AN AMERICAN IN PARIS Previews- Page 6

[atuomala]

Posted: 4/3/15 at 5:39am

It's obvious that the dancing is the sell for this show, and it does not follow your typical Broadway musical which is probably their strongest promotion. I had opened up the most recent issue of Time Out New York this afternoon and the interview that was conducted with Leanne Cope about the show was filed under the DANCE section and not the THEATER section.

[LucyEth]

Posted: 4/4/15 at 3:45pm

Thanks, EthelMae!

[Cat123]

Posted: 4/5/15 at 7:08am

I saw this is yesterday matinee. I'm completely in love. 

Whereas On the Town took away what I like about the film, here they improved wha is wrong with it. Made you like Lise, made the story deeper, and the dancing...

Yes. Love. 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/5/15 at 8:04am

Wow! Act One of this show is not to be believed-- an absolutely magical marriage of design and movement and emotion and dance, song and story. This write up will be a true love letter to the show and its inspired creators. 

Hot tears rolled down our cheeks as each new scene started with a simple sketch projected over moving set pieces that morphed into a fully realized view of a Paris we had never seen onstage till now. Sets danced, bicycles rolled past, ensemble groupings poignantly showed us the story of the end of the war told entirely in dance. We saw joy during electrical blackouts, love affairs join and uncouple, fashions shift in an instant from wartime drab to the ravishing pastels of Dior's New Look, all bathed in the magical glow of sunsets and moonbeams bouncing of the Seine. 

This is the rare work of at least 5 geniuses working in tandem in a way we have seldom seen before-- Christopher Wheeldon (director/choreo), Craig Lucas (book), Bob Crowley (sets and costumes), Natasha Katz (that lighting!), and 59 Productions (projection design). To which of course get added 2 more geniuses in George and Ira Gershwin, but we've seen most of these songs in other less distinguished packaging of the Gershwin oeuvre before. No, this is something different and altogether new: a vision of postwar Paris so complete and hypnotic that the songs seem newly hatched just for this production.

The performances invert the imbalances in the film where Gene Kelly and Oscar Levant outshone everything else. Here the performances of Leanne Cope and Jill Paice make you love the girls Lise and Milo so much that the boys have a little catching up to do. No matter. When the dancing takes over, everyone on that stage is magnificent-- everything is in perfect balance.

Weaknesses? Well, there's Act II, I'm sorry to say, with its wimpy, nonsensical "Fidgety Feet" opener, some less than stirring ballads ("Who Cares" indeed!), and a mundane "Stairway to Paradise" (I guess they had to forego MGM's light-up staircase due to copyright infringement, but still). So would the big ballet save all? Nope, not really. Designed in a constructivist Mondrian-lite style, it was diverting but in no way the romantic apotheosis of all that gone before. Even the orchestra seemed underpowered here. And Bob Crowley's scenic stunner for its final beats (which I won't divulge here) was smart and clever but didn't grab your heart like his better work in Act I had.

That said, I say head to this Paris address the sooner the better. Be prepared to be entertained by Act II, but get ready for Act I to sweep you off your feet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Updated On: 4/5/15 at 08:04 AM

[sctrojan65]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 1:24am

As a theater buff I felt I needed to see this to see how they staged it. I must admit I was quite impressed by the innovation and creativity of the backdrops. Very artistic and provocative. The dancing was great. Though i will also admit there were a couple of numbers I wanted to see go longer. They got off to this great start and you wanted to see it continue.  But then they just tapered off and came to an end. Just as you were really getting pulled in by the choreography. I also agree with one of the posters who noted that the male lead impressed me more as a dancer than an actor, but he was okay. As was the rest of the cast. I think the story could be a little more developed,  particularly with regard to some of the relationships. Overall though I'm glad I saw it. It was really quite beautiful in so many ways.

[Curious3]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 1:27pm

The male lead in AAIP is Robert Fairchild who has been a principal with NYC ballet for several years. The closest comparison to him as an actor singer (surely not as a dancer) would be Matthew Broderick. This is the strongest dance show to appear on Broadway in many, many years and the choice of Fairchild was brilliant. His sister is Megan Fairchild (also a principal at City Ballet) who is currently starring in On The Town and his wife Tiler Peck (also a principal at City Ballet) just finished her run in Washington, D.C. In the Broadway bound "Little Dancer".

