CAROUSEL at the Lyric Opera in Chicago- Page 13

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 10:56pm

cause my ex is friends with one of the leads lol

[Fantod]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 11:12pm

Well I hope it's true.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 11:19pm

Yeah I believe that your ex is friends with Laura Osnes.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 11:25pm

how did you know that?

[daisybeetle]

Posted: 4/26/15 at 12:15am

Re: the slo-mo special effect---the audience at the show I attended was laughing at this. Granted, there were a lot of kids that day but still, it was awkward. I agree about Graves and "June is Bustin out All Over". Her voice is not suited for the song, and I didn't care for the choreography either.

 

[kristinj1]

Posted: 4/26/15 at 6:26am

After seeing it multiple times my sense was that maybe the operator was inconsistent, so on some nights it felt a bit awkwardly slow while at other performances it was a better speed and was emotionally charged.  In all cases, though, it served to move the transition into magicalness (is that a word?) to earlier in the show so by the time the the starkeeper arrived that felt very natural, which was a great improvement over every other production I've seen.  So even on the awkward nights I felt there was a nice payoff for that choice in the end.

And while I agree Ms. Grave's June can be improved, her Never Walk Alone was stunning, so once again I felt that there was a significant payoff in the end for that casting choice.

 

Updated On: 4/26/15 at 06:26 AM

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 4/26/15 at 10:09am

Mentioning graves voice I think that she has a beautiful voice, but right when I heard her voice I knew that she was an opera singer and so I don't think her voice fit well with the show. And I couldn't understand her at some points because her voice was way too overwhelming. And with the fall. The night I saw it it looked fine. I thought it made sense because everyone else in the scene was reacting in slow mo as well.

[truk777]

Posted: 4/26/15 at 2:30pm

Saw the show Friday night.  While I agree that it is produced and performed beautifully, that can't excuse the content of the piece. This show's theme of domestic abuse is deplorable.  I can't believe it is getting so much praise.  It should be put away to not be performed again. I am glad we didn't take our 13 year old daughter.  I never want her to hear that it is ok to be hit by someone that loves you.  I can't believe the theatre community still embraces this show.  Yes I know it was written at a different time, but that doesn't make it ok.

[Iheartchipotle]

Posted: 4/26/15 at 6:34pm

Isn't that the irony of this show? It's one of the most beautifully written musicals of all time, and yet it deals with one of the darkest sides of humanity? I don't think it would work as well without the contract/juxtaposition. 

 

And if there are more of you that see it before it closes - maybe pry a bit about the transfer and let us all know! I wish I would have asked more questions, but I didn't......and not going to be able to see this again before it closes. 

 

[kristinj1]

Posted: 4/26/15 at 6:39pm

I don't think Carousel endorses domestic violence, or that Rent promotes heroine addiction, or that Spring Awakening endorses teen suicide, or that Sweeney Todd promotes cannibalism, or that South Pacific promotes racism.  I think the show explores ending cycles of abuse through the obviously-flawed tragic anti-hero of Billy.  Julie's line about it being possible for a hit to feel like a kiss needs to be overheard by Billy in order for him to finally see firsthand how badly he warped those he loved and to motivate him to try to make amends from beyond the grave.

I also don't think the subject of domestic violence should be taboo, since recent elevator video demonstrates that the issue is still highly relevant.  And honestly, there are many people alive today who clearly understood that parents who spanked them did so out of love, however wrong their actions may have been.

In my opinion Carousel does not promote domestic violence, but it DOES promote discussion of the subject, which was exactly the type of art we most enjoyed exposing our 13-year-old kids to.

Humans are complex, and R&H dared to tackle taboo subjects.  Good for them and, it seems to me, good for all of us.

 

Updated On: 4/26/15 at 06:39 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/27/15 at 5:45pm

I never want her to hear that it is ok to be hit by someone that loves you.  I can't believe the theatre community still embraces this show.  Yes I know it was written at a different time, but that doesn't make it ok. 

Who said that it was ok?  The show never does.  But the period most certainly is relevant to the behavior of the characters in their situations and to our understanding of the story.

