Ever After at the Paper Mill — Page 2

This show is just the definition of basic. There's some good stuff (the music, the leads), but the rest is so mediocre. The drama isn't dramatic enough, the comedy isn't funny enough.

The score: There are some fun melodies, the opening is cute. But then every song kind of sounds like the same song, which isn't terrible since I happen to dig those melodies, but nothing really stood out. The Prince's big song was a bit of a let down musically. It just didn't really have any sort of catchy tune or say anything. Just kind of bland filler. Both Seibert's "Who Needs Love" and Ebersole's "After All" were great solos, but they didn't quite seem suited for either's voices. Seibert's last note in "Who Needs Love" didn't quite land like I know she can do. Their duet together in Act 2 "It's Done" is quite nice.

The Lyrics: The score is just super wordy. Everything is kind of speak singing. It almost felt sung-thru. None of the jokes in the lyrics could land because they were too quick or too many other words surrounding the jokes.

The Book: The book is pretty lame. There's literally no comedy. I mean, we're given a chubby Stepsister, but she's sweet, she's not funny. The bigger girl dates the black guy? I mean, c'mon. That's funny. But not here. It's just bland. Everything is bland. Oh, Cinderella's locked behind a door! Drama! Oh wait, it's easily fixed. The Prince is mad! Oh wait, he's over it. I was never wondering what was going to happen, etc. There was nothing exciting going on. The only time I was genuinely surprised is when Cinderella and the Prince are stalked by some gay, French gypsies? They have a lively dancer number, and call her their queen, for some reason? I wasn't sure why that was even in the show? Is that suppose to be the comedic moment? Was that their "Master of the House" cause we (the audience) didn't get it.

The staging: Now this is where it all just dies. The staging is so terrible. It felt like high school direction. Characters were just walking around themselves. No one had any purpose in any scene. The aforementioned door is upstage, but it's just a wall, we can see there's nothing behind it. I know, suspend your disbelief, but c'mon. You couldn't find anywhere else to put the door? And the choreography was just a hot bland mess. It all just felt so basic.

The actors: No one was bad, but no one was really a stand-out either. Siebert was probably the best. I just wish the show allowed her to be a little more quirky in the role. She was trying to throw in some stuff, but the show doesn't really allow for a ton of personality. Her singing was great though. Ebersole was fine and selling the comedy as best she could, but I wanted her to be bitchier. She's the stepmother! C'mon! Bring the bitch. Davi, as her daughter, was bitchy, but kind of a predictable bitchiness. I wasn't surprised by her choices. Funke wasn't left much to do. Charl Brown, I thought, was just offensively bad. His acting was just...terrible. He didn't seem like he was in the same play as everyone else, and he looked like he felt awkward. Kenna-Bolger was great, but didn't have much to do. Snyder was charming, but again, I wish we could have seem more of his chemistry with Siebert because I really feel like they have a great report. He cracked on his big solo and missed a few dance steps in the big dance number and looked a little flustered during it, but he got through it. After it was over he and Margo looked at each other and were just laughing. That felt like a genuine moment, which I wish we had more of.

The set: You can see it in that picture above, and it's that for the entire show. The back wall has projections on it, but the projections are terrible. The set was boring, and everything is played downstage center, so there's not much to look at. I was quite surprised. Nothing about it said "We're in France." I wanted more scope. I mean we're talking about castles and horses and carriages and whatnot, and the whole set felt like they had leftovers from Hunchback and just left them. I was quite disappointed in the design. Very lackluster and uninspired.

Costumes: The costumes felt very cheap to me. Hem lines were all wonky and wavy (I watch Project Runway), and there was never a wow moment. I was waiting for that moment when Cinderella walks out and the audience just gasps at her beauty, but we never see that. Margo's a pretty girl, but we never get a chance to take in a transformation.

Does Papermill have a very rushed rehearsal period? I know it's the first real preview, but it felt very...not ready? Like it seemed like they had just learned that dance? To be missing steps, etc. I don't know. The whole thing felt messy.

I've liked the music i've heard that's sad its not very good. And such a shame they've been working on it for years.

I'm sad to hear it's so mediocre. I really like the movie and thought it could be a really enchanting elegant musical. And the cast is so talented.

Do they still use the Brothers' Grimm framing device from the film?

"I'm sad to hear it's so mediocre. I really like the movie and thought it could be a really enchanting elegant musical. And the cast is so talented."

Yes, because *all* opinions on this board equal fact.

If this doesn't make it to Broadway i know a lot of people will be disappointed. This show has been worked on for like ten years.

JayG 2: To answer your first three questions: Because they're in the film.