[starcatchers]

Posted: 4/10/15 at 1:17am

" The closest comparison to him as an actor singer (surely not as a dancer) would be Matthew Broderick."

I would pay $150 to see Fairchild read the phone book before I saw Broderick onstage again. It's like watching paint dry.

 

I saw the show for the second time tonight (the other one being first preview), and I was happy to see how much more smoothly it ran. Took about ten minutes off the initial running time.

 

If Bob Crowley doesn't take home a Tony for his sets for this, it's a damn shame. 

[Curious3]

Posted: 4/10/15 at 7:47am

I suggested Broderick as a comparison to Fairchild more by virtue of boyish good looks and friendly accessibility. I too would pay to see Fairchild over Broderick in anything he would choose to do, however he is a dancer of the spectacular sort and those would be the right roles. How long he would choose to stay in Theater is anyone's guess. I assure you, he would be welcome back to NYCB with open arms on a moments notice, in the meantime I hope that AAIP has a long life and Fairchild and Cope stay on for a long time as well.  So, who would you suggest is a better comparison to Robert Fairchild (put dancing aside).

[sctrojan65]

Posted: 4/10/15 at 10:31am

^^^Agreed. I really did enjoy this show. Maybe knowing his ballet background I was particularly interested in seeing his acting skills, as well.        I hope this show has a healthy run, too. Clearly a lot of work has gone into this show, and what they do with the sets truly is remarkably creative. The dance is a true delight, as well. 

[Curious3]

Posted: 4/11/15 at 3:55pm

This show, if successful and maybe even if not, will have pushed the boundaries of dance (ballet) on B'way. It is in my opinion the third step in the evolution of dance in a B'way show. First was Agnes DeMille (Oklahoma and Carousel) Second was Jerome Robbins (West Side Story) and now Christopher Wheeldon.

[de_lovely]

Posted: 4/11/15 at 5:45pm

Saw the matinee today. Really wanted to like this, but definitely the most bored I have been in a very long time. Every musical number seemed to seep life out of the show, and they managed to make even Gershwin tunes I love boring. I found On the Town infinitely more engaging. In my opinion, by far the worst musical opening this spring (but have yet to see Neverland and ISBY). 

I exclude the second act ballet from my criticism- that was absolutely captivating. Stunning really. But everything else...

Will note though that I was sitting in the balcony. Do not sit there. Perhaps I would've enjoyed the show more with a better seat. 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/11/15 at 6:13pm

As a huge dance-in-musicals fan and a massive Wheeldon fan, Curious3 could you back up your statement more?  I'm not doubting you--I just want details.  DeMille and Robbins found ways to use dance to enhance the psychology of character and further plot through dance--as well as using it as a way to create (particularly with Robbins) striking new ways of staging the works in general (scene transitions, etc.)  How does Wheeldon further this?

(I had forgotten than he has a previous Broadway credit--Sweet Smell of Success.  I know it was a flop, but I don't remember if critics mentioned the dancing.  His staging of the group number Dirt from the Tonys is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YrDRmeBc08  Of course that was before he was so established as, along with perhaps Ratmansky, perhaps the top younger ballet choreographer in the world.) 

Watching the new clips posted, I so want to see this.  And I wonder all themore if it should have just been a dance piece (the person making the highlight footage seems to think so...)

[sctrojan65]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 2:37am

I think the dance piece, music and sets are the strong points of the musical. IMO the story itself and the dialogue are the weaker links. I know it's not a very deep movie to begin with nor does it incorporate some provocative story line, but I still think the plot is a little better developed in the movie than it is on the stage. Especially with regard to the three suitors (one in particular) and Lise.

Updated On: 4/12/15 at 02:37 AM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 5:05am

That makes me curious about Someone in a Tree's review (which was a pleasure to read.)  Does Act II suffer as well because there is no more interest in the rest of the story?  If Act I is so perfect (and it sounds like just my kind of show,) including according to the review Craig Lucas' book, I'm curious about Act II--does it lack conflict?