My problem is with this particular production.  I left at intermission.  Any major production of Carousel now has the huge obstacle of competing with the stunning and innovative 90s revival and hoping we either didn't see it or can objectively set it aside.  This only reminded me how utterly brilliant that revival was and how much I miss it.  The cast is (mostly) wonderful and Pasquale received a well-deserved show-stopping ovation for his soliloquy.  But man, it is an ugly tedious production.  This may be a production at the Lyric Opera, but it shouldn't be staged like an opera.  The opening makes little dramatic use of the gorgeous music and is mostly by-the-book with the exception of the bizarre choreography.  Then we go into the lengthy and iconic "bench scene".  Except instead of the bench, we have three huge piles of rocks that look like giant turds on stage.  So they use one of the giant turds for the bench.  A couple of turds have the cherry blossom trees growing out of them.  When the blossoms fall, they mysterious start falling from about 3 stories above the trees.  We're told "it's the wind that brings them down".  That is SOME WIND.  It blew them several stories in the air and then STOPPED, so they would gently float straight down much later.

June is Bustin' Out was awkwardly and incomprehensibly sung by Graves* in traditionally static opera staging.  We have these large yellowish-brown buildings on stage and a horizon.  Not pretty, but at least they don't look like feces.  Graves plants herself down center and sings in a manner that would make Patti LuPone beg for enunciation while Ethel Merman screams from the audience "You're behind, Denyce!  Catch up, honey, catch up!".  The chorus stands in a big clump behind her and there is as little movement staged as possible for the duration of the song.  The clump moves forward once.  And then back.  Then a dance break that doesn't really evoke anything unless you count the incomprehensible lyrics.

Blow High was well-sung and had the one clever bit of choreography.  The final set piece comes in and...it's the side of a concrete dock.  The final tableau is...people walking across the ugly dock.  Ugh.  It took over 90 minutes to get to intermission.  I just wasn't up for any more.

Pasquale was mostly strong and Osnes was charming, but the pacing and direction were predictable and lazy.  Gambatese and Hyzik were the only performers who seemed to yank some real life into the piece.  D'Amboise and Emmick were appropriately dastardly without ever really seeming dangerous.  The 90s revival added a layer of raw humanity and realism into the performances that added an immediate relevance to which the audience could connect.  That coupled with the innovative design reintroduced Carousel to the world, reminding us how it may have gained such popularity and influence upon its original premiere.  This production is the opposite of that.  Or at least, the first act is.  For the sake of those who stuck it out to the end, I hope it got better.  And for those who saw the 90s revival, I hope can keep your fond memories of it intact.

 

*I just want to qualify this by saying I saw Denyce Graves in her iconic performance of Carmen and she was sexy and thrilling, nearly eclipsing the memory of Julia Migenes.

Updated On: 4/27/15 at 05:45 PM

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 4/27/15 at 6:19pm

"This show's theme of domestic abuse is deplorable."

That is not the theme of Carousel.  It's an offstage incident we're told about - that Billy once hit Julie.  It's a story of love and redemption. 

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 4/27/15 at 6:40pm

If you think Carousel is about domestic abuse and that it encourages it well then you pretty much missed the point of the whole show...

[truk777]

Posted: 4/27/15 at 6:42pm

Maybe I fell asleep and dreamt most of the show, because the show I saw at the Lyric referred to being hit by someone that loves you so often it felt like a theme.  Maybe it was the boring staging and lifeless choreography that didn't help me focus on something else.  I, personally, will not visit a production of Carousel again.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 4/27/15 at 7:12pm

It's actually only mentioned a couple times but those may have been the moments you were awake.  No show is for everyone and you may be better suited to lighter fare.  Nothing wrong with that.

[truk777]

Posted: 4/27/15 at 7:16pm

I studied Eugene O'Neill extensively during my undergrad, so I'm not a stranger to heavier shows. But yes, not every show is for everyone.  Clearly this one is not for me.

