DESSA ROSE - a saving grace of musical theatre. — Page 2

This is the first thing I am seeing when I come home for the summer...I cannot freaking wait.

Nope, it had nothing whatsoever to do with you.

---

Has anyone else heard the rumors of a Broadway transfer?

---

Let's at least hope for an extension and a cast recording.

lc

I loved it when I caught the 1st Sunday preview. Rachel York was out but her understudy Joan Hess was fantastic. I don't know if it could sell too well on Broadway, and if it did transfer, would need to be tightened up considerably in the book department. Still, it's the best new score I've heard in a long time, and it's so great to see Norm and LaChanze onstage again, it doesn't matter that they're miscast.

Any word on how the show has been selling? I would like to see it again but haven't seen it on TDF in awhile.

---

B. Matt - why do you think Norm and LaChanze are miscast?

i don't think lachanze nor norm lewis were miscast. i thought they inhabited their roles beautifully. the only person who possibly could have been replaced with someone better was michael hayden, though i thought he did extremely well.

i thought rachel york owned this show though. her portrayal, and character. it was brilliant.

also, i really loved kecia lewis as dorcas. she was haunting in "white milk and red blood" and then so funny in "ladies" and "ten petticoats"

plummy boy, we're finding some stuff to agree on! i just wish you liked the score better. maybe you'll change your mind with the recording?

Hmmm, I think I definitely need to see the show again and see how my view changes.

it's hard to really pinpoint exactly what didn't quite sit right with me. The show itself is such an emotional ass-kicker from the start, the only real critical response to come to me after that 1st viewing was in figuring out what kept it from being a completely immersive experience.

It was very close, and I really did find the piece to be gorgeous, but I'm always thinking in terms of making a show better or more effective. My biggest issues based on that early preview were (SPOILER):

a. the book needed a better handle on when and where to lighten the mood or throw in something cute

b. something inherent in the story itself that bugged me, is that the danger, tension, and adrenaline reach their peak within the first 20 minutes of the show. It is odd to see something begin with such a powerful, gut-wrenchingly heavy 1st Act, only to have it lead into a considerably smaller-scale (though fascinating) light drama centering on the formation of a series of unlikely relationships. Especially with that fantastically promising 1st Act Finale, I personally was ready for the 2nd act to bring something equally epic- something more consistent with the established value system and subject matter.

Basically I saw the show's major problem area as not fully being able to effectively combine

A)the fairly quaint, personal story about a bond between 2 women

AND

B)the actual circumstances (all of the craziness of the first half hour) that facilitate such a bond.

The events of the exposition occurred to me as considerably more compelling than most of what is arrived at in Act 2. What starts as the brave struggle to persevere and fight for the freedom of future generations turns into a puzzled shoulder-shrug about how a maternally-fueled competitive hatred can so suddenly lead to rape-deterring pillow-warfare and tag-team lactation.

With the casting issue, I'm pretty sure some of it has to do with my pre-existing image of Norm and LaChanze as different characters and personalities, but I had trouble fully buying their portrayals at all times. La Chanze I felt wasn't quite able to bring the right level of intensity to the heaviest moments of the first act, which is absolutely crucial. More than once she would throw away important lines, seeming to be focusing more on the song coming up. She sang the score marvelously though!

Norm in particular struck me as grossly miscast and was hard to believe as a slave, for 2 reasons I can think of. Firstly, he really does seem bored for a lot of the show, especially when framed in the ensemble by one of the most emotive choruses I can remember. The other reason is that he just has this layer of sophistication to his mannerisms and speaking voice that wouldn't be found in someone of his character's background. He's a very distinguished fellow, and it takes more than a slave-like accent to cover it up. To me, it sounded too often like he was just reciting lines, and it manifested itself awkwardly in his banter with James Stovall and "romantic" repartee with Ruth. And to top it off, he barely had anything to sing. That makes about as much sense as casting Michael Hayden in a musical.

Still, it's one of the best new shows I've seen recently and I do look forward to having my opinion changed by a return visit.

---

THIS IS THE BEST SHOW THAT IS ON BROADWAY THAT ISN'T ON BROADWAY!!!!!!!!!! HINT HINT
Anyone wanting to see an amazing well thought out show that has heart and realization this is your show.
I pray for a transfer, but only if it is a small theatre. I would have said circle in the square but obviously not a possibility. Anyone else here think that there needs to be another in the round, or thrust stage on broadway.

"...maybe you'll change your mind with the recording..."

A score's recording is ancillary to a production and shouldn't be confused with hearing it live in the theater in its original context, where it either works or it doesn't, with no second-guessing necessary. The score to MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG, for example, might be a fun listening experience on CD but is ineffective in performance.