Encores’ THE LIFE - Performances & Reviews — Page 3

Uh that Artistic Director conceived and led Public Works. That's how she got that job.

And if you mean Porter, he's been directing for years now and is quite famous.

I do agree that thus far, her tenure has gotten off to a rocky start. But there’s time to course correct.

UWS10023 said: "When you read the Porter article in the program it is evident that he was the driving force behind the changes and his plans which were very specific were approved by the Cy Coleman estate. So to be fair one would have no idea how much the artistic director was involved in the process. I imagine Billy is a hard person to say no to. But I guess at the end of the day she would have approved the changes."

The fact that it comes on the heels of another badly received show is the problem.

“Does it even sound like Coleman anymore? Also no.”

For Encores!, that is absolutely unforgivable.

"I watched with envy as some of the audience left at intermission."

I'd expect that on a message board, but in a review? Ouch, indeed.

"Ultimately, it's obvious that Porter wanted to turn The Life into something that it's not, and the show itself, while not particularly well-built, is strong enough to resist it at every turn. The push-pull is particularly disastrous in the music department, where conductor James Sampliner has rearranged Coleman's big-band score with a more Funkadelic feel. Groovy? Certainly. Does it sound good? Hell no. Does it even sound like Coleman anymore? Also no.

The new orchestrations render the music unintelligible (the never-ending ballads suck the air right out of the room), and the band is so loud that it throws the cast off (Kai Harada and Megumi Katayama's sound design makes your ears ring). More than once, the ensemble had trouble keeping up with the tempo, and the leading actors often found themselves with a surprising amount of difficulty getting to the right notes. They literally can't hear themselves."

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Lear D. is one of the best directors working today.

My GUESS is that the mandate for popular shows (like Into the Woods) and slightly more modern shows (like The Life) came from the people she reports to. What once started as a way to keep the lights on during dark weeks at City Center is now a major source of income, with the potential of Broadway royalties if a show moves. Encores probably accounts for more than 50% of NYCC's earned income, even though it's only 3-4 weeks of the year.

Encores has had plenty of awful shows in the final years of Jack Viertel's tenure, too. The thrills and surprises became rarer as the years went on (Most Happy Fella, Superman, The New Yorkers, Grand Hotel) and some of the older, clunkier shows just couldn't translate well to modern eyes. And when you have 2 weeks of rehearsal, you're severely limited in what can be changed if it's not working in a studio run-through.

So I don't think Lear can be to blame entirely. They also have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many cooks in the leadership kitchen now. But hopefully she and the folks working for and above her will learn A LOT from this season and can be given the space to try again next season, with hopefully better shows and productions."

Very good points. I will say, though, that she has been the sole person behind the mission creep. She's 100% content (if you believe the press and interviews she's done) completely changing orchestrations, saying that old shows don't work for audiences anymore, etc.

And the fact that they only have 2-3 weeks to put something up isn't an excuse for the actors not being able to hear themselves over the music.

I mean, the data is there: the older shows Encores was doing did not appeal to mass audiences on the level that City Center brass wanted. Can't remember the last time I sat in a full house there, and a lot of tickets have been discounted to $25 or comped over the years. Unfortunately, the newer shows in the current season have not translated to sales either. The reality is probably that there just isn't an appetite for a 7-show run of a lot of these lesser-known titles in a house of that size. Fewer performances of each title means lower earnings potential.

Whether the opinions are organic to Lear or something that she has adopted from the leadership and is sticking to the "party line" is something we may not know until she's gone from there.

Also: Certain directors and actors work well within Encores. Other people just need more time. People who come out of summer stock generally fare well. If you want to be successful at Encores, it's almost as important to be able to "play the game" as it is to be talented and have a singular vision.

Yeah, I agree with you. But there's no reason to screw around with the original orchestrations. There's no reason the sound should be at 42. And someone should have taken a look at what Billy Porter was writing.

I'd like to see Encores! get back to putting on shows as they were originally made.

Updated On: 3/17/22 at 11:53 AM

I could have seen this working had Lear deBessonet and Billy Porter had time to do actual community engagement with sex workers. It might have given this new take both an authenticity and a sense of humor. But that could never have been done in the short production and rehearsal time. This all feels like artists and artistic missions at painful cross purposes. Still, reading about the cultural warfare over this production is less painful than reading about actual warfare.

When discussions about Encores! seasons crop up it's often claimed that they've run out of shows to do. While that's basically true in a sense, I don't understand why there isn't a willingness to revisit shows that they've done? Especially with this new approach? It's like like Fiorello! and Out of This World have been seen a bunch of times elsewhere since Encores! produced them. Why not cast them non-traditionally, write new books, but keep what's great about them the same? It seems like it would be a great place to put old shows in conversation with new ideas while keeping the majority of the score in tact? Would the core audience base really object to seeing One Touch of Venus again or would they argue 26 years is too soon?

Anyway. I realize that they HAVE repeated a few titles but in those cases the casting and production was fairly traditional and not terribly interesting.

I’m fine with Encores doing “recent” shows- hell, flops from the 90s and 00s are now 20-30 years old. Chicago was done at Encores about twenty years after it debuted.