when people saw it in Paris they said TONY TONY TONY but now we all know its an average musical in a very average and bad season. If Finding Neverland is bad god help us.

[oncemorewithfeeling2]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 1:40am

I saw this tonight by pure chance. I flew in for a friend's wedding shower, but she was feeling under the weather and wanted to sleep after the party. So I picked up a ticket and had very high hopes. I love the idea of something that feels like a musical from another era...the grand dancing, a lead with matinee idol looks, and music that's beautiful.

I left the theater with mixed feelings. It's okay. I've seen things much, much better, but at the same time, things far, far worse. But it was little more then just, "eh." It wasn't as special as I hopef.

The show has strong points. The dance is some of the best I've ever seen, or at the very least, the best I've seen in a very long time. Truly. I've seen the major companies, trained with well known ballet and contemporary companies, but this glorious. The movement aspect of the show is top notch and the ballet portions are breath-taking. The show is a dancer's dream, even more then OTT.

The acting by most is serviceable, but they don't have a lot to work with. The book simply isn't that good. It seems to rise and fall. Good scene, then a bad scene. Fairchild and Cope get by. They're not as good as Jill Paice or Veanne Cox, but I also didn't expect them to be.

Music is strong. The orchestra sounds rich and full. It sounded large, at least. The music is enjoyable, but like most Gershwin pieces, if done at least moderately well, it's enjoyable. I thought the music and dance blended together quite well.

In the end, the book brings it down greatly. We don't have a strong plot backing up the song and dance. It seems like they wanted to almost take the fairly basic concept iof the movie and make it more complicated.

The dance and music warrant a listening/viewing, but the show left me wanting more. Go later into the run and perhaps things will grow stronger. It's hard to say if this will be a contender, as I see a lt reviewers seeing the show as just okay. It will depend on how Gigi, Fun Home, The Visit, Etc. do and how they stand against the already opened shows. It will get a choreography nod for sure because that's where this succeeds,

It's a bit of a let down and people around me commented that it wasn't what they expected.

Updated On: 3/15/15 at 01:40 AM

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 10:55am

The plot of the movie may be slim but it worked in it's own way. There were some wonderful characters and the songs serviced the movie well. Why didn't they just work with that? It seems all that's left is an AMERICAN and he's in Paris. I just saw the piece on TV and it LOOKS pretty but I got no sense of what the show is about except the rebuilding of Paris after the war, which could be very dramatic but hardly a lush romantic idea for a show set to Gershwin.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 11:02am

The plot in the movie works beautifully. Alan Jay Lerner won an Academy Award for his original screenplay.

Sounds like they screwed it up here. That's a shame.

"We can make it better!"

No ... you can't.

Question: did they completely eliminate the Oscar Levant role? Jerry Mulligan's buddy who is a composer?

Aside from being a wonderful comedic character, he also gives Jerry a fellow artist to play off of. We get to see Jerry with a comrade to relate to. Plus I love some of Oscar's quips to Jerry: "Tell me, when the two of you are married, will you keep your maiden name?"

Updated On: 3/15/15 at 11:02 AM

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 11:35am

Went to the WQXR pre-preview downtown a few weeks ago, A very pretty cast, make and female, with pleasant voices, and the creatives kept insisting it was NOT a jukebox musical, but how could it be otherwise? They crammed in a bunch of unrelated Gershwin tunes (which sort of worked in CRAZY FOR YOU, but not at all in NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT), and talked about how great the new Craig Lucas libretto was. I am not a big fan of the movie (Gene Kelly's choreography of the ballet finale is total overkill, and the plot isn't much), but this felt like a bland reworking of the film. True, we didn't see any of the dancing, which sounds very special, and still might go just to see them dance. But expeciations for the show are not high.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 11:45am

Best- the oscar levant role is still there. He's composing the ballet that Jerry is designing the sets for; he's not a sidewalk painter anymore.

That line is not in the stage version. The comedy is largely gone, and as noted above, there is a greater emphasis on the rebuilding of France after the war.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 1:12pm

Well, that's fun.

The problem with "an artist suffering" as the major character arch in any story is you run the risk of making it too morose and self-centered.

See the difference between the films of "8 1/2" and "Nine."

"Remember, this is a comedy" was a note taped to the camera while Fellini made his movie. Rob Marshall clearly didn't get the memo.

