Annie Preview Thread- Page 13

[forgetmenotnyc]

Posted: 10/22/12 at 1:33pm

I saw a very early preview of the show & have enjoyed following most of the posts here since. I had a good time taking it in, glad to see things like the overture being restored - but not sure how relevant all my comments may be now since the show may be very different from what it was weeks ago? Thought I would pipe-in nonetheless since I am staying continuously interested in the fate of this ANNIE. I really liked the 1st National in Washington DC in 78 but have felt ho-hum about everything I have seen of the show since (both films, 2 tours, a Elem school prod. & the 97 revival.) I feel that Lilla, Anthony & the shows book & score have the power to make this one soar again. I found their waltz during "Something Was Missing" very moving. I also particularly liked J. Elaine, Merwin (& Dennis for some odd-reason). For me, these cast members just seemed to raise-the-stakes, somehow? The role of Miss Hannigan is obviously so tricky. I have never really felt anyone has nailed it other than that first version I saw which I felt was played eloquently by master Ruth Kobart. I think only someone like Angela Lansbury could really do it for me at this point. :-P I wish Sandy could fill a bigger role in the show & be a part of "Gonna Like It Here & NYC. I miss the treadmill tableaus in NYC. New scenic & choreographic choices didn't always win me over. The orphanage that just seems like someone's extra bedroom, the flatness of Warbucks columns, the diminished NYC because of the backfiring desire to contain it into a snowglobe & the decision to not include the orphans into dual roles as city children? Just some of my Act 1 concerns. I loved the fact that Annie wants to punch the staff member who pinched her. Undecided about the kids NY accents. (Have lived here for 30 yrs. but never really warmed up to it.) I really found the radio show uninspired a few weeks ago. Hopefully it has improved. I hope the creative team still have the spirit & resources to still find inspiration for changes even tonight. I think it's a super special show & that it really deserves all the best that the industry is capable of. My sincere hopes is that it really continues to connect with folk & run well into 2014.

[VoiceOfReason3]

Posted: 10/23/12 at 11:42pm

Wow, I can't believe the venom I see around here. This is Annie guys, so are you all trying to play the part of Miss Hannigan in real life? And people are seriously accusing each other of being the parent of a child in the show? There's a good reason they tell people to not trust anything you read on the net.

Let's just pray that none of the parents actually do read these threads because it's one thing to tear apart a grown adult, but it's another thing entirely to do it to a child. Adults know better than to read something on the internet and put any faith into it. If these kids (Lilla, Taylor, whoever) read what you some here write, well, they'll most likely take it to heart. And that's a true shame...

I actually happened to be at the same show as you, Matteo (evening performance on Saturday night, the 20th). However, obviously I'm late to the party as everyone here was so ramped up about it, you all posted shortly after waking the next morning. I traveled to the city with my spouse and being huge Annie fans, we figured we would partake of the previews while we were there for the day.

I came away with almost an entirely different impression than you, Matteo. And as free speech is still allowed to a degree in this country, here are my thoughts for those of you who might be considering NOT seeing the show now because of what Matteo wrote.

If you've never left a show so "skeptically" before Matteo, you haven't seen much on Broadway I'm guessing. Also, keep in mind that this show is still in previews and thus is likely being tweaked and adjusted as the days go by. Was the show perfect? No. Was it good? Yes. I however felt most of the tweaks needing to be done are probably ones that should be done more by the producers and not so much the cast.

Matteo's review opens with a scathing critique of the understudy for Annie. Does she sing well? Very well in my opinion. Taylor's singing held up quite well and was one of her strengths I thought.

Was the accent a genuine NY accent for every single second of the musical? Not quite, but I wouldn't say it's "horrible" and I don't recall it sounding "British". There are some inconsistencies which I'm sure will only improve over time (this *IS* previews). I do wonder why if Lilla and Taylor aren't from New York that the producers would insist on them doing accents at all really? The show's success will not hinge on them having an authentic NY accent. Whatever though, it was good enough unless you're a NY snob. The important thing is she acted well, she sang well and she actually gave me chills (good ones) doing Tommorrow in Act II. She delivered her lines well and did connect with the audience.

