Brantley reviews THE VISIT

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 7:37pm

Well, here's the review that I'm sure everyone involved has been patiently waiting for. It's a rave for Chita. A lot of positives for the cast and production, but he is mixed on the actual show. He does basically insinuate that Chita deserves the chance to play this on Broadway.

As rehabilitated by the resourceful Mr. Doyle, whose minimalist revivals of “Sweeney Todd” and “Company” made him the king of less-is-more panache, “The Visit” is probably in better shape than it ever has been or will be. And since shiny, streamlined vehicles for Ms. Rivera hardly come along with the frequency of New York taxis, it seems a shame for this one not to ride on to greater glory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/theater/chita-rivera-stars-in-the-visit-at-williamstown.html?_r=0

They really need a non profit to pick this one up. I hope it can happen.




Updated On: 8/7/14 at 07:37 PM

[Noel&Cole]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 8:01pm

Roundabout should really really do this. They owe it to Kander & Ebb who have made them LOTS of money. Both in the past and presently! It's the kind of work that only someone like them could do since commercially it's a non starter.

Brantley reviewed THE VISIT and FOOL FOR LOVE.... yet they sent Alexis Soloski to review LIVING ON LOVE? You'd think BB would want his take on Renee Fleming.

By the way... Williamstown got Chita Rivera and Renee Fleming to both do summer stock. high end summer stock of course, but still.... bravo to them.

[DAME]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 8:20pm

Interesting that he refers to the previous McNally, Kander and Ebb shows but makes no mention of Kiss Of The Spider-woman.

Updated On: 8/7/14 at 08:20 PM

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 8:23pm

Maybe because he was the protege of someone who notoriously gave the long-running show a pan.

Updated On: 8/8/14 at 08:23 PM

[binau]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 8:54pm

Is there a grammatical error in his review? It makes more sense to be "its 95 intermissionless minutes" not "it's".


"Yet even as you’re watching Mr. Doyle’s carefully assembled, newly streamlined production — it’s 95 intermissionless minutes — it’s hard to avoid feeling that Ms. Rivera remains a lady in waiting for a show that’s entirely worthy of her.

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 8:57pm

It is 95 intermissionless minutes... seems grammatical to me.

Updated On: 8/7/14 at 08:57 PM

[binau]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 9:15pm

Yeah but the production has ownership.

Take this grammatical analogy:

When you listen to Bernadette sing - her slow, warm vibrato - you realise she has no peer.

Bernadette has ownership of the characteristics of her voice.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 9:19pm

It's grammatically correct. If he'd said something like "its 95-minute intermissionless runtime breezes by", then the lack of apostrophe would be correct. But it deserves the apostrophe because he's indicating that the show is 95 intermissionless minutes long - it, the show, is 95 minutes long.

[morosco]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 9:19pm

I think it's or its are completely unnecessary in that sentence. It reads better if you remove it altogether.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 9:22pm

It would be nice to discuss the actual review and show, not grammar.

[Glitter]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 11:41pm

grammar shmammar! I'm glad that Chita's work in the show earned such high praise, "“The Visit” never knocked anyone’s socks off" is demonstrably untrue. Brantley also seems to be putting his expectations of the original play onto the musical, which is a mistake.....it's a different animal and should be judged on its own merits. However, it's still a decent review, and he seems to hold it in higher esteem than many other shows that are on Broadway....so I say move it to Broadway and give her the Tony!

[Cupid Boy2]

Posted: 8/7/14 at 11:56pm

Given that this would be best off at a non-profit, it's unfortunate that Roundabout won't have the American Airlines open in the spring. Perhaps On the Twentieth Century could play another theatre; Chenoweth's name could certainly sell more tickets in a larger house.

Updated On: 8/7/14 at 11:56 PM

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 12:04am

They could play at Studio 54 if CABARET doesn't extend again.

[Glitter]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 12:12am

thinking in PR terms, I always try to identify pull-quotes. These ones jumped out:

"an essential visit"
"creepily beguiling"
"work that wants both to warm the heart and chill the blood"
"a soaring love story"
"a sly, unexpected delight.
"brave and persuasive"

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 12:14am

The review is mixed-to-positive, to be on the cynical side.

I would venture IT'S a good enough review to bring it to NY without a not-for-profit behind it -- with the anticipation of a not so devastating loss to investors (offset by strong tax credits and right-offs).

Her name is enough to get investors on board...even those knowing it will ultimately fail. I for one would appreciate a (low level...) gamble with Chita involved!!

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 12:36am

^ I sure hope you're right. Chita deserves it. I can already see Chita and Kelli O'Hara battling it out for the Tony. Yes, I know it's ridiculously early to say that. Anyway, it will most likely be Kelli's year.

Updated On: 8/8/14 at 12:36 AM

[Glitter]

Posted: 8/8/14 at 12:44am

I dunno.....Chita has flat out said she'd like this be her last broadway show, so if they marketed it properly, it could easily be Chita's "year", making up for not being nominated for WSS, being nominated for supporting actress for Birdie, losing for playing herself in The Dancer's Life.

Come to think of it, she's due for a lifetime achievement ;P