DAMES AT SEA Reviews

Post 'em here, kids! :)

It seems that the reviews have been mixed.

Isherwood doesn't like it because of "the avalanche of musicals that have recycled this show’s formula over the past few decades" yet he admits that Dames at Sea basically invented the formula. Can someone explain to me why those shows he mentions like Crazy For You, Nice Work if You Can Get It and An American in Paris should have any bearing on his review for this show?

CATSNYrevival said: "Isherwood doesn't like it because of "the avalanche of musicals that have recycled this show’s formula over the past few decades" yet he admits that Dames at Sea basically invented the formula. Can someone explain to me why those shows he mentions like Crazy For You, Nice Work if You Can Get It and An American in Paris should have any bearing on his review for this show? "

If you read Jesse Green's Vulture review, it pretty much answers the question for you (I say Green because Isherwood, bad writer that he is, can't express terribly well what the problem with Dames is). Dames at Sea wasn't the first show to homage or satirize an earlier style of musical, but it was the first time 30's movies were being satirized and by such a low-budget, low tech production. Part of the charm of the attitude of the material and the original production (according to Green and a few other reviewers) was that it wasn't sending up these preposterous movie musicals by exposing all of their flaws, but by doing them earnestly with a cast 1/10 the size and on a stage that was smaller than most Broadway dressing rooms. Dames at Sea didn't really invent the exact formula (satires and spoofs today are a far different animal), so much as open the door. What many critics feel (and I have to say I agree with them) is that there's no novelty left to Dames at Sea. It's no longer on a shoestring budget and in the last 50 years other shows have come and done the Dames at Sea-approach better. Why bring it back, then? If it's for nostalgia or a purely entertaining evening, there are other, stronger shows out there that can offer both.

I think that's the closest I've ever seen Isherwood come to a clear and coherently expressed viewpoint.

If you've never seen or done Dames, if you don't know what it could be, then this revival might suit fine; those who do know what it could be, what it was created to be, know that the meaning of the piece has gone missing. And that can be attributed to Skinner, an old chorus boy who can choreograph tap really well (other forms maybe not so well), but has no concept of the meaning of a show at all. He showed this when he re-staged 42nd Street, making changes that removed any tiny aspect of interesting darkness that there had once been (thanks to a much smarter director, Gower Champion). The guy clearly doesn't get anything more than bright smiling teeth and loud taps.

Whose was it?

I pretty much agree with Isherwood across the board, except I didn't tire of the dance breaks, and I would give more of a shout-out to Lesli Margherita as the diva. They were the real standouts for me.

Mixed review for the show, but says the cast sells it. (Scroll down to "There Is Nothing Like a Dames?)

http://www.out.com/michael-musto/2015/10/26/10-most-boring-things-gays-say

"Those reviewers who saw the piece as a satire/parody of the 30s movie musicals as originally intended hated it as what passed for satire 50 years ago fails by today's standards. Those who didn't sat back and enjoyed."

Knowing the show, the above comment has been bothering me. Did that mean that it would be possible to watch this production WITHOUT taking it as a satire/parody? Did this mean it was being played "straight" and believable rather than "over the top"? Well yesterday I saw it and loved it, but now my question remains. How in the world could anyone watch this and NOT take it as a satire or parody?

BroadwayConcierge said: "http://www.broadway.com/shows/dames-sea/photos/exclusive-photos-of-dames-at-sea-eloise-kropp-cary-tedder/

Really cute photo shoot. Kinda falling in love with Cary Tedder. Too bad I still don't have any desire to catch this.

"

mmm hmmm

Kropp really is a top-notch tapper. Sadly, she has (I think) little else to offer; her singing is very pushed, with a fast and harsh (to my ear) vibrato. Her acting is also full of strenuous effort. And I really loathe writing this, because it ought not to matter, but she's just so un-pretty, in a Jane Withers/Virginia Weidler way. She's much more suited to play a Lucy Schmeeler kind of role, except for that enormous tapping talent. In another day, someone might have written a new show for her, with good character role, heavy on the dance. But an ingenue, she's just not.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that this show belongs 100% to Margherita; she gets all the laughs, and they're big ones. Every thing else about the show feels strictly summer stock.