Arden Directing "Merrily" In LA — Page 4

In truth though, Michael Arden ISNT a terribly experienced director. I believe I read Spring Awakening was the first major thing he directed- and no doubt he received great help on it from a wonderful collaborative team. I think the success of that unique production (coupled with his name as an actor) has put him a bit on an unfortunate pedestal. It sounds like from this production and the reviews of My Fair Lady in Sag Harbor, he is full of lots of ideas but is still finding his way as a director. It's hard to do that when the pressure of "transfer" suddenly looms on your shoulder with every project you take on, just because you scored big in your first outing in the game.

And yes, as I said earlier in the thread, I'm really surprised Maria Friedman's production did not come to the states. I still think that's likely still the production to bring in, if indeed the writers want this to be back in New York anytime soon.

.

LA Times: "Arden’s production reinforced my sense of the show as an insoluble stage conundrum — too enticing to be neglected yet too problematic ever to be a hit."

This is BS. The show has been successful in other stagings. I've seen it done several times. This one is just particularly BAD and is not indicative of the strength of the material.

"If the bond between Brady’s Charley and Lazar’s Franklin still seems theoretical despite the relaxed camaraderie between them, it has at least as much to do with the writing as with the inexact chemistry of Arden’s cast."

More BS. Blaming the writing for the "inexact chemistry" of Arden's cast is ridiculous.

Part of the problem is the direction, which heightens the show’s melodramatic stiffness. Arden adventurously resets the production in a backstage dressing room area that put me in mind of 1970s TV variety shows.

Part of the problem is the direction? How about ALL of the problem is the direction (which includes decisions about casting, set design, etc.) And Arden "adventurously resets the production in a backstage dressing room area"...? What is so "adventurous" about an ugly set that has no meaning or relevance to the show? (I saw it as being a cheap & dirty way to avoid spending any more $$$ than absolutely necessary.)

"But the opening scene, which culminates in a violent eruption, is totally unconvincing in both its abstract theatricality and florid turn into soap opera."

I agree that the opening scene is totally unconvincing -- just like every scene that follows.

Peppered Shepherd, how I love you so.

Saw this infuriating production last night and you have expressed everything I am feeling brilliantly. Merrily is one of my favorite Sondheim shows and this production nearly killed that affection. Thankfully, the vocals and the orchestra were up to the task, since Arden was clearly not. The whole backstage 'concept' is such a community theater go-to I want to scream. Never mind that the director did the same thing in his "brilliant" staging of Spring Awakening (sarcasm intended). For those of you who missed Spring Awakening (out here at least) the curtain was already up when you entered the theater and actors and musicians slowly wondered around the stage, prior to curtain, dressing and undressing, setting their props, stretching and reviewing dance moves, warmed up their instruments, voices and fingers. FINGER? Uggh.

Why in God's name did I need to see ensemble members stripping down to their bra and panties for no reason. And the ghost light? Boo. Out of all the great talent in Los Angeles, how did we get saddled with MA as artist-in-residence?

Once again, the vocals and orchestra were wonderful. That's about it.

I find it so ironic that of all shows, Merrily is the one that has a song called "It's a Hit."

Maybe we should give up trying to make the book work and just adapt Best Worst Thing for the stage? I'll happily get on that if there is demand!

the music sounds like '70s lounge music you try to ignore when you're on a cruise.

Wow, really? It's not a very strong show, but the score has three of Sondheim's (arguably) best melodies, "Not a Day Goes By," "Good Thing Going," and "Our Time." Don't think I've ever seen many complaints about the score.

