Breakfast At Tiffany's Previews- Page 4

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 3/7/13 at 11:11pm

I hope to see it in June. Having read the comments, I'm disappointed that "Moon River" is not included. I reckon that a good number of people expect that in the play. Since it is in previews, is it possible to put it in? from RC in Austin, Texas

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 3/7/13 at 11:42pm

I do hope that the actors are mostly left out of the negative reviews. Richard Greenberg deserves the blunt of the pans.

[musicman_bwayfan]

Posted: 3/7/13 at 11:54pm

Anyone have any luck at the stage door? How's Emilia? Did George Wendt come out at all?

[goldenboy]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 1:03am

To be fair they have 12 days before opening. I just can't imagine them doing all the work one needs to do to whip this into shape in 12 days. Cinderella had good bones underneath the convuluted Douglas Carter Beane story that they stripped away to make a decent enough musical.

Adding Bob Merril's score would help. Adding Moon River couldn't hurt. Taking a scissor to the show would help. Getting different actors in the leads would help. Rewriting would help. Throwing an episode of Dance Moms in would help.

I think that they found out when they did the musical that there is not enough of a real throughline there. Merrick closed it to save theatregoers "an evening of boredom." Did they ever do a reading of this thing to whip it into shape? Or did they just throw it on the stage with the name Breakfast at Tiffany's hoping for the best?


I guess there's time. The supporting cast seems to be in a different show than the leads. Maybe they could write a play about the supporting cast. Holly's roller skating neighbor seems interesting. Some of them are interesting. They have 12 days.

I don't think there is much of a story there to begin with. What was shocking in 1960 (she's a hooker? She uses men? She's really from the south and that accent is fake? She's already married? She loses her key so she has to go through her neighbors fire escape) doesn't not shock us or charm us in 2013. Not with all of the reality tv we've been living though. The episode of Dance Moms I watched tonight was more compelling.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 1:26am

Touche, bk. I guess, what I meant was narration like "And then this happened" sort of thing. I don't really feel like the narration in Menagerie is narration, but more like an extended monologue.

The Woman in Black is almost pure narration and it works.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/14/13 at 11:50am

Watching the clips, I have a question: Is Clarke's all over the place and beyond absurd accent deliberate - a choice to reveal Holly's "phony" and, as she apparently sees it, inept dialectical aspirations - or is it just that Emilia can't handle dialect and her usual accent is hopelessly betraying her?

Either way, it's not working. If the former, she's underestimating Holly's intelligence.

If the latter: (and I say this as a great admirer of hers - Khaleesi Forever!) SOMEBODY HELP THIS GIRL!





Updated On: 3/14/13 at 11:50 AM

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/14/13 at 12:43pm

I was there on Tuesday and, yes... while slow and boring, let's be real here. Is the production good? No, I don't think so. But is it the train wreck everyone is making it out to be? Not even close. I've already seen worse things on Broadway this season. This is leagues better than the craptastic revival of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, the snoozefest that was Grace, and the amateurishness of Dead Accounts. Again, the play is not GOOD, but it's not bad either. It's just there. Emilia was wonderful (I don't watch Game of Thrones so I didn't know what to expect). I thought Cory Michael Smith was pretty awful (his accent was all over the place). And I actually thought Act 2 was better (or certainly more smoothed out) than Act 1. Is this going to receive a ton of award nominations and rave reviews? No. But I certainly don't expect this to go down in the books the way Scandalous did earlier this season.

[JayG 2]

Posted: 3/14/13 at 5:41pm

Uh, goldenboy, if you watch Dance Moms, you have nothing to say of ANY substance to me. I think I'll get my BAT ticket now!

[goldenboy]

Posted: 3/16/13 at 8:33pm

Go enjoy. May I suggest Premium seating?

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 5:25am

Was anyone really think this was going to be a thrilling night of theatre, the film is a giant bore ( remove Hepburn and it would not be , and I use the word loosely a classic )

You just have to wonder how and why some things get produced.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 10:18am

Rosscoe, irrespective of how one feels about the movie - and many love it - the book is extremely different and a huge critical and popular success. A classic in every sense of the word. There is no reason to think it couldn't be an enjoyable and satisfying play. No less a talent than Albee thought there was sufficient potential for a thrilling evening of theater for him to try his hand at a libretto.