You do kind of lose some of the legitimacy of your critique when you claim you would've been disappointed at her in a community theatre setting. Wow. Apparently you haven't seen many community productions. That just strikes me as a low blow and makes me question what you might have against her to write that on a message board so quickly after the performance.

I guess you're basically insulting the producers there because they chose her and obviously think more of her than you. I can see why the one person went off on you, because you sound very harsh there. As for why she went on instead of Jaidyn, that takes no explanation really. Taylor's probably gotten the brunt of the work behind Lilla as Annie and the producers probably feel the most comfortable with her and her abilities. After watching the show, I can't fault them as she did great in my opinion.

One thing you didn't mention is that Taylor really "looks" the part. I looked at the bios online and it looks like she is a "look-alike" for Annie in real life - red hair and all. Makes sense she's the understudy if she can sing like she did. It's no wonder they gave Duffy a hat because otherwise the hair might be confusing for the audience!

Moving on past the that drama...

I completely agree with Matteo about Katie Finneran. Her performance has to be seen to be believed. She's magnetic and has serious stage-presence.

I completely disagree with Matteo about Anthony Warlow who I thought was absolutely AMAZING. I think he delivered his lines very well and his experience in this role shows. He's a mature actor who has such a beautiful tone I *WILL* return to see this show again after it opens just to hear it. His singing voice must be heard to be appreciated. He absolutely floored me and I had no idea he could sing like that.

As for his transformation, that again is a production decision. Perhaps the producers didn't feel they had the time for more character development on his part (or others). While I could always use more scenes and lines, I don't feel a disconnect from his character and I think the casting was terrific with Anthony.

He did such a great job you could almost name the play "Daddy Warbucks". :)

Seriously, I feel like I saw a different show than Matteo because I came out of there talking about how wonderful Daddy Warbucks was.

One has to witness his vocal range in person to believe it. What a true pleasure it was to hear him sing in person. His voice is worth the price of admission alone, no matter what seat you have.

Sorry to get all worked up over Daddy Warbucks when everyone else is focused on Annie, but I couldn't let this one go without a response as I feel so strongly about it.

Thorell was "absolutely horrible"? Geez, I feel he did just fine and if I have to debate every single person you claim is "horrible", this will be a gigantic novel. I loved how he acted when he pulled one over on Miss Hannigan. He knocked that scene out of the park.

I am not going to go into defending J. Elaine Marcos because you simply come across as racist here, Matteo. In fact, now I am wondering why I've put so much effort into writing a reply as you must be trolling.

Brynn is certainly a highlight - that I will agree with. She's absolutely stunning too, particularly in the lovely dress she wears in the second act. Her voice and carriage are truly graceful and elegant. Quite enjoyable to watch her!

I'm going to add something here about the cast. I feel the orphans could get more facetime. You don't have a sense for why they love Annie so much other than Annie pulling Molly out of a drawer and carrying her. Some of these girls have real talent too. Molly is absolutely adorable and obviously gets a lot of time as the character which will melt hearts everywhere. But Kate is also cute and needs a line or two I feel. July did an amazing back somersault and looks quite athletic. Tessie, Pepper, and Duffy were all great as well and each have very strong individual traits that set that apart from one another.

I would hope the producers might think about adding in a line or two to endear these girls to the audience even more. However, they're all so adorable that just being able to admire them is enough. You'll wish they were all your daughters after the night is over, trust me.

The adult cast is made up of true professionals and they are very strong. The children certainly don't have the years of experience and training that the adults do, but they each are lovely and very endearing. I have no doubts that they will all mature quickly (hopefully not too fast!) and be quite a formidable cast by the time this production has been open for a few months.

Okay, now the set.

I really loved it. I won't go on at length because I already have, but I thought it worked just fine and I was even amazed at some of the three dimensionality the set provided.

I'm glad that you do encourage people to see it Matteo because we should all form our own opinions. They certainly have time to work out the kinks before it opens although I don't think there are many to work out.

