Anyone going to the first preview of A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC tonight?- Page 5

[binau]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 4:15pm

" If it's good enough for Sondheim IT SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE ELSE."

This is the same person that loves "The Wiz" and has seen it six times, or something.

I'm not necessarily saying he is 'wrong' with this opinion, but say by analogy just as we shouldn't be expected to enjoy the Wiz 'cause Sondheim does, we shouldn't be expected to enjoy this revival of Night Music because he does.

You might say that the difference between Night Music and the Wiz is that he 'knows' and is more qualified to judge when his own works/collaborations are presented 'better' than another, but I'm pretty sure even Sondheim can be bias by his own work/cast in the production etc.. (This is the first revival of Night Music on Broadway with CZJ, who he called personally, and Lansbury, who he has often publicly expressed his professional admiration for). And I'm sure he'd look at some of his past works/collaborations that were 'good enough' for him at the time (e.g. Merrily, Bounce) and claim he was mistaken.

Updated On: 11/25/09 at 04:15 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 4:46pm

Sondheim is DEFINITELY not the person best equipped to cast his own musicals - few writers are, to be honest. But it should be noted that some of the most debated, and despised casting in recent Sondheim revivals have been from performers that Sondheim himself hand picked and insisted play the roles...

[jv92]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 4:52pm

"Glad you enjoyed it, mybigsplash, but you do realize Steve smokes A LOT - and I mean A LOT - of weed, right?"

Does he really? I thought he gave that up years ago. Glad to hear he had a good time and chatted with the house crew. He's mellowed with age.
I'm seeing Night Music Friday. Can't wait!

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 4:58pm

"But it should be noted that some of the most debated, and despised casting in recent Sondheim revivals have been from performers that Sondheim himself hand picked and insisted play the roles..."

who did he hand pick recently? LuPone?

[Pgenre]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 5:12pm

Kathie Lee Gifford for PUTTING IT TOGETHER matinees in the Carol Burnett role (The Wife).

AND he changed "Wait a go**amn minute" to "Wait a f*cking minute" in "Could I Leave You?" because she refused to take the Lord's name in vain.

And she was fabulous, believe it or not, and gave the best "Like It Was" I have EVER heard and probably ever will. She did live a lot of the lyrics to that song live on national television in a lot ways.

Remember, Kathie Lee was the Kate Gosselin of the 90s. And she actually has talent.

P

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 5:27pm

I'd almost rather see the new cast in Arthur's distasteful, but seemingly better in comparison or at least more enjoyable and less frustrating, revival of WSS.

Well, if you put it that way...

But as for the production getting better in previews, I'm sure they will. But nothing I heard about Nunn's production when it was in England sounded at all interesting. Now it just sounds like something for people who have never seen the show, not for people who love the show. Much like Arthur's West Side.

Bottom line for me, especially during a recession, I'm not spending $140 a ticket to see a good Frederik.

Sorry, but that's not what Night Music is about for me. It's about the women and the style and the longing and and the frustration and the desire hidden deep beneath our frosty exteriors.

I can get that from the OCR.

Kathy Lee Gifford would do a bang-up "Liaisons."

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 6:01pm

But the ladies are great. Angela has been messing up during first previews since 1979's Sweeney Todd, so it was expected. Zeta-Jones just needs to become a bit more comfortable in the role, and she'll have it all. Her Clowns was stunning, and will only get better.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 6:11pm

This topic has been like a game of telephone. The reviews from those few people who saw it were most definitely, "Good, not excellent, and will definitely get better". And now they're being relayed as "it sucks and there is only 1 good thing about it".

[Rudy2]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 6:34pm

I saw the first preview, indeed. I am new to the show, so I experienced this production with particularly fresh eyes.

Adamgreer - Your comment that Catherine was "merely very good" is verbatim what I said when I got home last night. She is in character and convincingly so, but her comic timing is severely lacking, although she is trying. She is not getting the laughs where she should be getting them, at least most times, and her "Send in the Clowns," while lovely, was not heartbreaking or even heartrending.

mw212, I agree with Catherine's lack of chemistry with her two male co-stars. I found myself in the middle wishing I believed more in this love triangle, that it made me feel more than just a little anxiety. I also found her comic timing off; she didn't land laughs where she was supposed to in many spots. Hopefully she will improve.

ljay, I agree about Leigh Ann's accent. I noticed it coming and going often. I still think she upstaged just about everyone. She was absolutely fantastic and came off as effortless.

Mywonderwa, I would not say Hunter's "replaceable bad." I agree that he shouted too much, and also toward the end of "Later" he did not project; I could not hear him and I was 5th row. However, the character is supposed to be a volatile mess of suffering and yearning to break free under terrible confinement and constraint, and while he overacted I think he was generally appropriate for the part. He was always engaging when he took center stage. I don't want to put in any spoilers for those who have not seen the show at all or only know the score, but suffice it to say if any actor in a production of this show gets license to overact a little it should be whoever plays Henrik.