Updated On: 3/17/13 at 10:18 AM

[goldenboy]

Posted: 3/17/13 at 4:50pm

I love how they say "it's so different... it's more faithful to the book." Balderdash.

It's almost identical to the movie. If you didn't see the movie, you migh even be lost.

Take away Moon River, Mickey Rooney, Audrey Hepburn, the actual New York City as a character.. throw in some tedious narration... you've got the movie.

Excuse me while I find the next episode of Dance Moms.



Updated On: 3/17/13 at 04:50 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 8:28am

Also take away the conventional romance with Holly making it a much more romantic - in the sense of grand unlikelihoods - relationship and a far less conventional story, take away the happy ending and take away Patricia Neal (inserted so that our hero clearly likes girls, although he too gets paid for it).

But keep New York City which is very much a character in the novella.

And add Joe Bell.

And add some of the beat prose ever written. Best prose, I mean. "Beat prose" is something quite different.



Updated On: 3/18/13 at 08:28 AM

[MarkinDC]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 12:36pm

I visited NYC to see this last Monday, having seen an ad for it when last in NYC in February. While not blown away, I found it worth seeing. Early press releases noted that this production stays true to the Capote novella, and that needs to be remembered if attending.

Those expecting "Moon River" and the rom-com interpretation of the 1961 film, will be surprised. This is not a musical, nor is it a rom-com, it requires an adult viewing, to sit still and listen to the dialogue for a little over two hours. Take it at this, and you won't be dissapointed. Better yet, if you are a fan of the movie, read the book. The two are not the same. It was nice to see Capote's work done in the same manner as it was originally written.

I almost never watch TV, rarely go to current movies, and thus, had no idea who Amelia Clarke, or Corey Michael Scott were. Not seeing much chemistry between them, (not sure if there is supposed to be), but both seemed capable in their roles. Comparing Clarke's "Holly" to Audrey Hepburn's wouldn't be fair as Holly is a less likeable character in the novel, and she was portrayed as such in this production. She was vivacious, vamped about nicely, and looked stunning in the different costumes. Her "continental" accent seems over-the-top at first, but seemed suitable for a farm girl re-inventing herself as a New York call girl.

As "Fred," Scott was likeable, and as in the book, loyal to a fault. His Southern accent was difficult to locate geographically, but not objectionable. Overall I'd say give them a little time to hone in their characters.

Supporting cast rounded this out nicely. What a treat to see George Wendt as the bartender, and I really enjoyed John Rothman as Sid Arbuck. Mag Wildwood, and the roller skating Madame Spanella provided lively comic relief, as did Yunioshi. Vito the cat was cute, and stayed calm despite being handed around perpetually.

1940's images and music used as preamble evoked the era nicely, almost like you were about to see a film noir. "Floating panel" scenery takes you in/out of the different settings well. Interlude music a little noir-ish, but works for the period and mood. This definitely played as a 1940's drama. Costuming seemed a little drab, but it was wartime, and that was the norm then. The bathtub scene seemed a little gratuitous, but wasn't entirely unbelievable.

Last Monday it started promptly at 8 PM, and we left the theater at 10:40. First act seemed a bit long, but hopefully it will tighten up for opening night. The Cort theater is a sweet, historic, cozy-feeling venue, and the low-hanging mezzanine seats have good views.

This production may not (yet) be up-to-snuff for Broadway connoisseurs, but for us philistines who like coming to NYC for a show and want something more serious than Spiderman, or yet another jukebox musical, it was just fine. While I can't envision this raising dramatic standards or sweep the Tonys it provides a nice night out at the theater.
Share your review
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Email to friends

[StageBuddyOffers]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 1:17pm

I was looking forward to this show so much and then there it was. I wouldn't call it horrendous either, but it can't help but feel like a huge disappointment. Emilia Clarke was simply luminous, I am a big fan of "Game of Thrones" and never knew she had this kind of presence to her. She plays Holly like a combination of Audrey and a spitfire Barbara Stanwyck character and you really can't take your eyes off of her. You can see she's trying her best, but the production leaves so much to be desired. Here's hoping they do something about that bore of a first act before opening night...

