FALSETTOS Previews — Page 9

congrats to Umoh!! Saw this on Playbill and it's quite fascinating.



http://www.playbill.com/article/stephanie-j-block-and-understudy-sick-actor-steps-in-with-script-at-falsettos

Any news on whose been in or out of the show this week? Are Stephanie and Brandon still out?

On a side note - I bought one excellent 3rd row center ticket to Falsettos for a friend on Saturday, Oct. 29 at 8 pm. He can't go now, so I am looking to sell it at a good price. PM if interested.

Updated On: 10/20/16 at 03:33 PM

EthelMae said: "Has anyone used the digital lottery? I've tried and when I click Submit, the screen goes blank. No indication if you successfully entered it or not. Anyone else's input would be appreciated.

BTW, I've tried 2 different devices and the same thing happens.



"

The screen always goes blank for me when I submit but I always get an email confirmation regardless.

meaghan4162 said: "I was just looking at getting tickets and was wondering if there was any preference to sitting house left or right?



"

House left for sure. I was a bit too far on house right and couldn't see Andrew at all at the beginning of "The Games I Play"

Saw the show today and it was not terrible, but it is neither great. This new concept with the cubes, is pretty bad. Very distracting and messy. And what is up with the actors kicking pieces of cubes (furniture!) in anger? Breaking sets, flipping furniture and tables, is such amateurish "acting" and direction. The cubes feel silly, and at moments it looks like the actors are playing at building Lego figures. And the cubes are ugly, grey, blah to look at. It was a distraction, and it took a lot of time for the actors to move those things. And also at some point, it felt repetitive.

The new lyrics seemed unnecessary and made the show feel long, and overly sentimental. The set and the lights are ugly and make a messy staging, feel even messier. The direction is a disaster. Why would Lapine undo some great things in the original production, and go totally against something that worked... to now do something that doesn't feel like a solid concept, but rather an "expensive experiment". Very sad. If he did not a have a clear concept for the show, why do this show at all? Or why not let another director with a defined vision do it?

Still the show had some beautiful moments, and it does make you cry sometimes. On the acting side, Trina and Mendel stood out big time. The others, nah. I could not understand why was Marvin so angry at the top of the show, and then, when it made sense for the character to be angry, he became absent. The slap scene was so fake and had no tension at all.

I was also disappointed about Whizzer, who in this production comes across as a self-centered, self absorbed, capricious, shallow, narcissistic, pretty boy (the character changed when he felt ill). It was hard to sympathize with him, and I could not understand why would Marvin go for someone like that. His rendition of "You Gotta Die Sometime" was a timid self-acceptance of death, rather than a defiance of death that in other productions makes the song so gripping and powerful. Maybe some of these actors could study deeper the period in which the show takes place, to realize that at the time, people did not "accept" dying of AIDS. People fought very hard to find answers and stay alive.

Anyhow, I could go on forever. In summary, I was thrilled to hear the score live, but hugely disappointed with the production. It could benefit from major trimming, a faster pace, more simplicity, refocusing some performances, adding some good old-NY-style neuroticism (that other than Mendel, everyone lacks in this production), and re-staging - including maybe finding another concept. I wish them luck, but this is a show that I will not revisit after opening night.

If anyone doubts how misdirected and mis-created this whole production is, just think about a moment when Mendel says "Teeny Tiny Band", and rather than pointing to the orchestra (which cannot be seen in this production), he points instead to his wedding ring. The audience goes like "what?". We could fill a page with more examples.

Updated On: 10/23/16 at 12:35 AM

I totally disagree. The cube set very well reflects the unstability of the relationships and mental status of everyone onstage and what's at the heart of the show: pure human emotions. It's easy to knock down because it is not really that strong. Also, the scene where they use cube pieces to build a new life beautifully captures the idea of building a life from scratch. The set only adds to the show, with the exception of the disappearance of cube in most of Act 2.

Updated On: 10/23/16 at 11:34 AM

I saw the "cube" as more of a puzzle. Pieces of a puzzle. Life's a puzzle. Sometimes the pieces fit, sometimes they don't. Sometimes life is neat and tidy and sometimes it's a real **** show, and everything comes crashing down. If you want big sets, glitz and spectacle, this isn't the show for you. If story, character and performance is what draws you to the theater, then don't miss it!

ETA: If I had paid attention to the negative criticisms in this thread, I would have missed out on one of the best nights of theater I've experienced in a long time. And this is coming from someone who saw and loved the original productions, but am not opposed to someone taking the material and reimagining it without ruining it.

Updated On: 10/23/16 at 05:13 PM

MazingerZ said: "If anyone doubts how misdirected and mis-created this whole production is, just think about a moment when Mendel says "Teeny Tiny Band", and rather than pointing to the orchestra (which cannot be seen in this production), he points instead to his wedding ring. The audience goes like "what?". We could fill a page with more examples. "

Er, in the matinee yesterday, the very first time Uranowitz says the line, he indicates the orchestra with his airplane landing lights and in response they held up cardboard cutouts of each band member and received applause. It was not until much later in the song when the line is repeated that he indicated his wedding ring- which is frankly a totally valid choice.

