Also, it's an older show in which during when it was written, it wasn't so much flawed as period. There's a clear difference between flaws and period. I understand this argument. (It's very hard for me to judge shows like FINIAN'S because I don't know whether or not to criticize the material; there's really nothing that can done about it. It is what it is.) But in this case, the book was tweaked and "adapted" by Arthur Perlman. And you could still almost hear it creaking. Even when it was altered, it still felt very old-fashioned. I get the whole period argument but the reality is that it's not 1947; it's 2009 and the show should be judged in the 2009 enviroment. I felt the same way about the last production of A CHORUS LINE. It felt SO 1975.
This is something that can be used to the show's advantage too. Take HAIR for example. A very period-specific show that, while feeling "old" in the greatest way possible, it still felt totally lively and relevant. Or SOUTH PACIFIC. This is the responsibility of the director, and in this case, the book (re-)writer too, and I feel like Perlman and Carlyle missed the boat. Sorry if that was so disjointed..ha.
But clearly most of the critics feel like this isn't a problem; or at least feel like the cast makes the production worthwhile. And you're obviously all entitled to disagree with me; it's a matter of opinion.
Updated On: 10/29/09 at 11:17 PM