Anyone going to the first preview of A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC tonight?- Page 6

[Rudy2]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 3:23am

Wow. Those of you who saw Natasha in the benefit were truly very lucky. It's such a shame that she did not get to do this part. After seeing Zeta-Jones do it I know I saw a professional performance, but I also know I saw something that was far from special or moving.

[Hiram]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 10:38am

I bought tickets yesterday. I'm seeing it in mid December. So looking forward to it! My favorite Sondheim musical. After I bought my tix (which I could ill afford), I chuckled to myself, when I saw the original I paid a whole $2.00 to sit in the balcony!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 11:53am

Okay. If Hiram has a good time, I'll go.

I remember those $2 balcony tickets. Hal Prince and Ruthie Mitchell prided themselves on selling those last two rows in the balcony for $2 for Company, Follies and Night Music.

By the time they got around to Pacific Overtures, their other partners would no longer allow that.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 1:15pm

How much was $2 in 1971?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 3:49pm

A subway token was 30 cents.

[binau]

Posted: 11/26/09 at 3:59pm

What cost $2 in 1971 would cost $10.52 in 2008 acording to:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

[HorseTears]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 5:51am

God, I had such high hopes for this.

I know, I know. Previews, early in the run. Don't judge until you've seen it. But, I agree with the sentiment that if this had been a production on par with the South Pacific revival audiences might have flocked to it. Even before the first preview I started to get worried about this production. When the artwork (tacky, insipid community theatre worthy) from the poster was released I wondered that if this was the kind of artwork the producers and creative team deemed acceptable to promote the show what other compromises would they find acceptable? And then the low-rent amateurish website launched and only a short while before the show opened. It all feels rushed and half-assed. I sincerely hope this is just applicable to the lackluster marketing campaign and not to the production itself.

An eight piece orchestra? EIGHT? For this score? On Broadway? This is deemed acceptable? Sondheim can't get any respect on Broadway. When will we be done with these miniature British imports? Oh if only Lincoln Center had handled this revival. At least John Doyle didn't get his paws on this one. I'm now, more than ever, so grateful that I caught that magical LA Opera production of Night Music with the perfect cast -- Victor Garber, Judith Ivy, Laura Benanti, Zoe Caldwell, Michelle Pawk, Mark Kudish -- and that glorious 40+ piece orchestra.

I know this isn't the opera world, in which the music always comes first, but I think it's so sad that a new generation of theatregoers will be hearing this glorious score with an 8 piece band. I'm still going. I'm still thrilled that I get to see Lansbury do Sondheim in my lifetime and I'm still excited about seeing Mrs. Michael Douglas. I just wish this were a "full" revival.

Updated On: 11/27/09 at 05:51 AM

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 8:12am

Why not see it first before dismissing it?

And as far as the hand-wringing over the size of the orchestra, I don't know why, but a chamber orchestra arrangement for A Little Night Music doesn't bother me in the least. Now I love full orchestras and am grateful for the recent productions like West Side Story, Gypsy and South Pacific that have given us revivals in basically the original arrangements. And I also love the original Tunick orchestration for Night Music. But I have seen other Night Music productions with small bands of strings and reeds and it works just fine. A big brassy show like Gypsy with 8 musicians would suck. But Night Music? I think it will be just fine. I might miss some of the sweeping big orchestra moments in certain spots, but expect it might also benefit elsewhere by the chamber approach - and I wouldn't have expected a 25 piece orchestration in a 900 seat playhouse like the Walter Kerr anyway. It's not economically possible.

Tunick himself did a fabulous nine piece arrangement for Sweeney Todd when it played the National. Luther Henderson worked magic with seven pieces in Ain't Misbehavin'. Ralph Burns did amazing things with 12 pieces for Chicago. A good orchestrator can work wonders. So this habit of dismissing musical revivals with small orchestras? If you see it and think it sounds meager, that's fine. But go see it first before wailing to the gods about the injustice of it all.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 8:23am

Anyone know how many strings there were in the original production? I can still remember how lush that felt.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 8:32am

That wonderful Steven Suskin book about orchestration has the breakdown, but I don't have it in hand. Night Music is probably something like 12-14 strings (8 violin, 2 viola, 2 cello, 1 bass + harp).