GYPSY1527 - I agree that Davie played up the emotions a little too much, especially in the first act, but I was very impressed by her singing and dedication to the character, and I cannot disagree more about Larkin, although I have not heard another performer do that number.

Patash - I agree about Zeta-Jones in "Chicago." That's how the role was supposed to be played. She deserved her accolades for that part. Still, I wish I'd seen Bebe perform it.

Mikem - I agree about stage door policy. It's rude to ask for something non show-related to be autographed only if they say in advance they would prefer not to. There's nothing wrong with asking for a signature on a genuine piece of memorabilia - if your intention is to keep it - as long as you are tactful and polite and prepared to accept the fact that it may not get signed.

I should add that I thought Leigh Ann Larkin was absolutely sensational. Every moment she was on stage, even when she in the background, she begged attention. She definitely seemed more at ease than most of the actors who work directly with her, which doubtless aided how she commandeered the stage. I though her performance of "The Miller's Wife" was absolutely electric; it wiped Zeta-Jones' "Send In the Clowns" right out of working memory. I wanted to leap to my feet and applaud. She impressed me in "Gypsy," but I think if this first preview is any indication of how she'll perfect this part then bigger and better ones are going to come her way.

I was also impressed with Davie's singing and dedication to her character, and Lazar and Hanson were, as far as I'm concerned, sublime in "It Would Have Been Wonderful." The two of them singing that song was pure pleasure for me. I wholeheartedly disagree that Lazar was subpar. His character is written in a cartoonish vein, so how can he be faulted for that? I think the real problem is that the love triangle cannot be felt yet. When he succumbs to fits of jealous rage it's hard to believe them, but that's as much Zeta-Jones' doing as his own. Hopefully they will work it out.

Also, of course, I thought Lansbury was absolutely a pleasure and totally in-character. She landed every laugh she was supposed to land, and I agree with whomever said she successfully sheds every last ounce of her loveable persona. As someone new to this show I did not notice a single line flub, which is more important than the instance of someone who knows the material already noticing flubs; it shows they were covered up perfectly. "Liaisons" was superb, although I think it would have more impact if she were to perform it center stage. I thought to myself toward the end of the show that there is no way for her to win or even get nominated for a Tony for this part, even with her skill in the role, with a cast of such talented featured actresses surrounding her singing more songs and doing more physically-demanding work - and I know Hermione Gingold was nominated for it - but perhaps I am underestimating the significance of Madame Armfeldt.

Finally, Catherine indeed came out to sign, but she ignored the 5 or 6 rude, crude ("vultures" is how I refer to them) autograph hounds who, of course, were only there to get autographs on eBay glossies and had not seen the show and instead only signed a few playbills, including mine. Lansbury slipped out another exit.

That's all for now!

P.S. There were no windowcards for sale as of the first preview. Also, last night BroadwayWorld was down for a long time, so that would explain why no comments were posted for quite some time.

Updated On: 11/25/09 at 06:34 PM

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 6:46pm

I was there last night.

Before I say anything about the show, I have to say that I usually disagree with everybody else! I see things other people don't see...and they see things I don't see.

That being saidâ??and noting that this was the very first performance (since there was no dress)â??I really enjoyed it...for the most part.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe anyone thought Catherine Zeta-Jones performed "Clowns" well. I'm hoping that was an attempt to try the song "big" and now that that experiment is out of the way, she will be able to sing it "small." It was painful to listen to...and the pain was reflected in CZJ's face. She seemed unhappy with her delivery, so I am sure it will change...and improve.

Alex Hanson is outstanding. Ramona Mallory is nearly perfect (I know. I know.) Erin Davie impressed me with her delicious interpretation of Charlotte. And Angela Lansbury (despite the gaffes) is, well, let's just be blunt...she's in a class of her own. No one compares to Ms. Lansbury; there's a reason she's already in the pantheon of theatre legend...while she's still alive and kickin'!

Everyone else in the cast is fine. The Liebeslieder Singers are sensational.

There was a lot of bumping into trees (and trees, thereby, "blowing in the wind"), but, like the production's other weak spots, in time the treesâ??and the actorsâ??will be firmly grounded.

I look forward to seeing this again later in the run.

Updated On: 11/26/09 at 06:46 PM

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 7:02pm

I know it was only the first preview, but it's a little worrying to hear that Zeta-Jones didn't have much chemistry with either Hanson or Lazar. Desiree ought to have chemistry with EVERYONE.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 7:09pm

All right, Miss P, I'll go. But is it too much to ask that Trevor Nunn, Des McAnuff and Bobby Longbottom do what Bartlett Sher can do with a revival of a great musical?