Cutting the comedy or sense of humor from An American in Paris in favor of a heavier subplot/setting of the rebuilding of France may sound good on paper, but in a "suffering artist" piece like this, it sounds like a lead balloon.

And a bad idea.

The artist, unlucky in work and in love as he searches for both, is heavy enough. You have to work hard to balance that and also not take it too seriously. Alan Jay Lerner, Gene Kelly, Arthur Freed, and Vincente Minnelli knew this.

Even Sondheim and Lapine knew it with Sunday in the Park with George, which has wonderful comedic moments and characters inside the framework of the heavier-weightier drama.

Apparently this creative team doesn't get that.

[ggersten]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 1:16pm

Is the line "That's a nice dress you're almost wearing" still in the show?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 1:18pm

I love those lines.

And the response to that line is great. "What's holding it up?"

"Modesty."

Also Levant saying, "Don't kiss me, you'll spoil my makeup," etc.

[Curious3]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 2:31pm

So many comments on this BB have assumed so much and are so wrong. First, there are many comedic elements in this show including the segments Beginners Luck and Fidgety Feet amongst others. The characters, unlike the film, are well defined, and if you care to pay attention, are resolved in relation to one another. The character of Henri, unlike the film, is not a cabaret star but a theater novice and wanna be. It is also intimated that he is a gay man. His second act "fantasy" I'LL BUILD A STAIRWAY TO PARADISE is very powerful especially when understanding that this is Henri's internal construction. It IS a showstopper. The film had a "plot" that was pure MGM lighter than air. The B'way version expands the characters, gives them some depth and motivation. The time frame moves from 1952 to 1945 and depicts a more realisic atmosphere. Lise being the assumed future wife of Henri based on Lise having been taken in and cared for by Henri's parents is clear and to be sure, marriage arrangements in literature and real life have been based on much less. This is a show with substance, artistic and otherwise. If you want an idiot musical, this ain't it. It's not Spamalot or The Producers. Do not fear for this year's new musicals, any more or less than for each of the last 50 years. B'way is a big time crap shoot and not for the weak of heart or small of wallet. Again, some of the opinions voiced here deserve attention many DON'T. Attention should be given to the proven knowledgeable and not to those that simply have found a venue to stut their stuff. The truth is that by virtually any measure, this BB has virtually no influence. It is fun to read though.

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 2:41pm

"Again, some of the opinions voiced here deserve attention many DON'T."

It's one thing to be incredibly obvious about being hired to come on here and tell everyone how great this is and to shout down anyone who doesn't like it. You're not the first and won't be the last. It's another to try and convince us no one's opinion but yours has merit. That's just a losing proposition and should have been something they taught you not to do in shill school. Yeah, no one understands the show except you and none of us can see its brilliance except you. Uh, OK.

Edit: Should have mentioned, nice technique when you see the tide turning against you and you feel unable to steer it in "your" direction, pulling out the old "this BB has virtually no influence" card. Now that's advanced shilling right there.

Updated On: 3/15/15 at 02:41 PM

[Curious3]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 3:00pm

@fisherman: your comment and "observation" is misguided and just plain wrong. See the show or don't that's your business and I couldn't care less. My points were clear and factual. My opinion when it was stated is clear as an opinion. Trying to get you or anyone else to see a show is a fool's errand and is not worth the effort. I wish someone was paying me but alas,that didn't happen.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 3:27pm

How is the board TRYING to influence anything or anyone? People are stating their opinions. That's it.

Notice, no one attacked you for your opinion, until you started trying to prove you were right. That's what gets people's dander up.

If you don't like other's opinions, then NO discussion board is for you.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 3:47pm

Who are you to say some opinions deserve attention and others don't? Anyone who paid their money and sat through the show is entitled to their opinion, yourself and myself included. If others have insights into the source material, more power to them to share.

[MCfan2]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 3:59pm

I can't see how it would help the story at all to have Henri only marrying Lise because he's being pressured into it. If anything, I would think it would hurt it. Doesn't it lessen the dramatic tension considerably if Jerry loves her and Henri doesn't? In the original plot, Henri's batty about her, and that's where the conflict comes from -- she doesn't feel she can leave him because he loves her.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 4:11pm

Well, in the stage version things are rather muddled. Henri is indeed being pressured by his mother greatly to propose to and marry Lise. Why he's so nervous makes little sense, especially in light of revelations made later in the show.

