#1
Posted: 2/15/05 at 10:51pm
I have really mixed feelings about the show, but I did enjoy it.
The story has always been a beautiful, heartwarming one, but I don't really think it's a story that necessarily needed to be put to music, which rather poses a problem. It kind of reminds me of Jane Eyre, but I can't put my finger on specific reasons why. The score as a whole isn't dreadful, but some of the songs ("The Most Amazing Thing," for example) are absolutely dreadful, boring and contrived. I felt like the story was set to music just for the sake of spicing it up a little bit, even though it's gotten along just perfectly for a very long time sans music. Some of the lyrics are too corny for anyone's own good... they're too contrived. The score falls a little bit flat in that it's just boring, but most of it isn't really that bad. "Astonishing" is the only song I can even semi-remember, and I just got home ten minutes ago.
The book's biggest problem is in its gaps, and what it leaves up to assumption that the audience is familiar with the story. The best example is probably in that it was kind of confusing for a bit if you hadn't read the book or seen the movie, or if you'd simply forgotten, how Jo and the professor end up knowing each other, and how she ends up living with him.
I thought the sets were beautiful. They do a great job of conveying physical depth, which I don't think I've noticed so vivdly before. One thing I really liked about the staging was when Jo was reading her stories aloud, and they were acted out above her. It was a nice way to blend the two worlds, ficticious and real, so to speak. It let something happen away from the main action without taking away too much attention from either the central characters or from the action.
Sutton Foster is as adorable and gawky as ever. She sounds beautiful, and I couldn't help but get chills every time she sang. She may be over-acting a bit, but she's doing a good job. She has brilliant presence that just overshadows almost everyone she shares that stage with. She simply glows up there. She'll definitely get a Tony nomination, and it's probable that she'll win, but her performance doesn't quite scream out for a sure-fire win. Her wigs weren't too great, though. They looked very fake.
Maureen McGovern gave a great performance, of course. She was very dignified, and sang beautifully.
I know Meg was always the flattest of the characters, but unfortunately Jenny Powers didn't do anything to better that situation. She was terribly boring. Megan McGinnis was adorable. She captured the angelic Beth very well, I thought. Amy McAlexander was alright; I never liked Amy's character much, and since she played a horridly annoying Amy, it was hard to warm up to her performance very much.
The understudy was on for Laurie... Chris Gunn was his name. He's a talented guy, but he's miscast here. He was too goofy and I couldn't take him very seriously when the time came. He'd be better suited to play Boq or something.
It was great to see John Hickok on stage again. It's been a long time. He'll always be Zoser to me, but he was really good. His portrayal of the professor was meek but lovable, and he was in very good voice.
Oh, and just allow me to get this out. If you bring small children to the theatre, don't explain to them what's going on in the middle of the show, even if it's Kids' Night on Broadway. And, if you have to un-confuse your child, don't do it audibly. And don't give your children gum to unwrap in the middle of the performance, either.
Anyway, that's all. Thanks for reading.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
The story has always been a beautiful, heartwarming one, but I don't really think it's a story that necessarily needed to be put to music, which rather poses a problem. It kind of reminds me of Jane Eyre, but I can't put my finger on specific reasons why. The score as a whole isn't dreadful, but some of the songs ("The Most Amazing Thing," for example) are absolutely dreadful, boring and contrived. I felt like the story was set to music just for the sake of spicing it up a little bit, even though it's gotten along just perfectly for a very long time sans music. Some of the lyrics are too corny for anyone's own good... they're too contrived. The score falls a little bit flat in that it's just boring, but most of it isn't really that bad. "Astonishing" is the only song I can even semi-remember, and I just got home ten minutes ago.
The book's biggest problem is in its gaps, and what it leaves up to assumption that the audience is familiar with the story. The best example is probably in that it was kind of confusing for a bit if you hadn't read the book or seen the movie, or if you'd simply forgotten, how Jo and the professor end up knowing each other, and how she ends up living with him.
I thought the sets were beautiful. They do a great job of conveying physical depth, which I don't think I've noticed so vivdly before. One thing I really liked about the staging was when Jo was reading her stories aloud, and they were acted out above her. It was a nice way to blend the two worlds, ficticious and real, so to speak. It let something happen away from the main action without taking away too much attention from either the central characters or from the action.
Sutton Foster is as adorable and gawky as ever. She sounds beautiful, and I couldn't help but get chills every time she sang. She may be over-acting a bit, but she's doing a good job. She has brilliant presence that just overshadows almost everyone she shares that stage with. She simply glows up there. She'll definitely get a Tony nomination, and it's probable that she'll win, but her performance doesn't quite scream out for a sure-fire win. Her wigs weren't too great, though. They looked very fake.
Maureen McGovern gave a great performance, of course. She was very dignified, and sang beautifully.
I know Meg was always the flattest of the characters, but unfortunately Jenny Powers didn't do anything to better that situation. She was terribly boring. Megan McGinnis was adorable. She captured the angelic Beth very well, I thought. Amy McAlexander was alright; I never liked Amy's character much, and since she played a horridly annoying Amy, it was hard to warm up to her performance very much.
The understudy was on for Laurie... Chris Gunn was his name. He's a talented guy, but he's miscast here. He was too goofy and I couldn't take him very seriously when the time came. He'd be better suited to play Boq or something.
It was great to see John Hickok on stage again. It's been a long time. He'll always be Zoser to me, but he was really good. His portrayal of the professor was meek but lovable, and he was in very good voice.
Oh, and just allow me to get this out. If you bring small children to the theatre, don't explain to them what's going on in the middle of the show, even if it's Kids' Night on Broadway. And, if you have to un-confuse your child, don't do it audibly. And don't give your children gum to unwrap in the middle of the performance, either.
Anyway, that's all. Thanks for reading.
Updated On: 2/16/05 at 10:51 PM