Imagine what this season would be like if the revivals of Night Music, West Side, Guys and Dolls, Bye Bye Birdie and Pal Joey were as good as South Pacific!

It would be Musical Theater Heaven.

Updated On: 11/25/09 at 07:09 PM

[Drunk Chita Rivera]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 7:11pm

I think A Little Night music is definitely a tough show to understand your character right away. They are all pretty developed characters. With time I think most actors can pick it up. Since this cast didn't come from an out of town try out (like Ragtime) I will give it a little time.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 7:24pm

Some of you review these first previews (and react to said reviews) like you have no concept of the preview process. Some of you get it: The show isn't frozen yet. Many of these things will likely be covered in subsequent rehearsals and notes.

So let's stop fretting over tickets already purchased and stop deciding whether or not you are coming to see it just yet. Pretty please.

Updated On: 11/25/09 at 07:24 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 8:32pm

Not fret. Don't be silly! Fretting is a perfectly Sondheimian way of behaving. It's another form of "Perpetual Anticipation."

I've been fretful about this revival since Natasha Richardson died. She was beyond perfect in the Roundabout benefit reading. I posted then that she had the same quality of smiling-at-the-absurdity that Glynis Johns had. Natasha would have been wonderful in this revival. She would have made it worth seeing.

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 8:52pm

I feel the same way PalJoey. It's been very difficult to wrap my head around a different Desiree. The production had so much potential with Richardson and Redgrave. In regards to the revival, I am not denying the preview process either....just surprised that they came in to last night with so little!

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 8:57pm

It was only their second time running the entire show, and first time with an audience.

[Q]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 9:02pm

All I know is, since I can't actually see this production, reading everything written on this board about it is going to be the next best thing!

Posted: 11/25/09 at 10:14pm

I cannot imagine being physically able to see this show and passing under any circumstances.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 11/25/09 at 11:21pm

For the record, I've never stated that I saw the first preview. I saw the production in London and was not a fan. I WILL see this production in about a month because the talent is top notch. I'm trying to remain optimistic, but what people who DID see the show last night (and tonight) claim will be fixed during the preview process, were things that I saw and complained about last year. That makes me less optimistic.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 12:22am

There was also a time when a preview was priced at a lower rate because you were seeing a work, adjusting to a new space, after a rehearsal hall with no audience responding.
I have not seen NIGHT MUSIC yet, so I am only commenting on the situation. the tech rehearsals to a Broadway show are so often spent dealing with lights, sound, scenery and costumes that the actors get the short end of the stick.
I was involved with the Roundabout's production of COMPANY and Rob Marshall took a day and a half to "tech" the opening number, knowing they only had three days to tech the entire show, so a lot of the show was under teched.
My point is that a show with a Movie "Star" lead, a Broadway Legend, and a tried director should be allowed to work on the show before being performed at top dollar without a true "preview", be it out of town or a reduced ticket price.
That said, nothing anyone says could stop me from finding a way to see this revival.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 12:58am

I already turned down a pair of aisle seats for almost $300.

From the Roundabout's desecration Follies to Arthur's narcissistic mangling of West Side, I have decided that life is too short to revisit a beloved show in a misconceived or poorly performed revival.

I much prefer to spend my theater $$$ on seeing Bartlett Sher's South Pacific again or going back to the amazingly fresh Chicago production.

So I'm physically able and passing, unless I witness some genuine love and respect for the revival.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 1:10am

PalJoey gets it right about Glynis Johns and the fact that Catherine Zeta-Johns does not get it.

PJ, I did not realize that this was a "much beloved show" for you. Although I was encouraging you to see it, if it is truly "beloved"--particularly Ms. Johns's portrayal of Desirée--maybe it's not worth it for you. Lansbury and Hanson are truly magical, but if that's not reason enough to go AND if seeing someone who does not, IN MY OPINION, measure up (by a long shot) to Glynis Johns will bother you, skip it!

Go see RAGTIME instead, which again IN MY OPINION, improves on the original!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 1:20am

It was the third of my high-school Sondheim obsession: I saw Company 4 times, Follies 5 times and this 6. Everyone I dragged to Company and Follies hated it--they all thought I was weird to love those two strange shows.

But everyone I brought to Night Music fell in love with it, from my high-school friends to my family, to my teenage loves.

Natasha was mindblowingly other-worldly as Desiree. She would have made this a production for the ages. Catherine Zeta Jones seems like a later-day Liz Taylor.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 2:25am

PJ, I also agree with you about Bartlett Sher. (In fact, after I saw WSS for the first time in DC, I stated that what the production needed was Bartlett Sher!)

And I agree with CPD that previews should be offered at a "reduced ticket price." I'm not one to live in the past, but I must say that "in the old days," previews were always priced lower. And it was good.