I just had to respond to your critique because you put so much into it and it was overall very negative in my opinion about almost everything in the show. My spouse and I ended up having a lovely evening at the preview and found many positive things to talk about concerning the entire cast.

For anyone wondering about the night of the 20th, there were 3 substitutions that evening. Taylor for Annie, Jaidyn for Duffy, and Desi for Liz McCartney.

I hope that everyone who goes to see this show goes in without predetermined opinions and gives everything and everyone a fair chance. There's a lot of talent on that stage. I hope to see Lilla after it opens but I certainly don't feel bad having seen Taylor instead. She did a splendid job! Besides, while the musical is named Annie, there's a lot of incredible talent on that stage and they all have a lot of time in the spotlight. I truly believe that most people will not be disappointed at all and in fact may want to see it again (and again) if anything!

I imagine most won't read what I wrote because I wrote so much, but I do pray that it gives some of you hope yet if you were feeling down about the production. A standing ovation was given at the end of the night for good reason.

Best regards everyone!











Updated On: 10/24/12 at 11:42 PM

[Matteo]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 12:22am

VoiceofReason3-

I am honestly very happy that you enjoyed the show. After re-reading my review a couple of times, it does come off more harsh than it was intended to be. (i guess though, the way it is read in my head is a bit kinder than read in someone else's). Most definitely, I had my complaints about the show, but I understand that it is still just my opinion. And I have seen many shows on Broadway, especially in previews, and I love the opportunity to see the faults in the show and then to return to see how much it has grown.

About Taylor, I do still stand with what I said. I guess I am just not a fan of hers, however I still left the show with an overall appreciation of it. It's Annie, it is hard not to like. I appreciated most of her singing voice, it was just her accent I wasnt a fan of.

About Warlow, I loved his voice! I thought his voice was great. The directorial choice of his character journey was just not the best.

I can 100% guarantee you that there is no racism here against Marcos or any asian. I just thought the portrayal was not how it should have been done, along with most people on here. The part about not being able to do a true American accent is actually from work I have done in theatre, and heard from many people as well. For me, I felt uncomfortable during her performance. I feel like that style is degrading to Asian women, and I did not like it. Trust me, there was no racism involved in my comment, and there should be no racism on this board.

Overall, I had many complaints, but I did not go through and post all of the things I liked about the show. Overall, I enjoyed the show, and have told everyone I know to go see it. I had my complaints (being a stage manager it is hard not to critique and try to improve), but I still enjoyed it and encourage everyone to see it! I, myself, will be returning after opening to see the changes.

I agree with VoiceOfReason3 100%, go see this show. I had my complaints, and hopefully you all will share your feelings on here as well. Just remember that we are all entitled to how we feel of a production.

Updated On: 10/24/12 at 12:22 AM

[VoiceOfReason3]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 12:42am

Matteo,

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your clarifications and do think that it can be difficult to accurately convey one's sentiments clearly over the internet - one of the reasons I prefer a phone call over an e-mail. Call me old-fashioned I suppose. I'm never quite happy with what I've posted or written in electronic format. You can't give text 'tone' and thus it can be hard to decipher how the message was intended. So things can come across harsher than intended.

I am glad you liked Warlow's voice. I guess his delivery came across differently to us in parts. I do think if anything is to be criticized though about him, it's probably a production critique and not a critique on Anthony himself. I suppose I am guilty of a bit of hyperbole in my first post when I said I had no idea he could sing like that. I know his background and his qualifications, but hearing him in person really is a treat and experience.

Thanks for clarifying things as well with Marcos.

Like you said, you probably just focused more on the negatives in your first review and maybe I just felt you left out many of the positives from what I thought was a great night.

We'll have to agree to disagree about Taylor. I couldn't believe she was just the understudy for Annie. I feel if she didn't have the words "u/s Annie" next to her name, nobody would think twice of it. Not to take anything away from Lilla of course - I can't wait to see her live. I just feel the producers are lucky they have her talent in the wings for when Lilla isn't able to go on. And she's only going to get better as she gets more experience playing the role, especially with the accent.