[NoName3]

Posted: 4/27/15 at 9:58pm

Isherwood has reviewed the show for The Times.  He gives a rave to the singing and the orchestra and praises the cast but has a few reservations about Ashford's staging and choreography as well as the set. Overall, though, he is highly laudatory and concludes

"Carousel” is a great musical — one of the greatest, actually — but a grand opera it isn’t, and at times this staging falls into a murky gap in between, with the chorus moving in rote formation as if clustering around random Egyptians in “Aida.”

But with the superb singing on display, I am beginning to feel like a churl for citing any flaws. A chance to hear this cherished score delivered with such ample vocal and musical resources should not be missed by anyone who remains entranced by the unique appeal of the great Broadway musicals."

There is also a slideshow comparing the set renderings with the  equivalent sets onstage and a separate article interviewing Paolo Ventura, the Italian artist who designed them.  It's an interesting interview.  He was only vaguely aware of Rodgers and Hammerstein by reputation and was unfamiliar with their work.  He now loves Carousel and The King and I, which he saw at Lincoln Center, and wants to see more of their work.  And he is color blind (!) and talks about the challenges that presents to him as a painter and designer.

Review: ‘Carousel,’ a Broadway Turn at Lyric Opera of Chicago

Paolo Ventura Designs a ‘Carousel’

 

Updated On: 5/2/15 at 09:58 PM

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 4/29/15 at 1:18pm

I saw the show last night and figure I need to start with the script itself (and the discussion that I see has been taking place here), as I had a hard time moving beyond the piece as a whole.

I’ve seen “Carousel” once before when I was much younger. I didn’t remember much about it, despite not caring for it, but I was excited to revisit it as an adult. I tend to prefer dramatic musicals that tackle heavy, difficult topics so the inclusion of domestic violence within a musical is nothing I would balk at, but rather would welcome the inclusion of an important (and relevant) topic. And, obviously, I walked into the theatre taking into account the year in which the piece was created and the society at the time. But, even with the historical context in mind, I had a very hard time swallowing last night’s production, based on the show itself.

First, beyond the discussion of domestic violence, it’s hard for me to understand how this is still considered a great musical. Maybe for its time, but for it to still be highly respected is beyond my understanding. I understand everyone’s revere for the score, yes. But, I found the overall story dull, the characters not fleshed out enough, and the dialogue clunky.

In terms of the domestic violence, I think the issue I had with it is the discrepancy between what the show is trying to say and what actually comes off.

I agree the show is never saying that domestic violence is right. What I do think the show ultimately presents to its audience (no matter how much it’s not intended to), however, is that, while it’s never okay to abuse your partner, it can be excusable for the right reasons. As long as you regret it, it’s forgivable. As long as you truly love them, your partner should understand it had nothing to do with her/him.

Do I think this is what the creators intended to say? No. However, as written, I do think that this is largely what comes off from the script. 

A previous poster mentioned this in regards to Julie’s line:

Julie's line about it being possible for a hit to feel like a kiss needs to be overheard by Billy in order for him to finally see firsthand how badly he warped those he loved and to motivate him to try to make amends from beyond the grave.

Yet, without reading that, it never would have occurred to me, based off of the script, that this was the intention of the inclusion of Julie’s line. Because, after Billy witnesses her saying this, his making amends and redemption beyond the grave only consists of literally encouraging his daughter to listen to the man speaking and for Julie to feel his love. For me, it’s not enough to show that he truly realizes everything he did. It’s also difficult to swallow this ending because we never really see Billy treating Julie well at all before he dies. Julie mentions at one point that Billy has done so much for her and I immediately thought, “What?” I don’t think there is enough true exploration of Billy or his and Julie’s love in the first act for his small moments of redemption to be enough (or for us to actually see that those small acts of redemption are motivated by a deep understanding and regret of his actions on Earth). If the inclusion of Julie’s line about a hit feeling like a kiss is meant to be the catalyst for Billy’s realization, then that needs to be extremely clear. And, no matter how much an actor and director can try to show that this is what is happening, for me, that is too extreme a line to be said without Billy directly addressing it and denouncing how wrong it is for Julie to feel that. What’s written as his realization and redemption in the script, for me, is not enough. As it came off last night, I got the reaction that he just felt so grateful that Julie understood him and he realized how good a woman she is. Not that he realized the extent to which he emotionally abused her.

