Christina Applegate vs. John Lithgow (just hear me out)- Page 3

[WonderBoy]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 12:55pm

Beautifully put Margo, as always. I couldn't agree more!

Ljay889, please understand that no one is putting down your opinion of Miss Applegate and your love for the show. Everyone has opinions, plain and simple. I love the fact that the current revival sparked your interest in SWEET CHARITY and all things that are wonderful about it. I love that you do your homework to a degree on the show and cast members past and present. I can relate to your not seeing the show before and identifying Miss Applegate as wonderful in the role because that is all you have. You have no other real performance to compare it to.

However, I never saw The Merm as Rose but it doesn't take an idiot to figure out that she was the best Rose. I could name numerous performers that I have never seen but know that they were tops in that role/show. I know that you adore Miss Applegate as Charity but you should know that she isn't by far the best to ever play that part. I think that you do indeed know and recognize that but because you are fond of her you try to defend her too much. Don't cut your nose off to spite your face.
Yes, we all see Miss Applegate's charisma in the role. Her scene work is more than adequate but there is no denying that her singing and dancing lacks what the part demands.

There are many shows and performers that I simply adore that no one really cares for but I refuse to waste time to try and win people on LEGS DIAMOND. I say what I have to say and leave it at that. I don't go on and on about it in many threads.

Please, please, please don't feel bashed. That is certainly the last thing I want to do as I'm certain it is the last thing others here want to do.

Updated On: 8/5/05 at 12:55 PM

[Starchild]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 1:36pm

Margo Channing, I agree with your discussion of Christina Applegate as Charity. I saw the show (I recommend every does before they give their opinions of this revival). I like Applegate fine as an actress. She does have charm and some stage presence, and what she did to keep the show afloat is admirable. However, it was clear the choreography was simplified, and she was, I thought, just passable in performing it. Her voice was fine, her acting was good, her dancing passable. I didn't hate the show, I enjoyed it. However, after all I read about previous incarnations, and the famous "triple-threat" that this role requires, I can understand why many purists are disappointed. I dont' hate the idea that TV actors get cast for B'way, IF they can carry the role. In this case, I think she can do the role, but I can't agree that she is an excellent Charity. Just decent.

Updated On: 8/5/05 at 01:36 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 1:56pm

I understand what you're saying, Wonder.

I also want it known, that my interest in Charity, Fosse, Verdon, Reinking - was sparked long before I saw the Charity revival. The CHICAGO Revival has been favorite show on Broadway. It's a brilliant work of theatre, and there is absolutely nothing like Ann's slick choreography in the style of Fosse.

I just wish - everyone who saw Charity when it was on the road, or first opened - could check it out again. I know most of you wont, and don't want to. But I really am hearing that Christina has really grown into the role, and she looks like a pro up there now.

But I honestly do think - the biggest problem with this revival is not Christina. It's Wayne as the choreographer. Seriously, why Wayne? It's obvious Ann Reinking should've choreographed this. I think Ann could've come up with some slick and more challenging moves for Christina. There is no doubt in my mind that Christina could handle Reinking's choreo for Roxie in the CHICAGO revival.
Updated On: 8/5/05 at 01:56 PM

[justme2]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 2:04pm

Well, I said it before and I'll say it again here:

I don't think Ann would have wanted to do the choreography for this show and here's why: The creative team wanted a "new look" for the show...DIFFERENT choreography, with a different feel,so to speak.

(Please forget what Wayne ended up doing on stage for a minute and continue reading)

I don't think Ann would have wanted to do that, as she was too close to Fosse to have wanted to disrespect his work in that way. Now, having said that, someone in an earlier thread mentioned that Ann managed to do that with Chicago and came out on top. True....but, I don't think she would have had the same freedom with this show. I think she would have been expected, as Wayne was, to (for lack of better term) "throw out" a lot of Fosse and do something "different".

I don't know if I explained what I am trying to say correctly, but that's what I think.

[WonderBoy]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 2:51pm

I understand what you are trying to say perfectly justme2 and you are indeed correct, Annie would not have done it under those circumstances. Perhaps we should reconsider what we all have said and really argue the point that the original verses the current revival as pertaining to the new look and style of the show. I think what a lot of us have problems with is that the original and the first revival were the same look and choreography and they were molded under the same hands. Then you throw in the current revival which tries to be so different from the original yet doesn't succeed in us forgetting how perfect the original was. Does that make sense?

[justme2]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 3:28pm

Absolutely! Is it wrong that I can see both sides of this argument? I think each "side" has valuable points to make.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 3:36pm

Well Walter Bobbie's CHICAGO had a completely different look, and tone from the original production. Ann recreated the moves, in the style of Fosse, and it worked great.

Gwen Verdon even stated herself - she thought the revival was better than the original Fosse production.

I still think this Charity would've worked with the whole new look, but with Ann recreating the choreo in the STYLE of Fosse.

[justme2]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 3:44pm

lijay!
"Ann recreated the moves, in the style of Fosse, and it worked great"

Weer you the one who said that same response line in one of the earlier SC threads to my same point? HAHA!!

I still see it as a different type of project. Ann had control over the Chicago choreography from the time it was an Encores concert. She had been gearing up for years to present her version to NY.

She would have been asked to do something different with Sweet Charity, as, if I remember correctlty, the whole point the creative team had with THIS version of Sweet Charity was to "go in a different direction with the dancing". Would Ann wanted to have steered away from Fosse's work on the show? I could be wrong, and probably am, but I don't think so.

Now, that's not saying I don't think she still would have done great work; I just think she wouldn't have been interested.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 3:51pm

Has anyone else seen the Chiago version and Broadway version of Charity.... Her dancing was really strong in Chicago and it was more dancing... like she actually danced during Charity's Siliquiy and such...but on it's way to Broadway it got watered down

Personal oppion..... is she has the charecter nailed, and frankly that is all i need because everytime i see the show i cry and laugh because you feel for her.... i would rather see someone "fake their singing and dancing" ( i don't think that about Ms Applegate)and have an amazing charecter then see someone who dances great and has no charecter.....

i really feel when seeing Charity it should be like oh my the poor girl what is gonna happen to her in her future more then....wow Christina's not as amazing as Gwen

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 3:52pm

^ Good points. I do think people like to forget the fact - that some of her choreo was toned down because of her broken foot.

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/5/05 at 5:17pm

I admit she is not the best Charity. And having only seen the movie and some clips of Debbie Allen a long time ago, she still won me over. And I think this is because it was just nice to see an old fashioned musical. For me there was just a warmth to it. No, she is not the greatest dancer, but I thought he comic timing was wonderful though. Even not having the others to compare her with, for my money she was purly entertaining and as I have said before, I would pay to see her again way before I would pay to see DRS again. But that's just me. And I think that even had I seen the others onstage I probably would still have enjoyed this production. It was not just her but the whole feel of the show that I liked. Just my opinion. Again!