Thanks again for elaborating on some of the points. I can't wait to go see the show again after it opens to see if they've changed anything, etc.





Updated On: 10/24/12 at 12:42 AM

[bk]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 3:55am

And thank YOU for joining the board this very day to make this long, impassioned post about how much you LOVE this production. :)

[VoiceOfReason3]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 10:51am

I admit, I do love it which is probably the only reason I signed up to to post - when I saw someone apparently disliked so much the very show I saw and loved. I've been really excited about this production for a while since Annie holds some lovely childhood memories for me.

I couldn't resist responding to Matteo's impassioned post with my own because I feel we had a wonderful night that evening. While most here love Annie, I think people who've never seen Annie would have a wonderful time at the show. I am a bit verbose which is why I tend to lurk and never post on boards, but many of us are out there. We just like to hide in the shadows normally!

Off topic, I don't really get the general dislike for Katie though in this thread. I feel she has such presence. Ah well, not everyone is going to like everything about the show, but there's so much I did enjoy. There could be some tweaks of course in my opinion, but overall I think it's solid.

I'll go back to my lurking and save you all from my lengthy discourse. Glad to be here though.

[BroadwayBaby2012]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 2:28pm

I have to join the chorus in support of Finneran. I saw the show last night and found her work to be inspired and fresh and exactly in proportion. I am a major Loudon devotee, but even I would suspect that her performance in the original production would be jarring, heavy handed, and disproportionate if dropped into this revival. Her performance was very much supported by the production in which she appeared - the David Mitchell sets, the Peter Genarro choreography - all at the top of their game but with a style and scale which was deliberate. The creative team for the revival has elected a different palette for this production and for me Crawford and Finneran embodied what Lapine and company seemed to be doing here. If you go back to the Charnin production and original Meehan script you can see how much of it has been changed here - so many of the bits, gags, cheaper lines, and laughs have been cut. But a lot of people posting here seem to want Finneran to be playing Loudon's Hannigan, not Hannigan. A lot of what I read on here is also very revisionist. Make no bones about it that Loudon played it as an out and out drunk - any suggestions from others to the contrary are mistaken. Her Hannigan had bottles hidden everywhere and she drank as often as she could find a way to support it - a lot of that direction made it into the script - but Lapine has chosen to excise much of it, just as he has a lot of the more dated bits. And Finneran's performance felt very original and very new, with no vestiges of characterizations she has put on stage before. She seemed to have very strong control of her work. I can't say I thought the production was entirely successful - I do think there are some issues, especially choreographically; Blankenbuehler has not found a vocabulary to suit the needs of the numbers or the production; and Thorell and Marcos need to hone their choices and instincts in the Rooster and Lily scenes - their Mudge scenes work very well. But I felt Crawford and Finneran (and the orphans by the way, especially little Molly) were really in the zone. I enjoyed Warlow - and will probably be killed for saying this - but if there was anyone whose performance felt less fresh it was his. He sounds great and looks the part, but the performance has an air of being pre-programmed - almost like he has done it so many times that the beats and rhythms are a little by rote. I found him to have nice chemistry with Crawford but I thought that some of the choices were slightly on auto pilot and that he might have fit into Charnin's version better than Lapine's. I did not see the show early on so I could not speak to the growth curve of the production or performances. I know it is Annie and it has fans and it detractors, as do the stars and the director. But now that I have seen the revival I wanted to lend my non-partisan voice to the conversation as someone who is very familiar with the production to which this one is being compared. I think Finneran is doing herself - and Loudon - very very proud.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 3:05pm

I am not going to go into defending J. Elaine Marcos because you simply come across as racist here, Matteo. In fact, now I am wondering why I've put so much effort into writing a reply as you must be trolling.

VoR:

Holy. Really?

The most racist thing involving this thread IS HOW THEY'VE CHOSEN TO PRESENT LILY TO US IN ACT ONE. I am Asian American. I saw a preview about 2 weeks ago. Scroll back and find my post.

I found nothing racist (or to disagree with, honestly) in what Matteo said about J. Elaine Marcos' performance. I found many things racist in said performance.