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 8:30am

I really have to go back and see the show a second time to describe what worked so well in Act I and less so in Act II. But to answer Eric's query (and thanks for the complement, sir), the plot is set spinning beautifully in Act I. Three guys think they're in love with the same girl, who hasn't figured out who she really has feelings for. Simple premise, neatly laid out.

Also, you're introduced to the overall shape of the physical production: abstract shapes will form a silhouette, lines will be sketched, and voila! a set comes to life. Also, deeply troubled wartime memories give way to new life on the streets of Paris-- the whole of Act I moves logically from darkness to light, anguish to new love.

By contrast, Act II seems obsessed with Forms of Modern Dance styles in the 1950's-- why? And also, who cares? It starts with a bizarre contretemps over some Rites-of-Spring-like performance at Lise's dance school, and culminates in an endless American in Paris ballet that barely even touches on the 3 love stories. It seems to deliberately ignore all the evocative emotional groundwork that was so beautifully set up in Act I, and instead gives us... what? a History of Dance lecture. Here's a Vegas showgirl number. Here's a constructivist/ expressionist piece. Where's the rich psychology, where's the dreamscape, where's the imagery of troubled love affairs that made the ballet onscreen so mesmerizing? And if we can't have that, where are some good jokes for Act II? 

It's okay, though. I've never been so happy at intermission after the first Act of a show, since... I don't know, maybe ON THE TOWN.

 

 

[MNC77]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 2:39pm

Saw the show last week, and was not a fan (though to be fair, this kind of dance-centered musical is not usually my cup of tea.) I agree with Whizzer on a lot of the issues, especially the dancing being over-choreographed and the book being an issue due to its low stakes and slow meandering nature. I couldn't get invested fully in any of the storylines because I simply didn't care that much which of the boys got the girl, especially when background issues of War were so prominent. Not a bad show necessarily, but a dull one in my opinion.

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 2:57pm

I saw the final preview last night and completely loved it. The opening is some of the most beautiful visual and dancing I've ever seen, and I was swept up in all of it from the get go. If Bob Crowley doesn't walk away with a Tony for the beautiful design of this show, there is no justice, because it is a simplistic beautiful approach that should be a guide to anyone who wants to use projections correctly. 

Robbie Fairchild is charming, well sung, and obviously dances the hell out of the role. Leanne Cope is adorable and the sparks between them that begin in Act 1 build so wonderfully into the blazing ballet in Act 2. These two leave their hearts on the stage, and it's absolutely beautiful to see.

 

Max Von Essen, Jill Paice, Brandon Uranowitz all sing, dance, and perform their roles perfectly. I was particularly struck by Uranowitz playing the struggling post war artist and watching him discover the light that art can create in the darkest of times. Von Essen is sprightly and adorable as Henri, and Paice delivers elegance and glamour. Myself and starcatchers couldn't help fan girl a little over Veanne Cox, who we both remembered fondly from the 1997 Cinderella, and she is just a hoot to watch play doting mother to Von Essen. 

This is a beautiful show that celebrates the best of both ballet and musical theater while telling a story about art in a time of darkness. I loved it so much, and I wish the cast a wonderful opening night tonight. 

 

Updated On: 4/12/15 at 02:57 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 4:06pm

Thanks so much for that, Someone in a Tree.  It speaks volumes about the show that despite being (I'm assuming) disappointed by Act II after Act I, it did nothing to diminish your views on the first act--unlike the way disappointing second acts so often do.  I really would love to see it.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 6:17pm

I only fear that you better hurry down to see it soon, Eric. The blend of stage magic and dance magic on view here will not be everyone's cup of tea, critics included. I pray the Times gives it a rave, although even their rave for ON THE TOWN couldn't muster full houses for that show. Fingers crossed for everyone at AAIP as the reviews pour in tonight.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 6:53pm

I hope for the best.  The qualities you describe, unfortunately seem like the kind of thing that some people won't appreciate, or perhaps even recognize.

[sctrojan65]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 10:38pm

Having seen the show, SomeoneinaTree, maybe you could answer a question for me.

First of all, I'm back in L.A. now so (with true regret) I can't go back and see it again... which I really wish I could.  For me, seeing something a second time not only helps to clarify some things I missed, but helps me to appreciate a piece of art at even deeper levels.