I’d like to believe that it only came off this way in this particular production, but I really don’t believe there is enough in the written script to combat how such an intense line like that. And, while I’m skeptical that much can be done, it doesn’t seem like, in this production, Ashford took stock of how this piece would be received by modern-day audiences and how to ensure that we take away what he wants us to.

As for the production itself, the quality is top-notch, but there were a few disappointments. Last year, seeing “The Sound of Music,” I admit that I enjoyed the opulence of that production and was hoping for a similar grandiosity in “Carousel,” but found myself left wanting. The sets were a bit boring and a tad dreary. The lighting, however, was gorgeous and I felt was the biggest contributor to any beautiful stage pictures created. My favorite aesthetic moment, by far, was the constructed carousel during the ballet.

I was disappointed in the choreography (although the ballet was beautiful). A cast of gorgeous dancers, yet they didn’t have much to do and, when they did, the choreography was clunky; in particular, the basket of clams dance in the first act. I actually felt bad for those poor performers, who clearly were struggling with awkward choreography with the clunky basket prop.

The cast is really excellent and everyone’s voice is wonderful (although Graves does seem quite out of place and I agree with the diction issues for “June&rdquo.

Jenn Gambatese, to me, brought the most heart and life to the production. Such a sincere and engaged performer – in the past few years, every role I have seen her in she has just brought a different and wonderful quality to each of her characters. It was a completely joy to watch her onstage.

Steven Pasquale was also excellent. After seeing him in “Bridges” last year, I will quickly flock to anything he is in. That voice is just a gift to get to hear in person. “Soliloquy” was an absolute highlight.

[Steve721]

Posted: 4/29/15 at 2:50pm

"I agree the show is never saying that domestic violence is right. What I do think the show ultimately presents to its audience (no matter how much it’s not intended to), however, is that, while it’s never okay to abuse your partner, it can be excusable for the right reasons. As long as you regret it, it’s forgivable. As long as you truly love them, your partner should understand it had nothing to do with her/him."

Billy and Julie are married for, at most, a few months, and he kills himself while she's still pregnant.  And to me the clear implication is that Julie is better off without him.  I haven't seen the Chicago production (although I did see the acclaimed 1994 revival several times), but I don't see how the show supports the view that domestic abuse "can be excusable for the right reasons".  Depiction is not endorsement, and I think the show is relatively realistic in how it presents attitudes to domestic abuse given the rural 19th century setting, when there were no support systems for a woman in Julie's situation.  As for the redemption aspect, the show does follow the Christian theology that sins can be forgiven if there is true repentance, but that forgiveness does not mean that Billy's actions were in any way justifiable in the first place.   

 

[kristinj1]

Posted: 4/29/15 at 3:36pm

As a lifelong feminist I enjoyed the complexity presented in both the show and in this production.  While it's easy to take Julie's single line out of context, why not instead focus on Carrie saying "Did you hit him back?  I would have!"  Or  Carrie saying "You should leave him.  I would.  He's a bad 'un.", or saying "You're better off without him" only moments after his suicide and Julie quickly agreeing?  Or the community of women who quickly rally to support both Julie and Carry when they need it?

Billy is clearly a mess.  He can't control his anger, he won't communicate his feelings verbally, he gambles, he drinks, he doesn't find work.  That's key to this tragic story.

And one could easily argue given today's norms that Mr. Snow is perhaps even more abusive in getting Carrie pregnant 7 times when she doesn't seem all too enthusiastic about it (maybe there really is "nothing so bad for a woman as a man who thinks he's good").

I have always found Carousel (with the exception of a recent terrible production I saw in a different state) to be a beautiful, tragic and complex love story, not unlike the cruel, crazy beautiful world in which we all live.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 4/29/15 at 3:43pm

^ Yep, well said!

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 4/29/15 at 4:39pm

As for the redemption aspect, the show does follow the Christian theology that sins can be forgiven if there is true repentance, but that forgiveness does not mean that Billy's actions were in any way justifiable in the first place.   