P.S. BroadwayBaby2012, please try paragraph breaks.

Updated On: 10/24/12 at 03:05 PM

[Bialyhoos22]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 3:40pm

What is with all these people joining the site in the past 2 weeks only to write these overzealous epistles in defense of the show? It's abundantly clear you have some vested interest in the production - to deny it is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I actually appreciate your passion in the production's defense, but let's stop the dance shall we?

This production is plagued with directorial issues that are clearly at odds with the original material. This - at its simplest - is poor direction. Direction that doesn't serve the material first and foremost is flawed (some might even say, masturbatory!)

Finneran (and everyone else involved) could and should be having a BLAST with this material - but Lapine has decided to approach this like some O'Neill tragedy. Obviously, the show isn't without its moments in its current form but I think its safe to say they're in spite of said direction. The joy and exuberance that should come in playing this kind of musical comedy is simply not there.

If they could just focus on making this the musical comedy confection it most certainly is (and was in 1977!) there wouldn't be any need for such lengthy NYT profiles about an incredibly talented actress having a hell of a time with such a great role - you'd think she was assaying Hamlet from how forlorn she is. And listen, I know this is THE process for every actor -- that there are constant doubts, insecurities and struggles (particularly with comedy) all thru the rehearsal process. But generally, the director there helps the actor build upon their performance, refining their choices, and ultimately TRUSTING the actor's comedic instincts. It sounds very much like Finneran doesn't feel she can trust those anymore for fear that she play it too broad. This is a mistake. Some of the greatest actors of our time have all spoken to the fact that sometimes, they must start LARGE and work from the outside in - for it's always easier to dial something down, then dial it up.

I say bring Mike Nichols in to the rescue (again) and let's call it a day! :)




Updated On: 10/24/12 at 03:40 PM

[VoiceOfReason3]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 4:52pm

Good grief bialyhoos22, people sure assume a lot on these forums. Perhaps you trolled me (and others), but I will take the bait.

Obviously the people who signed up recently when the musical went PUBLIC and liked the show enough to post positive reviews are either A) the producers or B) somehow invested in the show either financially or via family.

But to deny either of those possibilities would be ridiculous, correct? Because clearly no simple fan of the musical could ever want to share their opinions on the matter. And obviously this board is so popular that all true fans of Annie have been living here for years and posting religiously about it and have crazy high post counts. But nope, anybody who saw the show after it went public and wanted to elaborate on it by posting here clearly has a hidden agenda. And if you write at length, it isn't because you care, it's because you care too much.

Let's be serious, the people with a vested interest in the show have probably been here for months on end. Those who have signed up recently to comment are most likely normal people who just went to see the show and wanted to see what others thought of it or share their opinions. Previews bring out the excitement in people generally and in today's electronic world, it isn't all that hard to search for message boards about the things you like.

I'm not sure how you know that Finneran isn't experiencing any joy in her role and obviously you have very adamant ideas about the directorial issues that have "plagued" the production. You seem to know more than most so maybe you have more of a vested interest than most. Those of us who actually enjoyed a pleasant evening at the theatre and cared enough to comment about a topic we like enjoy have ulterior motives. I admit, there are things I would tweak, but I feel like those have been discussed plenty so I'll focus on what I did enjoy.

I'm sorry, but opinions like yours are why in general, I refrain from posting on message boards. Apparently everybody has attention deficit disorder these days so anybody who cares enough to write an "overzealous epistle" is blasted. Also, unless you have been around the board for ages on end, your posts clearly aren't worth the pixels they're written on.

In reality, the only opinions that will really matter will be the critics who either pan or praise the show. Should I draw in the cliche about opinions being like .......s, everybody has one? The fact is, my opinion and the others on this board will mean nothing in the long run. We're just voicing our thoughts here. People will certainly disagree with each other. But attitudes like yours keep people from posting at all.

