Anyone going to the first preview of A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC tonight? — Page 9

I am so excited to see this and I know the show is about SO much more than Aaron Lazar taking his shirt off, but...Aaron Lazar takes his shirt off?

---

I went to see this on Thursday night. I was in the front row of the Mezzanine, a little to the left. There doesnt seem to be a bad seat in that section. The mezzanine is very steep. I kept picturing someone taking a tumble and vaulting over the ledge.

I'm not overly familiar with the show. I have listened to the album a couple of times but that was about it, so I'm sure my opinion will be different to someone who knows it a lot better. I enjoyed it very much. I spent the entire show with a big stupid grin on my face. The show itself seemed more like a play with music rather than a musical, if that makes sense. It seems to have more in common with an old drawing room style farce than anything else.

Performance wise I thought Zeta-Jones was terrific. I think she has great charisma on stage. But in some way that kind of made a couple of things not work. Her 'Send in the Clowns' didn't seem to hit the right tone for me. It didn't seem to have the kind of quiet desperation I was expecting. But apart from that I thought she had great chemistry with everyone, and sang very well.

I thought the woman playing Charlotte (I don't remember the actresses name) was very good. She had some great one liners that she nailed, and her "Every Day a Little Death" was just gorgeous. Leigh Ann Larkin was also very good, but she needs to lose the accent. It really took away from what was an otherwise excellent performance. Her 'Miller's Son' almost brought down the house.

Henrik was the real weak link for me. His 'Later' was awful, shouting notes, singing off key. The role allows for the actor to go over the top a bit but I think he needs to reign it in a bit.

Angela Landsbury was a delight. It helped that she had some of the best lines in the show. Everyone in the audience was in her lap. Which in a way wasn't such a good thing. People were laughing at her lines before she'd finish them. Like they weren't really laughing her delivery, they were laughing because they knew the line was coming and hey its Angela Landsbury. But her performance was terrific.

All in all I thoroughly enjoyed it. And I'd recommend it to anyone

Now, I just happen to have heard one of the previews of the Broadway revival and thought I would share a few thoughts.

I immediately liked Ramona Mallory as Anne because the character’s subconscious confusion between her feelings for Frederik and her attraction to Henrik were communicated very early in the show. I always need this in a production of ALNM otherwise I find the ending for these two characters seems contrived. The problem here is Henrik: how can Anne fall for this hysterical idiot? If I were her I’d ask Petra to take my hairbrush to him. Would the pastors at a c19th Lutheran seminary really tolerate such histrionics or would they scrub him down all the harder for it? Isn’t part of the character’s problem that he has been repressing himself for so long rather than splurging his conscience across the scenery from the start? For me ALNM is as much about Henrik as anyone else: the character wrestles with the conflict between carnality and faith, which is a real dilemma (even today for some of the people I read posting on this board) and I dislike productions where he is treated as being comic relief. Gabriel Vick’s performance in London was definitive as far as I am concerned and Hunter can’t hold a candle to it.

Alexander Hanson is once again wonderful as Fredrik. This is the only Fredrik I have seen who comes across as being a smart, consummate lawyer thinking his way strategically through his various predicaments. In comparison, previous Fredrik’s have seemed like silly old men desperate to get their leg over – I wouldn’t want any of them working on my papers. And here also is a Fredrik who, when he cries out for Desiree in his sleep, sounds like he is having a wet dream rather than greeting her for afternoon tea.

At first Madame Armfeldt sounded Bracknellesque as indeed she did in the London production and I was a little disappointed for, as has been discussed elsethreadware recently, I struggle with the character being portrayed as an aristocrat. But one has to make so many assumptions since we are told so little about her. However when Angela got to the wooden ring monologue I had to stop what I was doing and listen: I was riveted! She was revelatory as the determined and self-satisfied façade is dropped and a vulnerable and unsure woman is revealed. The years fell away and you heard the young Armfeldt speak out. This old trout of a character has made me laugh many times but this was one of the few occasions that the character actually moved me.

These are just first impressions and as it’s a preview I’m keeping my comments to what is either very good or very bad. I’m sure that much else will still be evolving and so I will reserve judgement.

Very interesting, brdwybum, that you saw the show tonite--I'm sure you meant 12/9, not 12/10. But that's not what is interesting.

What is interesting is that Larkin was out tonite, and yet you didn't even mention that amongst all of your disdain for her.

Hmmmmm.

---

I didn't understand the point of Lansbury's "Liasons." It just seemed like such an afterthought. She was just sitting there and singing. I lost focus about halfway through her rendition.

Oh boy.

So good! I wish her part were bigger so she could get some awards for this, but oh well.

Patricia Elliott won a Tony for Best Featured Actress when she played Charlotte in the original production.

---

I mean you can make fun of my comments all you want, but I'm honestly looking for some insight. So instead of being a pretentious ass, I would appreciate someone maybe explaining the point of it?

And yes Hrududu, that's what I meant. It's like all this is going on and and then WHAM. There's a spotlight and she's sitting in her wheelchair singing this song. It just seemed to slow everything down. I mean, she was great in her part, but she lost me halfway through that song.

And can someone please explain "Send In The Clowns?" I think I sort of almost understand it, but I still think its meaning is lost on me.

Well, Liasons I just didn't pay attention to. Maybe it's my youthful attention span, but I just wasn't invested in that song at all. I tried, but I just kept looking at the set or the theater. However, "clowns," I was really trying to figure out what it was about. It was tough because of the way Jones delivered the song. She would almost "breath" the last words of the phrases making it hard to figure out what she was saying, but to me, I thought it meant that they thought what they was doing was so foolish. The idea of him leaving his wife and them running off together and being happy at such a late age. That it must be some sort of joke, so send in the clowns.

"Send in the Clowns" references a practice used in circuses. If an emergency happens, (ie say a tight rope walker "losing her timing"), clowns are deployed to come in and distract the audience from the disaster that just occurred. It's very unsettling. This is a tradition that continues to this day.

Rentboy, maybe this thread will help you "get" Liaisons.
https://cincinnati.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.php?thread=1007109

Sorry you couldn't appreciate this wonderful song.

Re Liaisons: I think it's got to be closer to the second theory posited there. "It's but a pleasurable means to a measurable end." It's not that she lucked out in getting what she got from her suitors.

In a way, it's a similar sentiment of the chorus from Evita's "Good Night and Thank You."

Updated On: 12/10/09 at 11:49 AM

This adult is speaking to you, massofmen: STFU.

---