This was my first time seeing a production of Falsettos despite having known and loved the cast recordings for about a decade- and I took my mother, who went in knowing nothing about the show. She was extremely taken with it, and was blindsided and moved by the turn of events in Falsettoland.

It's interesting seeing the two one-acts put together- if Falsettoland's plot is straight line moving forward, March of the Falsettos is a series of dots that are generally going in the same direction. Falsettoland is more conventional in its structure, with clear story beats and cause-and-effect and dramatic build, whereas March of the Falsettos is weird and whimsical, full of digression without a clear sense of time or place, with a focus more on the characters' psychology than specific plot events- it's revealing that much of March of the Falsettos is spent on Mendel's psychiatry couch and the show namechecks Jung and Freud, but in Falsettoland, psychiatry is, save for a short scene, all but abandoned. Of the two acts, March of the Falsettos has the more sluggish pace, as Finn and Lapine are more content on circling around events than having them actually occur. This means we get lots of talk and little action. Some plot moments just seem, frankly, unearned- for instance, what exactly causes the final rift between Marvin and Whizzer? Some of this is the result of internal lyrical cuts- evident especially in the courtship of Mendel and Trina, which now misses the extent of Mendel frequently returning to the house over and over.

I'm surprised the set has been so divisive. I thought the multipurpose objects worked well- even evoking the furniture design of the period- and were handled ably; it gave not only a sense of the fractured story of the first act but the cavalier way the characters would act selfishly ("their toys are peoples' lives," as Trina sings). It is also telling that these objects go away for almost the entirety of the second act, when the story is far less fractured and everything is far more realistic. Lapine's directorial concept seems to treat each half as unique, which they very much are, but it would've been more effective to find a way to make the full two-act package more cohesive as one piece. The experimental emotive weirdness of the first act and the more conventional sentiment of the second needed to find more common ground for me, though it is undeniable that both acts, on their own, are effective.

The standouts in the cast for me were Block and Uranowitz; it was clear that Block was not in best vocal form due her recent illness, but she still managed to bring the house down with "I'm Breaking Down"- probably the best received number in the show. She's a warm stage presence, overwhelmed by the upheavals in her life but trying to put a good face on it for as long as she can. Uranowitz captures the neurotic menschiness of Chip Zien; well-meaning but lame, trying too hard but also uncertain of what he's doing. He's easily the most likeable character for me, perhaps because I grew up knowing a lot of Jewish men from Mendel's generation.

Borle acquits himself well, but manages to fade into the ensemble; his Marvin is more prickly and mean than a blinkered neurotic who does mean things sometimes. Rannells' Whizzer seems content to play the part of the pretty boy that Marvin often derides him as being, and it would have been nice to see more of the depth there, but Rannells is a charismatic performer who it's hard not to like.

Tracie Thoms and Betsy Wolfe are both delightful as the Lesbians from Next Door, but those roles are underwritten and fairly one-dimensional.

Overall, I did enjoy this revival. A lot more than this sounds, actually- as did my mother, who can relate to a lot of the events and circumstances of the musical. But as a two-act musical, it's flawed in a way that the production doesn't overcome. Worse, Lapine doesn't really minimize those flaws, and in some cases even leans into them by highlighting the differences in the two acts so distinctly.

I don't know how to sum it up. I liked it, I was entertained, and I was moved. But it's flawed and not for everyone.

Updated On: 10/23/16 at 06:23 PM

I have seen all parts of this show over the years, from the earliest incarnation, IN TROUSERS, through MARCH OF THE FALSETTOS, FALLSETTOLAND and finally FALSETTOS. Yes, I love the show, but I admit that I wonder how much resonance it has to LGBT or non-LGBT audiences who know little or nothing of the age of AIDS. For me, having lost my husband and most of my friends to AIDS, and having been a member of the NYC Gay Men's Chorus during this terrible time, it is impossible to watch this beautiful show without sobbing through a great deal of it. And I had the honor of sharing the stage with the four original leads when they sang with the Chorus and performed "Unlikely Lovers"; not a dry eye in the house.

Having said this, I did miss a few things this time around. Christian Borle is an amazing performer, but his lack of Jewish neuroses did detract somewhat. The show needed more of a center, although his playing of the late scenes was very moving, and his singing could not have been better. The rest of the cast was great, especially Block, Uranowitz and Rannellls.

Still think it's a great show, wonder what the reviews will be like. I admit it's tough to be objective...

Thank you, Mazinger, for a thoughtful and honest review. I think the power and emotion of the show itself is blinding some people to the messy flaws and miscasting of this production.

Going to see it again on Tuesday. My soul was shaking during What Would I Do.