City Center's 24-25 Season: Ragtime, Urinetown, LaChiusa's Wild Party, Love Life — Page 19

Intermission. All I can say is definitely know why this has never been revived. Awful book.

Updated On: 3/26/25 at 09:00 PM

Jordan Catalano said: "Anyone know the run time of “Love Life”?"

Website says 2:40 and 1st was 1:10/1:15.

Intermission. It started at 7:40. It’s 9:04. I’ve seen multiple people get up and walk out. I’m going to give it 15 more minutes and if nothing happens, I am out of here. In the entire first act, there is virtually no plot of any kind and no conflict until the very end. If you don’t know what this is about, you will be thoroughly confused. The music is more melodic than I was expecting but considering how dull the show is, that’s not so helpful.

The production photos certainly make it look like Encores spent quite a bit on this.

The recent Opera North production broadcast on BBC radio got very good reviews. But Encores made changes to the show that may not have been for the better. That's why it's not going to be recorded. The plot of LOVE LIFE is similar to that of FOLLIES, including an ambiguous ending.

It's over. Absolutely awful book, dated jokes, score is lovely but there's just no plot whatsoever. The time travel concept did not work.

MemorableUserName said: "This may sound odd from someone who left at intermission, but I didn't hate it and spent much of it thinking this is the kind of show that is exactly what Encores should be. It's a chance to hear wonderful music (and the music was wonderful) performed by a talented cast (and the cast was very talented) in a show that would never be revived (and based on this, shouldn't be). I'd never seen Brian Stokes Mitchell live, and he was fabulous. Kate Baldwin was very good, if having less to do (hopefully she got more material in the second act). The two child actors were excellent, and the members of the ensemble were making the most of their moments to shine. It was an Encores production where the binders were almost unseen--only a few people were holding them in the first big ensemble number, and the musical numbers were big, fully choreographed, and pretty terrific.

But the book scenes aren't very interesting, and the style of the show--with the vaudeville numbers in between the book scenes--feels very old-fashioned.The interstitial numbers between the book scenes were entertaining, surprisingly still relevant, very well performed...and yes, completely pointless. During each one, I was mostly entertained while simultaneously wishing it wasn't happening? And they put so much separation between the book scenes that it made it harder to be engaged in the characters and their story. The pace dragged badly.

I got a relatively cheap ticket, it's been a long day, and I felt like I'd gotten my money's worth with the music and the performances, so I left. (Plus the ballet looming in Act II filled me with dread.) But I'm still glad I saw it and that it was given this showcase. It's worthy of an Encores production, and for the songs to be performed, if not much more."

Baldwin had two big songs and the ballet was interesting is how I’d put it.

It is closer to Encores’ mission/purpose but it’s been a weaker season for me personally than last year.

Updated On: 3/26/25 at 10:21 PM

TheatreMonkey said: "

I get this. The briefest of synopsis makes you think it's some sweeping epic of America, told through the journey of one family. But it's really a product of it's time -- an operetta, interspersed with a few scenes, and various vignettes of commentary style. Yet it really doesn't feel like a fully-fleshed out book musical. (And this is just based on the recording of the recent UK opera production.)"

And I mean, a lot of operetta from 20 year earlier (like the 1920s hits by Hammerstein and various collaborators like The Desert Song) actually had a lot more of a book, as silly as it may be, to keep you invested. I will say I do enjoy the Opera North recording for at least giving us a solid recording of the sometimes excellent score (I gather the CD release will be only the music--the BBC broadcast was the entire show which was worth sitting through--at least for me--once, simply due to being curious about this show for 30 or so years now, but...)

A question maybe someone here can answer. The City Centre press for this (interviews and other blurbs) likes to name drop how it was a big influence on Kander and Ebb, Hal Prince and Stephen Sondheim, among others. There's no doubt that its format anticipates some of their later work (I'd say the "each song is a pastiche of a different vaudeville style" actually most foreshadows Chicago, and Fosse's concept for the original production.) But over the years I don't remember these Broadway heavyweights name dropping the show as being a big influence. From what I recall, Sondheim may mention it in passing but nothing about his impression when/if he saw it (I have to assume he did) and is always quick to say he thinks Allegro was the first concept musical--if there is such a thing (I know Sondheim and Prince never much liked the term.) I know I'm nitpicking, but if you're gonna claim the show was a "big influence" on these people, it would be nice to have some quotes to back that statement up...

