#1
Posted: 6/30/05 at 12:42am
Sweet Charity
6.29.05
First and foremost, Christina Applegate. Her acting and dancing are, dare I say, rather glorious. She IS Charity Hope Valentine - sweet, quirky and undoubtedly lovable from the start. Christina truly can't sing, though. She's putting an irritating touch of vibrato on short notes, and sounds like she's trembling inside, and tends be more than slighlty off-pitch and squeaky, when it sounds like she's using some sort of character voice. It's strange, though, that when she sustains a note, with what seems like little effort even, her voice can actually be very pretty. I tried to draw some sort of parallel between what's going on with Christina and Charity and something like Sally Bowles in Cabaret, where bad singing is part of the character, but the logic falls through; Sally is a performer who is not supposed to be good at her profession, Charity is not. BUT, despite her imperfections, Christina's performance is overall a triumph - even this skeptic had chills during "If They Could See Me Now," partially because of everything she went through to be giving this performance. Her presence and embodiment of this character is beautiful, and she has fantastic chemistry with Denis O'Hare who isn't getting enough credit for his performance filled with excellent comedic timing.
Applegate is far from the worst thing about the production. She does, in many senses, carry it. The bare-bones material is so strong; it's a good, decently solid, old-fashioned(ish...) musical, but this is a revival that's gone wrong in so many places, I think - or, to phrase better, since this is the first production I've ever seen of Charity, things that could've been done better.
I don't think I've ever been much of a fan of Wayne Cilento's work, but I think he was a pretty wrong choice to choreograph this show. I've always found his style awkward, and a bit weird, to be completely honest, though it's not all that much of a bother in something like Wicked or AIDA; Wicked is a fantasy, with no real-life time period, for lack of better explanation, and AIDA's time periodization was already far enough off the deep end (in addition to the story being fairy tale-esque anyway), that Cilento's choreography style at least sort of worked. In Charity, it doesn't feel like it fits the time period at all; I would've liked to see choreography that was a bit jazzier, or something. Cilento's work looks too robotic. For the record, the choreography in the show for individual actors, esepcially for Applegate, is passable, and more... "normal," I suppose. But his ensemble work is all too bizarre, and ends up looking sort of muddy.
My other major complaint was about the costumes, particularly those of the female ensemble members. I felt like the production could've gone with something a bit more subtle and classy, a la Chicago. The bright, flashy colors with modern, cartoony patterns and feathered hats just rubbed me the wrong way. I suppose they're not totally out of question for 60's attire, but I felt like they were portraying a very exaggerated, too-stereotypical 60's scene, and just looked silly.
Overall, though, because the original material is so well-written, I did enjoy the show a lot. The book is quite funny, the music is famous for a reason, and for the most part, it's well-staged. I'd certainly recommend seeing it, for a fun time.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
6.29.05
First and foremost, Christina Applegate. Her acting and dancing are, dare I say, rather glorious. She IS Charity Hope Valentine - sweet, quirky and undoubtedly lovable from the start. Christina truly can't sing, though. She's putting an irritating touch of vibrato on short notes, and sounds like she's trembling inside, and tends be more than slighlty off-pitch and squeaky, when it sounds like she's using some sort of character voice. It's strange, though, that when she sustains a note, with what seems like little effort even, her voice can actually be very pretty. I tried to draw some sort of parallel between what's going on with Christina and Charity and something like Sally Bowles in Cabaret, where bad singing is part of the character, but the logic falls through; Sally is a performer who is not supposed to be good at her profession, Charity is not. BUT, despite her imperfections, Christina's performance is overall a triumph - even this skeptic had chills during "If They Could See Me Now," partially because of everything she went through to be giving this performance. Her presence and embodiment of this character is beautiful, and she has fantastic chemistry with Denis O'Hare who isn't getting enough credit for his performance filled with excellent comedic timing.
Applegate is far from the worst thing about the production. She does, in many senses, carry it. The bare-bones material is so strong; it's a good, decently solid, old-fashioned(ish...) musical, but this is a revival that's gone wrong in so many places, I think - or, to phrase better, since this is the first production I've ever seen of Charity, things that could've been done better.
I don't think I've ever been much of a fan of Wayne Cilento's work, but I think he was a pretty wrong choice to choreograph this show. I've always found his style awkward, and a bit weird, to be completely honest, though it's not all that much of a bother in something like Wicked or AIDA; Wicked is a fantasy, with no real-life time period, for lack of better explanation, and AIDA's time periodization was already far enough off the deep end (in addition to the story being fairy tale-esque anyway), that Cilento's choreography style at least sort of worked. In Charity, it doesn't feel like it fits the time period at all; I would've liked to see choreography that was a bit jazzier, or something. Cilento's work looks too robotic. For the record, the choreography in the show for individual actors, esepcially for Applegate, is passable, and more... "normal," I suppose. But his ensemble work is all too bizarre, and ends up looking sort of muddy.
My other major complaint was about the costumes, particularly those of the female ensemble members. I felt like the production could've gone with something a bit more subtle and classy, a la Chicago. The bright, flashy colors with modern, cartoony patterns and feathered hats just rubbed me the wrong way. I suppose they're not totally out of question for 60's attire, but I felt like they were portraying a very exaggerated, too-stereotypical 60's scene, and just looked silly.
Overall, though, because the original material is so well-written, I did enjoy the show a lot. The book is quite funny, the music is famous for a reason, and for the most part, it's well-staged. I'd certainly recommend seeing it, for a fun time.
Updated On: 6/30/05 at 12:42 AM
