Anyone going to the first preview of AMERICAN IDIOT tonight? — Page 3
Posted: 3/26/10 at 11:56pm
Posted: 3/27/10 at 12:03am
Posted: 3/27/10 at 2:14am
Posted: 3/27/10 at 7:10am
Updated On: 3/27/10 at 07:10 AM
Posted: 3/27/10 at 7:18am
I'm still looking forward to expereriencing this myself, a great deal, actually. I'm seeing it the Friday after it opens...I'm hoping to be among the fans....but I worry that I wont' be won over.
Posted: 3/27/10 at 9:00am
OK ive ehard a lot of people say this bit does not makes sense and i just wanted to say.....HOW ARE YOU MISSING THE POINT?
Its pretty easy really
*spoilers*
After been injured in the war the charachter is in hospital in iraq with his fellow soldiers who have been hurt. Hes on morphine and begins to halluciante this his nurse whos at the hospital is doing all these crazy things (flying etc). Its an hallucination scene., its pretty easy to understand and actually a brilliant scene bringing happiness for him out of a horrible situation, he meets this great girl.
Honestly it's funny hearing people saying how thin the plot is (which it is) but it's a good job it didnt have more of one since people dont seem to be able to understand the one that is there.
And yes the plot is thin but this to me plays very much like an opera, its not a traditional musical but it has enough of a story to keep the show moving along.
Posted: 3/27/10 at 9:57am
The storyline is not thin. Three characters each attempt to get away from the town. Two make it, one doesn't. The one who doesn't spends his days vegetating in front of TV, alienates his wife and child, and loses them. The second one strikes out on his own, gets seduced by the glamor of war and the army and joins up, is wounded, loses his leg and meets a nice girl who loves him. The third leaves, strikes out on his own, gets caught up with a drug pusher and meets a rebellious but nice girl with a big heart. He wrecks the relationship, becomes an addict for a time. Has a total breakdown and then decides to get back to a more respectable existence, where he toils at an empty job. All three finally return home/get back together, having learned various lessons, including what it is to have wasted a portion of their youth. And the main character finishes the show with a number reflecting back on it all and what might have been done differently.
Does not sound that thin to me. I wager you there are more plot points in this show that the Adams Family I just saw.
What this show does not have is a big SPOKEN book. That is true. The narrative is delivered through song. It is an exciting narrative, told with great artistry. I went to the show with great apprehension actually because I was not a big fan of Green Day and generally did not like punk music. I look forward to seeing it once they open.
I think the show is genius. I hope they do really well. It feels more innovative to me than anything I recall seeing in years
Posted: 3/27/10 at 10:18am
Do all shows speak to all people? Of course not, but when MANY folks are having the same criticism, something is askew.
The story obviously spoke to YOU, and that's wonderful...but certainly no reason to suggest that others didn't "get it' and need to be educated about it. I daresay, I was always suprised that Movin' Out often got the same criticism....I was deeply moved by the story I saw and understood.
Posted: 3/27/10 at 10:51am
As far as the hallucination scene goes. I found it hokey and WTF? I laughed my ass off at it. It was like someone pooped a little Julie Taymor onstage!
Posted: 3/27/10 at 11:23am
Posted: 3/27/10 at 11:58am
On the other hand, seems like a near-consensus that the main performances are powerful and well-done. Combined with strong design/sets, etc., this may be more than enough for the Tony, given the lack of a very strong competitor.
Posted: 3/27/10 at 12:05pm
They may choose not to like the FORM of the narrative, but it is undeniably there.
Posted: 3/27/10 at 12:32pm
After everything I read here about the limited book, I was pleasantly surprised at how clear the narrative was simply through the songs. I didn't have any problems following the story at all, which is a tribute to the power of Green Day's score.
Overall, I enjoyed it. The energy and the production elements were phenomenal, but I just felt like there was way too much going on at all times. I never emotionally engaged with the story because I was always trying to figure out where to look in the midst of all the chaos on stage. Was there really a need for a car suspended from the ceiling, or for the monitors to constantly compete with the performers amidst all of the songs?
The other real issue is that the character of Johnny, whose journey frames the whole arc of the piece, is completely and utterly unlikeable. He starts off the show as a whiny brat and pretty much stays that way throughout. John Gallagher is good enough, but he's not really doing much to counteract the awful writing he has to deal with. Stark Sands and Michael Esper (as his two best friends) were much more successful at pulling some emotional resonance out of the material.
*SPOILER* In terms of what could be changed, I was a little put off by the ending. The show should organically end at the conclusion of "We're Coming Home Again." Having Johnny step forward to lead everyone in "Whatsername" felt totally tacked on. What was the point of having Rebecca Naomi Jones come back for that number if she isn't going to interact with anyone around her? *SPOILER*
The two real standouts were definitely Jones and Christina Sajous, both of whom knocked their material out of the park.
