Dirty Dancing Toronto Review (Ouch)

[Tag]

Posted: 11/16/07 at 12:09pm

'Dirty Dancing': Put this baby in the corner
Richard Ouzounian
Theatre Critic


I did not have the time of my life.

In many years of theatre-going, I've never seen a show that worked quite as hard to make you like it as Dirty Dancing – The Classic Story on Stage, which opened last night at the Royal Alexandra Theatre.

Its set keeps turning around like a Lazy Susan at a 1960s pool party, or rising up and down on hydraulic lifts while a hyperactive chorus constantly changes costumes and dance steps ... but not facial expressions.

There are projections, filmed sequences, live digital video, a phallic falling tree, a lake of mist ... so much scenic baggage, in fact, that there's hardly room to do a dance step or tell the story of Baby Houseman (she who is not to be put in a corner) and Johnny Castle (he who cannot keep his shirt on).

In some bizarre way, Dirty Dancing is a lot like the Lord of the Rings musical: both are attempts to put a beloved movie onstage by borrowing from the conventions of musical theatre without really understanding them.

At this point, I can hear somebody out there asking, "Wait a minute, hasn't Dirty Dancing been a giant hit in Australia, Germany and London?"

Yes it has, just like it's also sold $17 million in advance tickets for the Toronto run. And, admittedly, at the late preview performance I attended, there were many women in the audience who laughed every time a famous line from the screenplay was spoken ("I carried a watermelon!"), moaned with sexual longing when Johnny took his shirt off and cheered when Baby finally managed to sustain a dance lift in the air.

But you couldn't help feeling these people were celebrating the memory of the 1987 movie they loved deeply rather than enjoying its recreation onstage 20 years later.

If one looks at Dirty Dancing with a clear, cool eye, unclouded by memories of Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey, it becomes clear that, quite simply, it's not a very good piece of musical theatre.

Eleanor Bergstein has basically put her screenplay onstage, while director James Powell has staged it with thudding literality.

And while there is tons of music – an almost non-stop soundtrack, in fact – not one line of it is sung by a major character. All of it is either recordings from the period, or live versions sung by talented vocalists (Karen Burthwright and Melissa O'Neil, for example) who stand off to the side like glorified backup singers.

So you have a show powered almost entirely by music where none of the leads sing in character and only three of them really dance. It creates a strange sort of disconnect that grows ever more enervating as the evening continues.

Not having seen any of the other productions, I'm willing to concede they might have been more pleasing than the one that debuted last night if Johnny and Baby were played better than they are here.

Jake Simons looks good as Johnny and dances nicely (not superbly), but he acts on one note of unswerving testosterone that gets boring.

It's Monica West as Baby who's the real disaster. Bland, blond and brittle, she does nothing to make you care about what happens to her, leaving a big void in the centre of the show.

By contrast, Britta Lazenga, as the "bad girl" Penny, has some real sizzle; Al Sapienza creates genuine warmth as Dr. Houseman; Victor Young is charmingly schmaltzy as Max Kellerman and Jeffrey Wetsch gives us an appropriately hissible preppy villain.

But the rest of the cast plays either soap opera clichés or bad Jewish comedy stereotypes.

And of course, everyone's fate has to be tied up at the end with the neatest of bows.

If you're a giant fan of the movie, you may very well have a good time at the stage version of Dirty Dancing.

But if you're not, you may share the same sensation I did: that I was being pushed, pummelled, manipulated and trapped into displaying emotions I just didn't feel.

And nobody puts Richard in a corner.
Link

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 11/16/07 at 12:30pm

My best friend saw it last night and she was ambivalent about the first act but started to love it by the second act. The truth is it IS Dirty Dancing...its not going to be some intense dramatic night at the theatre. Its going to be light, nostalgic entertainment.

Akiva

[WickedToronto]

Posted: 11/16/07 at 1:16pm

Ouch really

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/16/07 at 1:27pm

Sorry, wrong thread.

Updated On: 11/16/07 at 01:27 PM

[fakemyway2thetop]

Posted: 11/16/07 at 1:41pm

Who thought this was a good idea? Wish I had money!

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 12:40pm

Its pretty much the same response the press gave it here in the UK but it wont stop it selling.

Its a dire show which has no reason to exist as it offers nothing new

The critic needs to stop putting it under the musical theatre banner though as its not a musical

[mauriposa]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 1:08pm

Oof. Too bad I'm going to have to take a friend to see it when it's in Chicago. Hopefully they'll make improvements by Sept. '08.

[Kevinoes]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 1:14pm

Is anyone surprised?? I mean, REALLY?

Mirvish specializes in producing these senseless entertainments, though there are maybe two or three exceptions I can think of.

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 1:16pm

I 100% agree with this review. I saw the show in London, and it really is NOT a musical.

"Eleanor Bergstein has basically put her screenplay onstage, while director James Powell has staged it with thudding literality.

And while there is tons of music – an almost non-stop soundtrack, in fact – not one line of it is sung by a major character. All of it is either recordings from the period, or live versions sung by talented vocalists (Karen Burthwright and Melissa O'Neil, for example) who stand off to the side like glorified backup singers. "

Those are spot- on, and prove that it really is not a stage musical. It's a re- enaction of the movie with back- up singers.

And Link Larkin Wanabe, I totally understand what you said: "The truth is it IS Dirty Dancing...its not going to be some intense dramatic night at the theatre. Its going to be light, nostalgic entertainment." BUT Dirty Dancing is not that. It's a step below. I have no issues with the light, nostalgic entertainment of Footloose, Saturday Night Fever, and even Mamma Mia. But this is MORE contrived, LESS inventive, and really not theatre. Seriously, none of the main characters EVER sing... they just emulate movement and lines EXACTLY from the movie and wait for appreciative responses at each turn from the peeps who love the movie.

[ruthiefan_felix]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 7:08pm

It's a crap show and yet it's still running in London! Why God why! Like Footloose, it should be as far away from the West End or any theatre as possible!

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 7:11pm

Footloose is a guilty pleasure and a slick version of the dreadful production that broadway came up with

I have no problem with footloose having a home in London

[EmilyRohm]

Posted: 11/17/07 at 7:28pm

I'm not surprised... But it is fluff that people will still flock to see, even of the reviews are bad.
Any word on casting for the US tour? I had a callback for Baby when they were in Chicago, so I'm still holding on to a slim chance that maybe I will still be called in again... I think the casting team is in NY this coming week. They went all over the US for auditions. It's surprising they are going through all that trouble just for a tour, with no sit down on Broadway. (Although I'm glad it is opening in Chicago first, so I can see it. I know, I'm a nerd.)

[wallybag]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 1:43pm

I Seen this show Nov 22 2007. At the Royal Alexandra. It was a decent show, slick special effects with the projector. The story was a bit on the gay side. Lots of good dancing and music. Its kinda a girly show it might be around Toronto 1-2 years. I would give it
***1/2 out of 5.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 2:31pm

Wow and Mirvish wouldn't invest in The Drowsy Chaperone when it was shooting for Broadway? Well, everyone misses out.

I hope you are right and that they change more of it before it hits the US. If you just think of it as a Show and not a Musical, than maybe it will be alright.

Though, ouch is right! Richard O. usually gives out a few breaks but he really didn't like much of this at all! Well, as a Musical.It has lots of advance tickets so it will survive on name alone. Too bad though because it really did have and hopefully still does have some potential.

Throw out some of those set pieces and let the people sing and dance! If it is clean-up it should have a good audience.