[D2]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 9:07am

No matter how good, bad or even indifferent it may turn out to be, this production is in the untenable position of having to measure up to the cherished memories of the original and the impossibly high expectations of those who think they know it from the fantasies they've created listening to recordings, viewing you tube clips and perhaps having perused the script. There is no way it can compete with any of that and be evaluated for its true worth. At least not here, there are too many personal agendas at work. And that is what is, at this point, the only truly unfortunate thing about the production.

Having seen it in London last spring, I do believe that Nunn has a vision for the piece that supports the material and works on its own terms if not on the preconceived notions about it, and I am looking forward to seeing it again here in New York with an arguably superior, definitely higher star-wattage cast.

[Q]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 9:14am

Horse - I loved that LAOpera production, and pretty much decided then that I might not ever see it again - it probably won't ever get better than that, at least for me.

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 12:22pm

D2, I completely agree with every word of that.

JV92. Can't wait wait for your thoughts!

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 1:27pm

If you see this for nothing else but the sumptuous score and performance of Ms. Lansbury, your evening will be well-spent (and so would the price of admission.)

I absolutely LOVED about 90% of the production, but the two aforementioned features would have been enough to make me happy.

Glynis Johns is a unique talent. No one has ever sounded like her, looked like her or given the same woman-yet-girl, wise-yet-hopeful, jaded-yet-romantic, dominant-yet-submissive performance she honed and mastered throughout her career. So let's just forget about ever replicating or coming close to matching that, okay?

There is so much to embrace in this production. It is definitely worth seeing, IMO. In fact, I am seeing it again. No question.

P.S. FYI, Gylnis Johns was 50 when she did ALNM, but she ALWAYS scanned younger in her roles. In THE COURT JESTER, she was 33 but looked about 17!

Oh, and Ms. Johns just celebrated her 86th birthday last month. Happy Birthday, Beautiful Lady!

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 1:58pm

Here is the lovely Ms. Johns "through the ages":








Here she is 5 years ago at the premiere of MARY POPPINS. Even into her eighties--and using a wheelchair--there is an apparent ageless, ethereal quality to her that defies earthly limitations. (Hmmm. Do ya think I like Glynis Johns a little?)

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 2:02pm

Since Q is reading this thread...here's a little photo I picked up of some of Ms. Johns's friends who walked the red carpet with her at the MARY POPPINS premiere in 1985:

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 2:05pm

<------------ so beautiful
Updated On: 11/27/09 at 02:05 PM

[Q]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 2:11pm

Thanks, MissP. I adore her in Poppins!

Another 'recent' fave is her in WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING. There really isn't or has been anyone like her.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 2:22pm

I forgot she was in WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING. Thank you for reminding me.

Now I feel like seeing every movie she ever made!

Fortunately, I did get to see her in the play THE CIRCLE in 1989 with Rex Harrison and Stewart Granger. She played an extremely flirtatious senior citizen who never quite stopped enchanting men no matter how old she--or they--got!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 2:29pm

There's also her screamingly funny role in Superstar! She made me laugh for literally 5 minutes in that.

[Q]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 2:38pm

omg - I went to her imdb page, and discovered she played 'Lady Penelope Peasoup' on the Batman tv series! I think I MUST find a way to see those.

[once a month]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 2:40pm

LOVED IT!!! They (he) certainly don't write shows like this anymore. I had wonderful seat, center row f, and loved every single second. I was needlessly worried about a bathroom break, the cast and story kept me spellbound throughout. As a last minute decision to attend, I did myself a huge favor! A Little Night Music was an EARLY Christmas gift to myself. Can't get it out of my head. See it....

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 2:45pm

Glynis Johns (and Rudy Vallee) on BATMAN:

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 2:59pm

Here is Glynis Johns singing "Send in the Clowns" when she was nearly 60. Very moving. She's brilliant...and heartbreaking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAl-EawVobY

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/27/09 at 3:05pm

Another gift for Q: The BATMAN episode with Ms. Johns. (I do believe I saw Tina Louise in there, as an added bonus!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7VTRZ6liKk