Overall, I think the show will be well received. The core base they're really appealing to will love everything about it, but I'm not sure that's going to translate into a long run. The message lends itself toward an extremely segmented audience, and with high running costs and the burden of filling the St. James, finding mainstream success could be a tough challenge.
Tony Kushner: You can sing it at my funeral.
Updated On: 3/27/10 at 12:32 PM
Posted: 3/27/10 at 2:31pm
For me, the issue with the book isn't that there is NO narrative, but that there is no detail to the narrative and no real detail in terms of the characterizations. Very few of the songs have lyrics that directly propel plot or characterization, and since there is such little spoken word, the plot and characterization are more outlines than fully delineated entities. (The fact that the sound mix is somewhat muddy and lyrics are getting swallowed doesn't help matters.)
The description that you gave is a good one, but it's essentially the entire plot, not just the outline of the plot, and there is little detail or complexity to the characters. There really aren't a lot of details onstage. And some of the details that you've given are not IMO really shown on stage. For example, the main reason to think that the nurse who marries Tunny is "a nice girl who loves him" is because she comes on stage for about 15 seconds neatly dressed, smiles at him and kisses him affectionately. I don't know if the audience can really say that she is a "nice girl" based on that 15-second interaction. The characters are very broadly portrayed and the audience has to fill in the details. Similarly, the description of Rebecca Naomi Jones's character as a "rebellious but nice girl with a big heart," in my opinion, is unsupported by what we actually see on stage.
And I didn't feel that I understood at all why Michael Esper's character let his wife go, or anything else about their motivation for anything (their whole arc and characterization is not fleshed out at all).
Just my opinion.
Updated On: 3/27/10 at 02:31 PM
Posted: 3/27/10 at 3:45pm
I really enjoyed it overall, and did not find Johnny unlikeable (but I am a big Gallagher fan). They've made some steps in the right direction since Berkeley but they can do more tinkering with the show, specifically the book.
Posted: 3/27/10 at 7:51pm
I also thought it was neat to see your typical theatre crowd come together with the hoards of Green Day fanatics that were at the show. I'd say both camps seemed pleased!
Posted: 3/27/10 at 7:55pm
Posted: 3/27/10 at 10:57pm
Posted: 3/27/10 at 11:19pm
Yep. Nail. Head. I like to care about a character, or at least WANT something interesting to happen to them by the end -- whether I love or hate them. With American Idiot, I didn't care at all what happened to any of them. I don't have a problem with a character in a musical being a loser, but at least give said loser some kind of arc. And don't fill your show with them.
Posted: 3/28/10 at 2:23pm
Updated On: 3/28/10 at 02:23 PM
Posted: 3/29/10 at 11:25pm
There is a clear plot outline/narrative, but that is it. The characters are NOT developed, and the audience doesn't get a chance to care about them.
The score isn't really my type of music, but it sounded great with the band and singers.
Acting was fine all around. Gallagher was the best as expected, but it will be interesting to see if he will fit in the Best Actor category. Stark Sands provided some nice work. Tony Vincent was completely underwhelming in a rather small role.
Loved the set, lighting, and most of the staging.
I enjoyed it much more than Fela and Memphis. And maybe slightly more than Addams Family.
Posted: 3/29/10 at 11:26pm
I loved the show. I agree with everyone that there isn't a strong plot per say, but a story is certainly there and very easy to follow. It is more of like an outline of a story.
I loved John Gallaher Jr. He was great as Johnny. A very demanding role. He must be exhausted after the show. I also loved Rebecca Naomi Jones. I loved her voice and thought she was locked into Whatshername.
My personal favorite was Stark Sands. I loved him in this role. He has such a great voice and hard a much larger role than I anticipated. On the contrary, Michael Esper had a really small part. Wasn't expecting it to be that small.
One more thing. I don't get where all this hype about Tony Vincent and a Tony nomination. He was just ok to me. Not terrible by any means but not great.
Posted: 3/29/10 at 11:41pm
Posted: 3/29/10 at 11:54pm
Anyway, as for the show....I really enjoyed much of it, though I wouldn't say it has a plot, more an outline. That being said, if you don't expect much of a story, this is a very high energy, entertaining piece.
It's a slick production, and both the sets and lighting are Tony worthy. Tom Kitt also did a fine job with the orchestrations- the band sounds spectacular and the sound is very, very full.
The cast is all very strong- what a great set of voices. Gallagher is the standout, of course. What a demanding role he plays! He's excellent, and I hope he gets remembered with a Tony nomination.
The supporting cast doesn't get nearly as much to do, and I don't quite get the hoopla over Tony Vincent, who was fine in a VERY small role. Poor Michael Esper has to sit on a couch for 90 minutes.
Overall, this show has the look and feel of a HUGE hit. It's glitzy and a definite crowd pleaser. The audience absolutely loved it tonight. Regardless of the reviews (though I think they'll be positive), this is going to have a long, healthy run.
BroadwayWorld TV