Arden Directing "Merrily" In LA — Page 2

I think they're both talented and adorable. I have no vitriol toward either of them.

pupscotch said: "This is officially a Deaf West production! I wish I lived in LA so I could see this!

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Michael-Arden-Deaf-West-Theatre-Will-Next-Take-on-Stephen-Sondheims-MERRILY-WE-ROLL-ALONG-20160511



"

After looking on the Wallis's website, it doesn't seem like it actually is a Deaf West production, despite what BWW's article says.

What happened to the second musical he was due to direct in the same season?



edit , just saw its The Pride

Updated On: 5/11/16 at 07:54 PM

wicked4l said: "It's Marissa Winouker, Tituss Burgess and Steve Kazee.



"

Great cast

That's....completely inspired and outstandingly brilliant. I'm so glad I'll be in the LA area when this is happening.

This article from Playbill says that Titus Burgess, Steve Kazee and Marissa Jaret Winokur starred in a week-long "research and development session" directed by Michael Arden. Are they trying to fix it again?

Interesting that none of the leads from the "developmental lab" are returning.

I personally think it's good that Titus Burgess has been "developed out." I don't think he's a good fit for Charley, whereas Wayne Brady is perfect for the role.

It's too bad about Marissa Winouker, but I love Donna Vivino and think she is so underrated. She'll be a great Mary.

Updated On: 10/19/16 at 12:10 PM

We have tickets for Thanksgiving weekend-- high hopes for what Michael Arden can pull off, but I've yet to see a convincing mounting of this tough show. Will report back between waves of tryptophan comas.

I saw it on Saturday night 11/27 It was amazing. It made me cry multiple times. The set was kind of bland, the direction was outstanding, and Wayne, Donna, and Aaron were stars. I will definitely be going again.

"Arden wrestled with how to deal with some of the so-called problems of previous productions of “Merrily” — particularly the age of the characters: “It always bothered me as an audience member because I was watching a 40-year-old playing 20 or a 20-year-old playing 40.” He toyed with the idea of multiple casting, but Sondheim nixed that idea, telling Arden that he wanted to stay true to the wishes of Furth.

“‘Merrily’ to me was always about looking at how people change, and I thought it would be interesting to see how we could physicalize that change,” Arden says. So he cast actors to dance as “ghost” versions of three actors when they were younger."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-michael-arden-20161125-htmlstory.html

The idea of the "ghosting" sounds a little unnecessary to me, but perhaps I feel that way because I've seen productions of the show that I thought worked without that added embellishment. Perhaps its an idea that works better in person.

I saw the show this past weekend, my first ever view of a professional mounting of Merrily, and sorry to say, I have a very different take than most of the above posters.

To my eyes, this book was perhaps the worst ever to be paired with a Sondheim score (and let's face it, there are quite a few candidates for that honor.) Uniformly nasty characters riddled with cliches inhabit scene after scene making the same point-- rich folks are shallow and evil, and every career path is a binary choice between being successful and being true to your own voice. Weren't the songs brilliant though? Well, sure, but I never noticed listening to my old cast album how every song in Act I was either bitter, angry or ruefully sad. By the time we get to the sublime gems "Opening Doors" and "Our Time", the damage is done and no amount of perfect harmonizing in a major key can repair the gloom.

Would the evening have been any better with the original score and book circa 1981, featuring "The Hills of Tomorrow", and "Rich and Happy", etc? We'll never know, but the mishmash left by all the interpolations post 1985 did nothing to improve matters for me. (And frankly, isn't "Growing Up" an awful lot like Maury Yeston's "Getting Tall"?)

Despite this, there are two huge pluses in this production: a great cast of superb performers who can really sing these songs the way they should be sung, and a terrific band of 13 musicians who make every note of the score come alive. They deserved every bit of rousing applause they got all night.

I'm at a loss to describe Michael Arden's direction. I sort of liked the 3 young dancers who shadowed the 3 leads most of the night, until they actually replace them in the rooftop scene to perform "Our Time". But why does Frank seem to wander through every scene in Act I with a dumbstruck look on his face, like he's as confused by the backward chronology of the script as the rest of us? And why does the set entirely consist of dressing room makeup mirrors in a black void, when backstage dressing room scenes amount to about 3 minutes of the total show?

The day before seeing this show, we watched the making-of doc, "Best Worst Thing That Ever Could Have Happened". I'd say skip the live production entirely and just enjoy the bittersweet failures of that original Broadway show. All the emotion, all the heartache, all the wonder and folly of youth, all the pain and joy and tears of growing older that are the essence of the play-- they're all there to be savored in that brilliant film.

Updated On: 11/28/16 at 09:17 PM