Sorry, but I really do resent that train of thought and find it is quite common among various denizens of different message boards around the internet. If the "turf" here is so precious that you have to be inducted before you can post, than I will happily move along and find friendlier people elsewhere to read (and occasionally chat) with. If you were running for office with that mindset, you wouldn't garner many votes where each person's vote carries equal weight. I'm glad my spouse doesn't make the assumptions about me that you make about others.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 5:03pm

While I don't disagree with you (nor do I 100% agree with you, since astroturfing is very much a real thing), I wonder why people don't just register before they even intend to post, just to avoid this kind of thing.

I do find the combination of your long posts and your username kinda entertaining, though.

[BroadwayBaby2012]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 5:46pm

I hardly wrote a blanket rave for the show. I tried to write and share a considered and educated opinion. I have resisted posting previously because I have never seen a thread that didn't devolve into some conflict or nastiness and I am sad to once again discover that there is little ability to share differing opinions without personal attack.

Back to topic, I am not sure when bialyhoos22 last saw the show but it is possible that things have grown and settled since you saw it. I have no defense for the things that are not working about Lapine's approach. I am not here to defend him. I am just posting to say that that what I saw in Finneran and Crawford's work was inspired and effective, contrary to what some earlier postings seemed to indicate.

I am not sure how many posters saw the original production but my point was to dilineate that Loudon's performance very much belonged in her production of the show and that Finneran's very much felt to me that it belonged in this production.

But I do suggest you re-read my earlier post if you think I am somehow vested in the show because my response was actually quite critical - of the things I thought worked as well as the things I didn't.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 6:49pm

"If they could just focus on making this the musical comedy confection it most certainly is (and was in 1977!) there wouldn't be any need for such lengthy NYT profiles about an incredibly talented actress having a hell of a time with such a great role - you'd think she was assaying Hamlet from how forlorn she is."

Comedy is not easy.
Competing with memories of a legendary performance is not easy.
Being Katie Finneran preparing a role is not easy.

But don't let the truth get in the way of deriding the Times for delving i to it or Finneran for being an artist bold enough to be completely honest about herself.

Updated On: 10/24/12 at 06:49 PM

[Bialyhoos22]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 7:24pm

Oh I'm in no ways attempting to deride Ms. Finneran's vulnerability OR the Times on having printed such an article. It was merely making (perhaps an all too sweeping) suggestion, that the terms of the article and the hurdles Ms. Finneran is presently facing might be quite a bit different if she was buoyed with direction that was more en pointe with the demands of the material. I'm not by any stretch suggesting any actor is remotely immune to facing numerous doubts, insecurities and missteps during the process of assaying any major role -- even with solid, supportive direction. I was just conjecturing that with perhaps with better direction, not so hell bent on making this version of Annie extremely grounded in reality, she might have more manageable hurdles to deal with, relatively speaking.



Updated On: 10/24/12 at 07:24 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 9:20pm

^Point well taken, Blalyhoos22.

[Sauja]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 10:58am

Saw Annie last night. For the first time. Ever.I really enjoyed it. It doesn't feel like a perfect production--there are some clunky moments (most seemed directorial), J. Elaine Marcos is giving a bizarre performance, and some of the little 'uns are much finer singers than actors. But overall, I was thrilled to find it so much less twee or agressively cutesy than I expected it to be.

I found Warbucks and Grace to be wonderfully portratyed, and while I know Finneran is getting mixed reviews, she was strong last night. I'd love to see her a little bit meaner and a little bit sadder or realer, but she seems to be very near great with the possibility of sliding into it with some time or tweaks.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 12:16pm

Many of us have seen the original Annie which was perfect musical theatre. So when it's revived, we would like it to equal the thrill and the integrity of the original.


So many revivals do not do that. Bye Bye Birdie with Gena Gershon comes to mind: The last overly praised but in my opinion misguided La Cage: that abysmal Fiddler on the Roof starring Harvey Fierstein and first Alfred Molina; Zorba with Anthony Quinn; On a Clear Day with Harry Conick; So many missed opportunites trying to improve on perfection or near perfection.

James Lapine is a director who tends to be overly serious. Making Annie overly serious concerns me. The choice of Lapine as a director of Annie concerns me. So does giving the orphans Newsies accents. Trying to improve on the Peter Genarro choreography also gives one pause and from testimonies here is not up to par.