[goldenboy]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 1:19pm

...."had no idea whoAmelia Clarke, or Corey Michael Scott were. Not seeing much chemistry between them, (not sure if there is supposed to be), but both seemed capable in their roles."


It sounds as if they have made some progress in the past 12 days and that is good to know. I wish them well. So you say there is no chemistry between the two leads. And you don't think that's important?

[egghumor]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 1:23pm

I need to insert myself here and ask a question... I knew from the beginning that this play is a more loyal adaptation of the novel, and so I wasn't surprised when people mentioned the omission of "Moon River," but just a few minutes ago I saw some fresh production photos and in one of them Holly's sitting on a fire escape strumming a guitar! What does she sing instead?

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 1:28pm

Clarke does sing a song, but it's not Moon River. I hadn't heard the song before- something country/bluesy- but seeing her come out on the fire escape with a guitar and not sing Moon River is a major c0ck tease.

Updated On: 3/18/13 at 01:28 PM

[egghumor]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 1:48pm

Thanks for the clarification, Whizzer. Now I can see why people are stumped by the omission of the tune made famous by the film version. The new stage scene totally sets up that obvious disappointment. I'm sorry, but I think this production is going to tank with audiences, no matter what critics might say about (and frankly, I don't think they're gonna like it much either).

[StageBuddyOffers]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 2:25pm

I agree with you egghumor, I don't see how this show will succeed on any level. It's too boring to be a glamorous spectacle like the movie and it's not serious enough to be as touching as the novella. Plus with all the confusing references from the movie (cause it's truly a pastiche of the novella and the movie) it will mostly piss off fans of either. That scene with the guitar in particular was infuriating. If they don't want us to expect the movie, then don't be such c0ck teases! And the song she sings, sounds like one of the tunes from "Cold Mountain", it's very bluesy, haunting (and Emilia hums it again later in the play) but it's certainly no "Moon River".

[newintown]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 2:44pm

"Now I can see why people are stumped by the omission of the tune made famous by the film version. The new stage scene totally sets up that obvious disappointment."

I know that millions more people watch movies than ever dream of picking up a book, but, still - blaming this show for NOT using "Moon River" is pretty dull-minded.

In Capote's story, he specifically describes Holly sitting on the fire escape with her guitar, singing an old country folk song. He even wrote some of the lyrics:

Don't wanna sleep, Don't wanna die, Just wanna go a-travelin' through the pastures of the sky.

It's not "Moon River" and that's no problem, except to those so devoid of imagination all they want to see is a Xerox duplicate of their favorite moments of someone else's work. The sort of thing that leads to musicals like Shrek and 9 to 5.

I haven't seen this play yet, and may not, but I'm certainly not going to fault it for not copying any part of the movie (which I love, by the way, as much as I love Capote's story - it's an adaptation, not a carbon copy).

[StageBuddyOffers]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 2:47pm

The name of the song in the play is "I am a Traveling Creature" by the way.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 3:01pm

In the novella, Holly sits with Cat on the fire escape and sings strumming her guitar while her clothes are drying. She loves show tunes including the songs from the new show Oklahoma.

This was the inspiration for the "Moon River" scene in the movie.

[egghumor]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 3:25pm

Thanks henrik,for that nugget of information.

newintown, you're point is well made and well taken. I personally don't care if they use "Moon River" or not, but I can understand why some theatergoers are miffed by the omission. A play has every right to be faithful the original source material, but in the case of this play, the movie is so deeply embedded in popular culture that it makes it hard for the playwright to present a version that does not feel like some sort of betrayal to audiences, no?

Again, I agree with you completely regarding SHREK and 9 to 5, but I think such shows support both of our ideas. Because of examples such as SHREK and 9 to 5, audiences (tourists especially) expect replication, not faithful adaptation of original source material.

I sound like I'm much more emotionally invested in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S than I actually am. I simply think this production is a miscalculation that audiences desire to see the "real thing." They always thought they HAD seen the real thing.

[MarkinDC]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 4:02pm

I'd agree with what stagebuddy noted: ..." She plays Holly like a combination of Audrey and a spitfire Barbara Stanwyck character and you really can't take your eyes off of her..."


.