Ben Brantley Reviews Sheridan Smith in FUNNY GIRL

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/15/16 at 8:03pm

Was surprised to visit the New York Times' theatre page and see that Brantley himself had reviewed the Menier Chocolate Factory's production of FUNNY GIRL directed by Michael Mayer and starring Sheridan Smith. He is positive about Smith with some reservations and is otherwise negative on the production itself, including the rest of the cast. I think it's pretty interesting that even as much as he clearly enjoys Smith's natural talents, he can't help but addressing the fact she is quite miscast as Fanny Brice:

 

Ms. Smith is, no doubt, aware of the stamp with which Ms. Streisand embossed these songs. And there’s not a single Streisandesque intonation in her Fanny Brice.

 

As she embodies Fanny’s rise from a klutzy dreamer in Brooklyn to a Ziegfeld brand name, she often substitutes a wistful, hopeful reediness for the all-conquering brass with which Ms. Streisand endowed the role. She performs “People,” the show’s best-known number, with a melting delicacy that makes it utterly her own.

 

But a melting Fanny Brice gives “Funny Girl” a soft center, and the production as a whole acquires a soggy sentimentality that reveals the show’s age. Isobel Lennart’s original book has been retooled (with an emphasis on the benignly risqué by the Broadway polymath Harvey Fierstein. But as a portrait of an embattled woman pulled between the demands of love and success, “Funny Girl” still exudes the tear-stained hoariness of a black-and-white weepie from the 1930s.

 

New York Times Review

Updated On: 2/15/16 at 08:03 PM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 2/15/16 at 8:41pm

He kinda panned it, which was a surprise.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/15/16 at 9:21pm

You're right roscoe(au), I changed my description from "lukewarm" to "negative." His description of the supporting cast and the production designs are pretty damning, and it sounds like the book is still a mess. It seems to me like this is the kind of revival that needs to be completely re-conceived much like Mendes and Marshall's production of CABARET. They should especially try to workshop it and do an out-of-town try out the way Sher had planned with the Ambrose version. Even then, the book might be sort of unfixable. 

[adamgreer]

Posted: 2/15/16 at 9:33pm

Probably puts an end to any talk of a transfer with Smith in the lead role. 

[Shrek3]

Posted: 2/15/16 at 9:51pm

There's a reason Funny Girl has never been revived. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 2/15/16 at 10:31pm

Those who retooled CABARET (and that includes Fosse with the film) had a lot more to work with than those who try to do so with FUNNY GIRL.

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 2/15/16 at 10:35pm

There was no way that a Funny Girl revival would happen here with Sheridan. There are too many well known theatre actresses who could do that part justice and actually sell tickets. 

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 2/15/16 at 11:17pm

The thing is, his verbose descriptions of the flaws in the book are spot on. 

 

Maybe they can go full concept and reimagine it as Fanny imagining her life as the very type of "weepie" movie he suggests.

[CindersGolightly]

Posted: 2/16/16 at 1:41am

That would ruin the character in my opinion. The finale is there to show that Fanny isn't a victim. But to be fair, 95% of the show is flashback. So they could easily do that. Everybody likes to imagine themselves worse off than they are to garner sympathy, after all.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 2/16/16 at 1:48am

Maybe after the flashback is done she can resolve not to be the woman she just imagined herself being depicted as?

 

That's becoming very convoluted though.

[CindersGolightly]

Posted: 2/16/16 at 1:53am

It could be very easy to understand with a good book writer to punctuate. Maybe even on a little bit of My Man in there before she decides not to take the victim route? That could be interesting.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 2/16/16 at 2:28am

The plot is always going to be kind of cheese-ball because it's a soft-focus version of Brice's life.  If the (re-)writers embrace that then the key is in zipping the story along for the modern audience- Harvey would be the ideal person to provide the necessary face-lift.

 

The more radical option would be to include more gritty detail in the plot and trim back to romance.  I can't see that happening.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/16/16 at 7:46am

The really startling truth is: the show has almost no plot.  When you watch the film now, the second act is shockingly devoid of incident, all about what Nick will do, not Fanny. It's a kind of a meandering, air-brushed look at someone who -- no one will admit this -- wasn't really remotely like the Streisand character. But we now see the character as Fanny-Barbra.  The only way to make it work is to start over, and to put some missing truth-telling in this fairly gritty story.  And I've said something that's heresy: the lyrics are often bizarre.  To this day, I couldn't tell you why this woman sings "life's candy and the sun's a ball of butter" simply because she wants to leave the show she has fought hard to get into and chase a man.  It starts out, no one can see she's the greatest star, then she becomes a star, then she bitches that she shouldn't have to perform because a con man has fallen in love with her.  It just isn't honest, and the switch midway through act one from her career ascendancy to her demand to have a love life is false.  

Updated On: 2/16/16 at 07:46 AM

[ggersten]

Posted: 2/16/16 at 8:33am

Maybe they could set the revival in a circus

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 2/16/16 at 9:17am

Ugh, I literally bought the last seat available on the days I'm in London in April and I never buy full-price tickets. Considering StubHub-ing them now since I usually align fairly close to Brantley in his reviews.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/16/16 at 9:26am

ggersten said: "Maybe they could set the revival in a circus

 

"

Haha!