Slight spoiler alert ahead……

With regard to the Adam thread in the show.  I  think that as I was watching it I was a little confused by his interest in Lise.  Maybe it was because he didn't really have that connection with her in the movie, so I was fighting that a little bit.  At what point, and for what reason, are we led to understand his feelings for her again?  

I understand Jerry….he's smitten with her at first sight…just like in the movie.  Similar to the movie, Henri has feelings for her, be it true love, or a respectful, protective love that evolved due to his relationship with her during the war.  And she feels a mutual respect, admiration and love for him.  He has to ultimately give up when he realizes she loves Jerry.

But the Adam thing…loving her from afar?  And why?  Is that really established in the play?  I may have missed it through the plot's progression, since it seemed there came the point when they were all interested in her.  Two of them you could understand, but Adam….when did he express his feelings?  I mean, I guess you could see his interest in her at certain points, but we never really knew why.  Did I, in fact, miss something?  Or do we just not need to know why?

Whatever….it was a mesmerizing show in so many ways.  And like you, I truly want this to succeed.

 

Updated On: 4/12/15 at 10:38 PM

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 10:54pm

 

SORT OF SPOILER-ISH, I GUESS*************************************

I'm only relying on my recollections from a week ago myself, but there's a clear thread between Adam and Lise wherein Adam wants to create the most wonderful ballet score ever that will win Lise's undying devotion to him, and hence her love. He thinks he has a chance with her when he joins the others in singing "S'Wonderful" late in Act I. When he thinks he's lost his chance with her in Act II, he sings "But Not For Me" in a duet with Milo who has realized the same thing about Jerry. We still see him conduct his ballet score "An American in Paris", even though by then he knows Lise will always be Jerry's.

Updated On: 4/12/15 at 10:54 PM

[sctrojan65]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 11:03pm

Okay, thanks!  I do remember that now.  I guess the intensity of his love didn't really resonate with me and I let it go.

Again, I may have been clouded too much by the movie.  

I do think I remember him joining in on that song in the movie, but in the movie I figured he was just singing how great it was to be in love, but it didn't mean he liked Lise, like the other two did.

Thanks.  And I do enjoy your reviews also.  It was a very good show, IMO.   Even if some parts may have been stronger than others, I agree (you can say that about lots of shows though I guess).  

Very glad I saw it.

 

[Curious3]

Posted: 4/13/15 at 6:01pm

I have been posting about this show since I first saw it in Paris. I loved it then and love it even more now that it has gone through various preview revisions. When I first posted I was accused and vilified by some as being a shill and that "they" predict a massive failure, a show that the public would have no interest in. Some of the persons who posted on these BBs clearly had no insight, no writing skills, and a major chip on their shoulder. Were they, are they "wannabes", "jaded theater goers", "failed theater people" who the hell knows, but what was and is amazing is that others on theses BBs read them and made decisions based on NOTHING. I said that there were those who posted here that seemed to be more knowledgeable and insightful then others and I was accused of being self involved and the implications were that "only my point of view was valid" What nonsense!  What I am saying is that any cretin can write on the INTERNET and that includes me. Be judicious and open minded when you read things. I would write the names of the offenders but they are so well known here it would be redundant.  Now, here is what I posted about this show and I stand by it and double my feelings now that it has officially opened. 

"I was there. This show is sharp, sophisticated and elegant. The story has been fleshed in comparison to the film. If you are not ready for a grand super romantic evening filled with the greatest dancing since Jerome Robbins hit the stage, then by all means stay away. If on the other hand you want to see and hear a truly grand production aimed at an adult mentality (that does not mean children would not get caught up in the sheer beauty) please, do not pass this one up. The story is much more complex then the film ever was and the relationships far more interesting, but fundamentally this is a show of pure beauty of dance (emphasis ballet) and timeless Gershwin (which includes many purely orchestral and instrumental works that have never been in a Broadway show)."

[Princeton78]

Posted: 5/8/15 at 5:50pm

For those that have seen it, or been inside the Palace more than I have...

Would you take extreme rear mezz or front balcony given the chance?

Any problems hearing from either location?