Casting for John Doyle's MERRILY

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 12:00pm

... made my heart go all a-flutter.

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/157605-John-Doyles-Actor-Musician-Merrily-We-Roll-Along-to-Star-Malcolm-Gets-Daniel-Jenkins-and-Becky-Ann-Baker

[TotallyJeannius]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 12:04pm

Really looking forward to seeing how this all comes together. I've been listening to songs from Merrily and the score is really starting to grow on me. Definitely planning a weekend trip to Cincy to check out this production.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 12:11pm

Could this cast be any older? A 60-year-old Mary, really??

[Idiot]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 12:51pm

Perhaps this comment would fit better in the 'unpopular opinions you hold' thread, but I loathe the actor-musician conceit. If he staged CABARET this way, it would at least make some sense.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 1:06pm

I, too, think Doyle has mined this gimmick for more than it's worth.

It wasn't new or different or unusually insightful when he first did it; it's less so now.

But, as he proved with Road Show and Mahagonny, he can't draw attention to himself without his single gimmick.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 1:07pm

That cast is like a reunion tour. I like it.

[daredevil]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 1:19pm

I too, am surpised by the casting. Daniel Jenkins is a terrific actor-but kind of mature for the role. I saw Becky Baker play Mary in 1990, at Arena Stage, against Victor Garber and David Garrison. Maybe Doyle has discovered something about the musical that no one has put his finger on yet.

[AC126748]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 1:40pm

I, too, am perplexed by the casting of Baker. She's brilliant, but WAY too old, even next to older actors like Gets and Jenkins. I'm left scratching my head.

Gets was great as Frank fifteen years ago, and he reads young, so he'll be fine. He's also a pianist, which I assume is one of the main factors in his casting. I don't really know much about Jenkins.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 5:04pm

yep, the cast is basically a mix of people who did the revivals of Doyle's Sweeney Todd & Company. Would like to see this transfer for a limited 12-week run next Fall.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 7:43pm

I think there will be MUCH more interest in Lapine's Encores! version. If a MERRILY is to transfer, I sure hope it's not one with 60-year-old leads.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 7:43pm

What's Doyle gonna do when he runs out of Sondheim shows to shoehorn into this gimmick? I mean, seriously, what's next... PASSION?

[Miranda3]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 8:28pm

^^^^^

If so, what is Fosca's instrument?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 8:47pm

I loathe the director/musican concept too. I will admit it's worked for me better in some shows than others, but I don't think it would add anything to Merrily (will Mary's instrument be a typewriter?). Also he tends to direct his shows in such a stylized way, at least when he does it this way (I'm thinking of Company with the karate fight being done at opposite sides of the stage, etc)--I don't think that kind of thing would help audiences connect to Merrilly at all.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 9:37pm

Miranda: oh, I know! She doesnt have one! She's unloved, while everyone else is, and so of course she doesnt get to play!

... until the end, of course, during which she accompanies herself in the piano.

... even though she's dead.

But wait! She's playing the piano in the afterlife! Of course! Now it all makes sense!!

[James2]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 9:58pm

For ages now, I've thought "Man of La Mancha" might work with actor/musicians, though perhaps if done less soberly than how Doyle does it.

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 10:30pm

Doesn't Mary rather pointedly infer that she doesn't have musical talent? And if Charlie can spend all evening playing different instruments, does he really need Frank?

[Miranda3]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 7:30am

Sean: Now I get it! And while accompanying herself in the afterlife, she finds that her singing can make flowers grow. Oh, wait, I'm suddenly in another world, at the St. James.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 7:44am

Doesn't Mary rather pointedly infer that she doesn't have musical talent? And if Charlie can spend all evening playing different instruments, does he really need Frank?

THIS.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 7:49am

Miranda: but wait! There's more! As a reward for putting up with such a crappy life, not only can she make flowers grow, she creates a species of magical spiders!

Girl, we're talking golden here!!!

[Miranda3]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 7:59am

Sean: Nix on the spideys. Trust me. Yours, Julie Taymor

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 9:53am

I'm not a huge fan of Doyle's "one concept," especially because it's been repeated so often as if it were the best answer to all creative re-imaginings.

But I do have to laugh at this:

Doesn't Mary rather pointedly infer that she doesn't have musical talent? And if Charlie can spend all evening playing different instruments, does he really need Frank?

THIS.

You're seriously taking this conceit as if it were actually happening on the stage? I suppose Mary shouldn't sing a note, then, if she "doesn't have musical talent." And it's really unrealistic in other musicals to have a bunch of people huddled together in a group, either on, off, or under the stage, playing along with the story while the rest of the people in the show ignore them. I just don't get it!!!

[CockeyedOptimist2]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 11:09am

Is it even worth it anymore to point out that this is not John Doyle's only way of directing shows, and that his entire body of work is bigger than the few actor-musician shows he's done? Or have we all decided that he's a one-trick pony and that we should ignore his other work because of about 4 shows that he's done? I just don't want to waste my time defending John Doyle every time this comes up if Im not going to get anywhere.

[AC126748]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 11:19am

Yes, and the shows he's directed without his "concept" have been iept and awful. WINGS? Torture. PETER GRIMES? The biggest embarrassment I've seen at the Met in years. MAHAGONY? Ridiculous.

He's a zero-trick pony.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 11:23am

I addressed Road Show and Mahagonny above. The first was soporific, the latter redeemed by the casting of two theatre divas, but hardly a benchmark Mahagonny.

The only non-gimmick work of his that I've enjoyed was A Catered Affair, and even that, I believe, could have been much better done. Again, there was a small, soporific quality to his work that, although quietly charming, may have done the piece as a whole a disservice in the final analysis.

He's not, to me, a top-tier director. And he uses that gimmick as much as possible (remember, he's done it with even more shows in the UK that we haven't seen over here). In fact, I know of more cases in which he uses the gimmick than otherwise.

[CockeyedOptimist2]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 11:27am

That's a matter of opinion, AC, but it's nice to see that you don't think so. The only non-actor/musician show of John's I've seen is "Where's Charley?" at Encores which was delightful, a musical, and had no actor/musicians in sight. It got great reviews and I loved it. Of the three musicals John has directed on Broadway, one was "A Catered Affair" which was a standardly-directed musical. Nevermind the fact that he's British and that most of his work is done in England. If you want to hate him, feel free, but I think he's a genius and I look forward to seeing what he comes up with next!