Spoilers?

It is strongly hinted at, but ultimately a red herring that Henri is actually gay or at least bi. That would explain his hesitation of marriage, but he claims to really love her, even after overhearing Jerry and Lise profess their love for each other near the top of act two. To muddle things further, Henri breaks off his engagement with Lise off stage, so we aren't privy to what's really going on in his mind. I took that he realized he was in love with art more than any sexual attraction to a man or woman, but this is all guessing from subtext.

Where the comedy is most strongly missing is in the dialogue, and moreso the style of dialogue over what is actually being said. Gone is all the sparkling wit, quoted above. The characters might be "more defined," but the fun is gone. It's not a matter of wanting Spamalot or The Producers- I don't know who would possibly expect either of those two shows- but to expect the tone of the film or other breezy Gershwin entertainments? Now that's totally reasonable.

[TorontoBroadwayFan]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 5:09pm

I'm seeing the show next month and I just saw the film for the first time last night and loved all the dancing sequences. Looking forward to seeing some great tap dancing and ballet!

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 5:46pm

Christopher Wheeldon is pretty much at the top of of my list of fave modern ballet choreographers--and he's always had a somewhat Broadway sensibility (ie his Alice in Wonderland ballet.) I'm not surprised that the dancing is largely getting praise. That said, it's disappointing that Whizzer says that every number becomes a full on chorus piece-much of Wheeldon's strongest work are in his solo and pas de deux work (here's a clip of his much celebrated After the Rain pas de deux https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t6qVXDUGW4 ) And I think the statement that maybe this should have just been a dance piece makes sense.

Updated On: 3/15/15 at 05:46 PM

[CukorLover]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 6:40pm

Count me in with the group that loved the show. While I agree with many of Whizzer's points ( I almost always agree and enjoy his thought out posts) I found much to love because of the dancing. Christopher Wheeldon is one of the most talented and important choreographers of his generation and I had no doubt the dances would be sumptuous and rich. When i saw that he was billed as choreographer AND director, i figured this was going to be a dansical more than anything else. As a first time director of a musical comedy I would never expect for him to have the comic timing, pacing or deft experience directing actors as lets say a Jack O'Brien or Jerry Zaks. I'm sure he was hired because his vision had more of a dance sensibility, and i don't disagree with Whizzer that they might have conceptualized this show differently from the start. Because of the simple, yet scattered book, he was a bit lost staging the book scenes and some of them drag and are without the snappiness and flair of a more seasoned director.

Let's face it, he has some stunning dancers to work with and they don't disappoint. It will be interesting to see the audience for this once previews finish. Wheeldon will certainly attract the ballet crowd who will be wowed to see his work given the Broadway treatment with such interesting sets, projections costumes, etc. Things that are often kept simpler on the Ballet stage. But because it IS so dance-heavy , I could see the average theatre-goer perhaps getting a bit bored with the lengthy Ballets, and hoping for something a bit more peppy and funny.

One thing is for sure-You can't deny Wheeldon's choreography -it's quite imaginative and in tip top shape. Because of his work staging Ballets, he beautifully incorporates the sets, costumes and projections seamlessly throughout his dances.

Though I'm not one to usually pitch award predictions, it'll be interesting to see the race between him and Bergasse come TONY time. A musical theatre "ballet" choreographer, versus the real deal. My vote's on Wheeldon.

[Curious3]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 7:25pm

The production numbers are quite brilliant and there are several stunning pas de deux (Lise and Jerry) and these I do believe are equal to others that Wheeldon has created. And on another note, I just attended On the Town for a third time. Tiler Peck was subbing for Her sister in law Megan Fairchild. Tiler was quite spectacular and is considered by many one of the great stars of City ballet and the larger world of dance.
Talk about turning virtually every dance routine into a major production number, well this show trumps AAIP in that regard (I mention this as a point on someone's earlier complaint). Megan Fairchild is Robbie Fairchild's (star of AAIP) sister and Tiler Peck is Robbie's wife. I had an enjoyable intermission with Robbie who was attending his wife's performance.

[MCfan2]

Posted: 3/15/15 at 7:32pm

Kind of cool to see so many great dancers in one family. Tiler's the only one I've seen perform so far -- she was wonderful in "Little Dancer."