*edit* I didn't find any mention of Love Life in Hal Prince's book on the theatre. There are exactly three mentions of it in Sondheim's hat books--in the rather ruthless critique of Alan Jay Lerner, it's listed as one of Lerner's shows about Americana along with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, in discussing Company and how it confused some critics he lists Love Life along with many other earlier musicals that were built around a stylistic concept, and in discussing a Saturday Night lyric that was similar to a song from Gigi, he admits that Lerner had used a similar lyric before Saturday Night was written for Love Life that may have subconsciously influenced Sondheim as he had in fact seen Love Life. But no further mention or elaboration.

Updated On: 3/27/25 at 03:22 AM

Thanks so much for that! It looks like a great article--I did a quick scan but will read it more in depth tomorrow when I'm actually awake (But it is amusing how in the footnote quote Sondheim seems so strongly opposed to the very suggestion that Love Life influenced him--the denial is so strong that it makes me wonder if he actually was more than he wants to admit. Sondheim's comments about Weill, as the article points out, have always been particularly contradictory in general) I will say one thing about the Follies comparison, the eventual "plot-less" examination of two marriages structure of Follies, of course, came about from Hal Prince's concept more than Sondheim or James Goldman--their original The Girls Upstairs was quite plot heavy.

Ultimately, I know it doesn't really matter, but when I read statements that full out say Love Life was a direct influence on, say, Kander and Ebb or Sondheim, I still feel that's maybe hyperbole. Yes, for example, it did the vaudeville concept before Chicago did, but I'm really not sure Love Life was on the radar or in the memories of Fosse, Kander or Ebb enough to be much of an influence on their musical, they just took a similar approach. And yet Fred Ebb does call Love Life a "useful influence" as quoted in your link...

Updated On: 3/27/25 at 06:21 AM

I came away charmed and delighted by the entire show and had no issues with the simple and straightforward storyline. Knowing this is a (very early and developing) concept musical rather than a more traditional book musical, I found the book a product of its time, sure, but still wildly more entertaining than several books I could name on Broadway right now. A family that doesn't age goes through the historical timeline of the country and changes, for better or worse, with the times. They go from a simple and traditional 1700s family to facing industrialization, distant jobs, shifting gender roles and power dynamics. Their arc is so easily defined and enjoyable to watch play out. I don't understand where the confusion comes from. Does their non-aging need a scientific justification spelled out for you? No, it's a 40s concept musical. Just roll with it. Suspend your disbelief and have some whimsy. If you can't grasp that then maybe try for some basic media literacy. It's the perfect show for the purposes of Encores! and arguably the only show in this season's lineup that actually suits the program's original intent. This probably has one of the only "dream ballet" sequences in musical theatre that actually held my interest throughout, and the choreography is top-notch overall. Kate Baldwin and Brian Stokes Mitchell have some of the most sublime voices of our day, and make such a lovely couple on stage together. Would it be a viable musical to produce full-scale today? No, and I don't think that's what Encores! should be. Every other show this season has been seen on Broadway in the last twenty years, and I'm tired of that.

theatergoer3 said: "

Fosse's original production -- I didn't see the revival --- also began with a magic act, including the levitation of a woman. Fosse reportedly had seen LOVE LIFE and Lenya had tried to interest him in doing a revival.

The original production of LOVE LIFE used a real magician in its first scene. Jay Marshall was actually a great magician, not just a good one. When he died in 2005, the NY Times ran his obituary. The obit mentioned that LOVE LIFE producer Cheryl Crawford let Marshall leave the theater after LOVE LIFE's first scene to do other gigs the same night.

Updated On: 3/27/25 at 09:10 AM

Two hours and 35 minutes. Jack Viertel and Rob Berman are involved with this project.