Perhaps I should stay home and relish the memory of the original which was theatre perfection. When a revival comes.. we all have great hopes that are often dashed. No I haven't seen this production but I am often disappointed by revivals.

I always think of that great melanie song "Look what they've done to my song Ma."

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 12:23pm

^You make some excellent points. I see no reason NOT to base the revival on the original production (direction, sets, costumes, etc.). The only correlation I can make is to Balanchine's, The Nutcracker. I have seen it every year since 1976 and I have yet to tire from seeing the same production.

That being said, I plan on seeing Annie over the Thanksgiving holiday.

[newintown]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 12:33pm

These are some of the longest posts I've ever seen. Who has time?

[lynnetoomey]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 12:47pm

Sat through this unfortunate excuse for a revival last evening. I must give kudos to Miss Crawford, Anthony Warlow and Brynn O'Malley who are the ONLY three people on that stage that are delivering performances worthy of a Broadway stage.

The whole thing is a mess: unfocused direction, community theatre level choreography, clunky designs , and a woefully miscast Katie Finneran. What a wasted oppurtnity to present this classic musical to an entire new generation of audiences.

[lynnetoomey]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 12:47pm

Sat through this unfortunate excuse for a revival last evening. I must give kudos to Miss Crawford, Anthony Warlow and Brynn O'Malley who are the ONLY three people on that stage that are delivering performances worthy of a Broadway stage.

The whole thing is a mess: unfocused direction, community theatre level choreography, clunky designs , and a woefully miscast Katie Finneran. What a wasted oppurtnity to present this classic musical to an entire new generation of audiences.

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 10/28/12 at 12:53pm

any updates on changes happening during previews?

[NYadgal]

Posted: 10/28/12 at 1:00pm

Happy Birthday to Annie today! (October 28th...)

[jaxandmci]

Posted: 10/29/12 at 10:39am

I saw the show Saturday night from third row Orchestra. Annie has great sentimental value to me because the original was the very first Broadway show I saw. I didn't see the '97 revival because the cast just didn't interest me (but perhaps it was really because I still hadn't recovered from the trauma of seeing the '82 film). I'm not a theatre critic and I didn't major in theatre in college but I visit New York monthly and usually see 3-4 shows per visit.

All that said, I was truly delighted with this revival. It reignited all the sparks that the original version sent through me and really reminded me why I grew to love musical theatre so much. The cast was, for the most part, extremely talented. Perhaps Katie Finneran has evolved since some of the earlier postings on this thread--or perhaps the judgments were simply harsh--but I thought she nailed Hannigan and was obviously having a great time doing so. Lilla Crawford was on and really lit up the stage; her fellow orphans did as well.

I have to say that the one performance that gave me a little pause was that of J. Elaine Marcos. Loved her in Priscilla but I must agree with some previous posters in that I thought she was, well, bizarre. I know Lily St. Regis is a ditz and a floozy but Marcos seemed high, kind of wide-eyed and robotic during her Act I Regis scene. And if they weren't going to capitalize on the joke that due to her obvious ethnicity she couldn't be Annie's mother, then they shouldn't have given her the crazy accent in the St. Regis scenes that was suddenly dropped in the Mudge scene.

I thought the sets were sophisticated and scene changes very fluid and interesting. Great costumes, sound, lighting and orchestrations. The choreography was adequate but I don't remember it being that integral to the original anyway. Overall, a great night at the theatre. And my partner, who had never seen Annie in any iteration, loved it as well. He proclaimed it a 9.5 out of 10 (Anything Goes is his 10/10) and said, "This is why I love Broadway!"

[NYadgal]

Posted: 10/29/12 at 11:46am

Agree!

I was there Saturday evening, as well. Was pleased with the progress it's made, after having read this thread. I think it still needs a little tightening, and I hope Katie does more singing and less shrieking, but overall I really loved it.

Miss Crawford is outstanding.

Loved the sets, and hope this has a happy, long run.