Agree with most here. I went in almost completely blind, and I really liked the score, characters, and even the plot but found the overall assembly lacking. It was a somewhat frustrating experience, sitting and watching whilst also imagining a better version in my head (don't know why, but I imagined a film - maybe it's just the "small" showbiz story). The problem, I think, is that there is absolutely no reason to structure the show in reverse. It works very well for Betrayal, in which we learn new information that forces us to reconsider each scene we've already watched, and in which hope and despair collide and swallow each other; but in Merrily the unabashedly upbeat ending doesn't even try to reference the beginning scenes in any way, and we don't gain any insight from seeing the final chapters first. "Not a Day Goes By," for instance, is more moving the second time around because we're familiar with the character, despite the fact that the original song is the longer, more dramatic showstopper. I think this show would be a very compelling slice of life piece if reordered chronologically, save for the final scene on the rooftop, which should stay last - a flashback while Frank despairs over his empty Hollywood life - followed by perhaps an added coda with Frank and Mary.

The production is very well sung and orchestrated, but that's about it. Aaron Lazar's got a tough role - the Marcello Mastroianni type who seems absolutely empty but is secretly filled with dreams, longing, etc. He's a strong singer but a bland actor. Wayne Brady is miscast. Donna Vivino is the best singer of the bunch but her acting in the first scene is quite bad and I was surprised at how little Mary actually had to do other than pine after Frank. Saycon Sengbloh is very brassy and very very hammy; I would've liked to have seen a quieter and more subtly seductive version of the character.

But that's really my complaint with the whole cast. Everyone's doing their best "look ma, I'm in a MUSICAL!" mugging when really this appears to be an intimate, naturalistic play with a nuanced Sondheim score woven in.

As for Arden's direction, it was very ho hum. The dressing room set didn't really add or detract, and the "ghosting" that's been frequently mentioned is hardly noticeable except at the end of each act. I agree with the poster who said he felt like he needed a concept but didn't really follow through, or, for that matter, come up with an original one.

It's kind of a sign of the times that people are hating on Arden's concept, but not his direction of the performers. The director is responsible for the performances as much as the actors. If Brady is miscast, that's Arden's fault. If someone is acting "too hammy," that's Arden's fault. I just feel like people forget that the director's job is to provide a cohesive show. It's not just about concept. And I don't think this show needs a concept. It's already got enough concept.

Yes it was filmed and is available to view

http://www.digitaltheatre.com/news/details/merrily-we-roll-along-available-online-from-today

Sorry if that came off as harsh and wasn't trying to single you out! I just feel like people either don't realize or forget that a director is responsible for more than "stand here, move here." Sher is a great director because he gets performances, nurtures performances from actors. And his concepts are usually interesting and gorgeous. Arden, as an actor, seems to be more interested in the concept rather than the performances.

RippedMan said: "Sorry if that came off as harsh and wasn't trying to single you out! I just feel like people either don't realize or forget that a director is responsible for more than "stand here, move here." Sher is a great director because he gets performances, nurtures performances from actors. And his concepts are usually interesting and gorgeous. Arden, as an actor, seems to be more interested in the concept rather than the performances.



"

No worries. This is the first Arden I've seen, but really while everyone is vocally well suited to their roles it's a problem of casting and incorrect/mismatched tones. Both of which a more discerning director could have avoided.

It kills me when I hear the story about the character-identifying shirts. Why couldn't they have just used some projections or a giant clock to signify that the story was moving in reverse?

Caught the show last night and I was left underwhelmed. The direction and staging was a mess! The setting had nothing much to do with the theme of the show and seeing the ensemble disrobing was not needed. Perhaps it's a way of saying that the show was peeling layers but since the leads weren't really the ones prancing around half-naked, the stunt was meritless. I HATED the use of the younger performers representing the leads. And having them take the place of the trio at the end of lessens the impact when you've been on the journey with the main three actors throughout the whole play, and all of a sudden, you get three new faces playing them at the penultimate point. The highlight of the show was its cast, with Donna Vivino as the standout. I'm usually not a fan of Wayne Brady but he was alright though a bit miscast. An even more unfortunate casting was that of Saycon Sengbloh, while she is an excellent performer, was totally wrong for the role. This production just didn't have the emotional impact of other productions of Merrily that I've seen and LA deserves better.