"Why are contemporary names, such as Danielle and Nicole, given to the heroine?

Nicole isn't a contemporary name. Danielle is out of place, since that variant wasn't really popular until the 20th century, and even before then, other feminine variants of Daniel weren't common. As for why they chose those names--probably because the original writers wanted teenagers in 1998 to connect with the character, so giving her names that were (in the case of Danielle) vaguely historical sounding but also modern would help with that.

I haven't seen the show but:

In the film, Da Vinci is in France because the king is commissioning him for something; Da Vinci is attacked by gypsies while traveling and they steal a painting. Henry comes across the immediate aftermath while running away and Da Vinci asks him to get the painting back, which he does. The two strike up a friendship and he becomes like Henry's mentor, particularly in regards to finding love. The line in the film is: "Then I shall have to make you wings," in response to Danielle saying "A bird may love a fish, but where will they live?" when she is hesitant about going to the ball after he frees her.

In the film, the ball is a masquerade, so the addition of the wings is because everyone else is in a costume. Is it still a masquerade in the show?

I don't know that there's a particular reason he was in the film over an original character, other than to give the film more of a historical feel. Da Vinci does draw a portrait of Danielle in the film that was inspired by a real life Da Vinci piece, 'Head of a Young Woman.'

I saw this a few hours ago, but I'm too tired to write a review, plus I'm writing this from my phone. But to answer some questions, I think it helps if you have seen the film. The dialogue in the musical wasn't word-for-word from the film, but the majority of the dialogue comes from the film. The film itself, while having some humor, wasn't a comedy. It's a romance/drama. The musical to me felt like something for 12 year olds and up. I think the musical really needed the Brothers Grimm framing device. In the film, the Brothers Grimm visit an old Grande Dame, who tells them that their version of Cinderella got it all wrong. In fact, Cinderella was a real person called Danielle de Barbarac. The Grande Dame proves this by presenting a portrait of Danielle (painted by da Vinci) and Danielle's silver-satin slipper with a glass heel. The movie then flashes back to the 16th century. At the end, the movie closes with the Grande Dame saying that Danielle was her great-great grandmother, and by the time of the French Revolution, the romance between Danielle and Prince Henry was reduced to a simple fairy tale, Cinderella. I think this needed to be in the musical so that people will understand that they are seeing the true story of Cinderella. Without it, it's just another Cinderella adaptation. In fact, the last line of the film is "The point, gentlemen, is that they lived." This should be the point of the musical too.

Leonardo is there because Ever After is supposed to be historically "accurate," so it used real people and real events. In real life, da Vinci was a guest at the royal court of King Francis of France in 1516, and he stayed there until his death in 1519. King Francis was a real person and he also had a son called Prince Henry. However, Henry didn't marry a commoner named Danielle, but his favorite mistress was called Diane.

Oh, as for the meaning behind Cinderella's name in this version: In Ever After, Danielle often read by the fireplace. While reading, she would fall asleep by the dying embers, so the soot and cinders from the fireplace would stain her clothes and face. This led to Marguerite calling Danielle Cindersoot or Cinderella.

Updated On: 5/24/15 at 02:05 AM

yikes paper mill strikes out again 0-3 for pre-broadway premieres this year huh.

And I don't believe "Hunchback" or "Ever After" ever actually stated that they ever intend(ed) on a Broadway run. "Hunchback" was promoted as being part of the US Premier while "Ever After" is being promoted as the "World Premier".

In fact, wasn't it just "Can-Can" that promoted itself as the Pre-Broadway run with the intention of a future Broadway production? I didn't see "Can-Can" but I clearly remember reading that plans were already secured for a Broadway run.

"That's the same meaning as the most recent film version of Cinderella. So that's nothing new. "

Wasn't the recent Cinderella movie made 17 years after "Ever After?"

There have been 8 million versions of Cinderella since the beginning of storytelling. Expecting something shockingly new is unrealistic.

That's the same meaning as the most recent film version of Cinderella. So that's nothing new.

Like another poster noted, Ever After came out in 1998, while the new Disney Cinderella came out in 2015. The new Cinderella borrowed a few things from Ever After, and so did the recent Rodgers and Hammerstein Broadway version. It's just that you haven't seen the film yet. The Cinderella story has been in existence for centuries, so looking for something new is sort of moot. I will say that the Ever After film was the first Cinderella story that I know of that told the story from a very unique point of view, which was making it a historical romance. Also, it is the only Cinderella story I know where the heroine got her awful nickname because she read by the fireplace, instead of either just sitting or sleeping among the ashes.