My argument is that I don’t see enough “true repentance” in the show. He is told that he has to do more before he can be accepted into heaven. I get the idea the creators were working toward – that he does fully see his wrong-doing. My issue is that I don’t actually see that through Billy at all.

And, I’m certainly not forgetting the moments (mostly Carrie’s lines) where the show blatantly talks about how Billy’s hitting Julie is bad. Which is why I never thought that the show was trying to say domestic violence was okay to do. I take issue with the execution of their handling of the subject, where I think it allows way too much room for audiences to think that the show is saying that, while it’s never okay to actually do, there can be understandable reasons why the offender did that wrong.

And, Julie’s single line is not the only thing I am taking into consideration - it’s just the culmination of everything we see throughout the show. Other than the moment when she tells him she is pregnant, he has been treating her horribly the entire relationship that the audience has seen or been told about. If the show really wants to look at the complexities and trials of relationships and the idea that humans are not “all bad” or “all good,” then I wish the show had included more of the ups and downs throughout. I feel we only see how terrible Billy is. And, I think we are supposed to feel at least somewhat bad for Billy at the end – at least in the way that he couldn’t figure out how to properly treat those he loved. Yet, with all of his horrible actions throughout the entire show, seeing just how emotionally and mentally wrecked he made Julie and his daughter, even 15 years after his death, and then not really actually doing much in his “last chance” moments on Earth – how can we, as audience members, be expected to feel anything for him? The whole time we see this man who we really see only bad from, including how he treats Julie from the start of their relationship. Yet, the show gives HIM the redemption moment at the end; a redemption moment that does not seem deserved by him nor earned in any way, shape, or form.

Again, I don’t think the show or creators are actually trying to justify the hitting. But, in the execution of the writing, Julie’s line comes off as an understanding of Billy and forgiveness of his hitting because it wasn’t really about her. I went with a group of 6 people who I often see theatre with. Ages ranging from mid-twenties to mid-sixties. All active theatre-goers, always with intellectual conversation afterward. To all 6 of us last night, Julie’s “a hit can feel like a kiss” line came off as making it understandable that Billy hit her, as if he was off the hook for what he did because she knew he didn’t mean it. If we 6 all had that reaction, then I guarantee there were many others in the audience that did, too. And, THAT is the issue I take with it. I don’t think R&H meant to endorse domestic violence – not at all. But, I think their execution of storytelling in “Carousel” can come off poorly.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 4/29/15 at 5:10pm

I agree with all that kristinj1 said above:  Julie agrees with Carrie that she is better off after her husband has just killed himself.  How much clearer could the show be that it does not endorse domestic violence than by having the main character who always chose to stand by her husband no matter what acknowledging that she is better off now that he has died?

And people choosing to stay with abusive spouses, sadly, is not just a remnant of the late 1800's.  It still happens to this day, and Carousel is one depiction of one family in which domestic violence has occurred, not some kind of proscriptive roadmap of how people are encouraged to act.  It explores some of the reasons why people choose to stay in domestic relationships (the abuser is 'sometimes gentle', sometimes loving/good in bed, little alternative economic options, especially for women but in this case also for Billy due to his laziness/lack of skill, a sense that he is 'your fella' and that's just how it is (i.e. maybe there's nothing better out there for me), etc.).  These reasons all persist today, and many more.   I also agree that Mr. Snow does not come across as much better, with his reprimanding Carrie for briefly speaking to her friend, getting her pregnant repeatedly when she is not enthusiastic about it, etc.  That kind of controlling relationship also still exists today, sadly. 

And many abusive relationships also continue today because the abused person is a child who is completely financially dependent on the abusive parent(s) for survival, and whose only options might be running away and living on the street, etc.  Abused children sometimes choose to stay as a very conscious calculation of which option would do the least harm in the long run, although in Carousel, Louise doesn't have that choice to make; only Julie does.

 

Carousel is a show about these issues - issues that are rarely addressed in most musical theatre.  Truk777, why shouldn't people who have survived domestic violence have our stories told, or hear stories similar to those of our abusers, which can give insight into why the behaviour occurred/knowledge that it was not about us, etc.?  Why should theatre only be for happy people with songs about how they met their true love, etc.?  There is no need to call for "putting the show away not to be performed again".  If you don't want to hear/think about those issues and are privileged enough to have never been forced to do so by circumstances such as being born into an abusive relationship in which you are powerless to leave due to your being a helpless child, then don't go.  It really is that easy.  Those of us who have survived abuse and find the show healing and cathartic and uplifting and hope-inspiring will continue to be powerfully moved by it.

 

(Note: I recently (2012) saw the amazing and perfect Goodspeed production.  I will be seeing the Chicago one this weekend.  So i am basing my comments on the show/book/score, and not specifically on the production being discussed here.  It is possible that some things didn't come across perfectly in this production.)

 

One more comment about the infamous "it is possible for someone to hit you hard and not hurt you at all":  I did cringe at that line, and sadly, that has not been my experience. But i think what they are going for is not saying that it was ever okay for the person to hit you under any circumstances.  I think what it says (at least to me) is that being abused by someone doesn't have to define your life.  It inspires hope that it is okay and possible to go on and live a happy and productive life rather than being hurt (emotionally) by the actions of someone who ultimately may have loved us in their way but who did not have the coping skills to leave work stress at work, or whatever.  To me, it does not say that hitting someone is okay/justified.  It says that it is possible for it not to hurt you, which to me means that it does not have to define your life forever afterwards as being broken or damaged.  And that is something that i very much agree with.  And that is a message of pure hope that this show offers to abuse survivors - that you can go on to have a good life even if someone abused you at some point during it.

 

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 4/29/15 at 5:31pm

One more comment, and the above message was getting too long to edit/add to it (sorry)!

Spoilers (discussion of ending):

I do kind of agree that ultimately Billy didn't really do anything that Louise or Julie could consciously detect (i.e. he didn't make himself visible or audible to them in the end scene) even though they seem to have "heard" him and reacted to what he was saying when he encouraged Louise to listen to the speaker and Julie to know that she loved him.

To me, this feels very much like real life.  When someone hurts us and then dies, we don't get to have them come back and interact with us for a day 15 years later and apologize to us for how they have hurt us.  All that we really can do is to "know that they loved us" and remember that we can stand on our own without being brought down by their failures, and use that knowledge/insight to move on with our lives.  So to me, the ending stayed very true to real life in that way.  

The idea of 'sensing' the person's presence telling us to listen to those messages or assuring us that they loved us, as was shown in the show's ending, is something that we would be feeling only on the inside, much like Louise and Julie seem to be doing in the show.  That aspect of the story to me rings very true. 

The idea that Billy earns redemption for it is, as Steve721 has pointed out, basically just the Christian theology onstage.  The implication is that he has realized that he did harm to those he loved and feels bad for it and wants to repent and help them to get over it, and that alone would redeem him in Christianity, without him having to make concrete amends.  Obviously, that is an artifact of the idea of the afterlife - if his consciousness is really gone after he dies, then of course the character himself wouldn't actually have a change of heart after dying, and any redemption then would be created only in the minds of those who loved him, who would basically look back and reflect ("know") that he loved them, and feel that he is forgiven in their minds, perhaps as part of their own healing process of letting go and moving on.

[daisybeetle]

Posted: 4/29/15 at 6:56pm

This is most likely NOT going to Broadway anytime soon for various reasons---  

http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2015/04/28/lyric-operas-carousel-still-waiting-for-that-big.html

I really enjoyed the show, I loved the singing (and the ballet), and would definitely buy a recorded version if it materializes somehow. iTunes? please?

The hitting issue? Look at it this way... Louise (the daughter) is taunted by her peers about Billy. She lashes out to hit one of them when they say "your father was a thief!". Billy visits Louise, and to make her listen to him, he hits her. He knows it's wrong, part of the reason he killed himself. At the graduation, the doctor (starkeeper) says 'You don't have to be like your parents, whatever their faults!' Billy is there and whispers in her ear to say "Listen to him Louise! Listen!"