Posted: 12/1/21 at 10:01am
I didn’t feel that it was light on music at all. For the most part, the songs as listed in the Playbill are often quite lengthy sequences.
Posted: 12/1/21 at 10:25am
Auggie27 said: "The show was workshopped multiple times, two major ones, once with Ebersole and once with the late Marin Mazie. It's been around since at least 2015. I believe the NY Times piece said it had at least 7 readings. Whatever the perceived flaws, the development process was not sidestepped; Lapine, Korie, Kitt are about as A-list as musical theater gets, all of whom work hard at craft issues. One can imagine many wise allies giving feedback. Scanning the score and song list, it doesn't strike me as having a great deal of music. (Does it feel that way in performance?) That's a curiosity in light of the length.
I'm going to the matinee today and look forward to joining the discussion."
I had no clue Marin Mazzie did this! I'd love to hear any recordings of her signing this score!
Posted: 12/1/21 at 10:30am
It’s long on book rather than light on music.
Posted: 12/1/21 at 11:31am
There is nothing "reaching for the stars" here. In fact, this is about as generic a structure as I have seen. The first act has three scenes, one for each star. Then there is a scene they meet. The second act has the exact same structure, but they add the scene in the ocean (I won't spoil that).
If you want "reaching for the stars" look to "Lady in the Dark" or "Cabaret." Doing LSD is not bold, especially the way it is handled here. We are told in one scene the effects will take about 20 minutes to kick in, but then 2 minutes later she is high. There is a level of suspension of disbelief here that pushed me far beyond an acceptable threshold. It felt lazy, not bold.
To the person who asked about the show being light on songs...yes. It struggles to be a play with music vs. a concept musical. Some of the songs are lengthy musical sequences, especially in Act Two. Other parts of the show have lengthy book scenes filled with historical context meant to educate the audience about who these people once were historically. Again, super lazy writing.
Has anyone been able to figure out what any of that clip/clop choreography was about? Please enlighten.
If the form of the show was dictated by the content, then we would have had a much more wild, exciting structure. Instead, we got a musical informed by therapy, not LSD. I'm not asking for 2 hours of trippy lights and talking mushrooms. But certainly, there is a more exciting and more specific way to tell such an interesting exploration of the human psyche.
Posted: 12/1/21 at 12:21pm
Mitch101 said: "We are told in one scene the effects will take about 20 minutes to kick in, but then 2 minutes later she is high. There is a level of suspension of disbelief here that pushed me far beyond an acceptable threshold. It felt lazy, not bold.
If the form of the show was dictated by the content, then we would have had a much more wild, exciting structure. Instead, we got a musical informed by therapy, not LSD. I'm not asking for 2 hours of trippy lights and talking mushrooms. But certainly, there is a more exciting and more specific way to tell such an interesting exploration of the human psyche."
Yeah, the LSD trips weren't trippy. There were mild dream sequences. The first scene it was pretty clear that the character was starting to Trip because a Biblical character walked in (ridiculous), but other times it wasn't even clear the LSD had purportedly taken effect. Just a waste of a concept entirely.
Posted: 12/1/21 at 7:31pm
Back from the matinee. I'll say: the glass is decidedly half full.
To my ears, the score is mostly ravishing, so much so, I wish more of the whole piece had been composed and sung. The score falters only when Lapine over sells its lyrical points in dialog or emphatic statements designed to make sure We Get It. My biggest issue with the show lies there: its odd redundancy after so many workshops. But I hear Maury Yeston's influence far more than Sondheim, both Nine and small pieces of Titanic in particular. From me, if any body cares, high compliment, since Yeston's music is among my favorite. The title song is lovely*, but it's not the only melody that lands. I loved the rangy effort to give the three stars different stylistic lexicons, and -- a sigh of relief -- the show is pop power-ballad free. I haven't heard a new musical in months other than Six, and this one is a real score. You don't have to love it to acknowledge its thoughtfulness and musicality. Kitt had a very specific job to do here, and to me he's suceeeded: it's quite beautiful.
My gripe, echoing others, is Lapine's distrust of the audience. He seems most afraid that we won't get his concept, or the storytelling's plot thesis. Therefore, too much is handled via exposition dumps. The good news: the dumps are usually elegantly staged, so they slip by in light and shadow (haunting, all). But if only Lapine had allowed us to play catch-up in places rather than be ahead of the characters. Everything that might be subtext gets announced. By the time Claire is explaining why her daughter's trippy presence upsets her, I thought "please trust us just a little more."
Mostly, the physical production -- and I was 9th row center on TDF, sad -- makes up for a helluva lot. Two people I was with said they were so caught up in the music's elegance and stylish staging they didn't concentrate on how hamfisted the book ends up in places. I agree. I wish the score did more of the job. But now I'm redundant.
The four stars -- yes, four, I agree (Bravo, Sella) -- are superb. Yazbeck doesn't impersonate Grant, and it takes a minute to adjust, but he breaks our hearts. His performance is the surprise: we expect him to knock us out with the dancing, but he creates a closed down and locked up man who only awakens late in the show in a sequence I won't spoil. The actor who plays his younger self throughout has a challenge, and it's deeply moving. The other two are predictably terrific in individual set pieces, Haddon-Paton especially nuanced as Huxley. Cusack -- I'm a fan -- nails the music and if she sometimes seems to have a bit of Carlin Glynn's Miss Mona in her performance, it's all charming.
I'd say, unmissable for musical theater devotees. I'd like to go back after the holidays, if the show can survive what promises to be a very mixed critical reception. It needs raves; I fear it will have few if any. But I stand by my glass half full take. Can't stop thinking about it.
*the final reprise was cut for good reason: it's not where the characters end up, and romanticizes LSD past the point of the drug's usefulness in the story. It should not be in a reprise.
Posted: 12/2/21 at 7:51am
In contemplating the ways the second act disappoints, I returned to the Lapine oeuvre in my head: I was a preview of Sunday in the Park the second week, and can back up the Peters comments about seeing people streaming up the aisles as she sang (I was there for one of the first performances of Children and Art, if memory serves). Lapine backs himself into fascinating corners and sometimes fixes them by providing opportunities for ravishing music to do the heavy lifting (Sunday) sometimes polishing them up so that vivid world building alone satisfies (Woods' sequel for archetypes, skewering presumed resolution of their crises), and sometimes just can't figure out solutions to problems perhaps baked into a show's DNA (Flying).
Once he gets these three people together, he can't find a way to make the intersection of strangers' lives feel important enough, despite the sung epiphanies about individual losses. These folks just don't matter to one another, and maybe that's the central problem in an unsatisfying irresolution. Their issues are with their demons, not each other. It also explains why the reprise of the title song had to go: it takes us back to the end of the first act -- creating a sense of circular storytelling rather than catharsis and resolution -- and perhaps only added to the audience shrug. A pretty song has to do more than be replayed, and they're clearly wrestling with a way to put a period on the evening. .
Posted: 12/2/21 at 2:47pm
@Auggie Very thoughtful commentary! Thank you. I appreciate the explanation of why a reprise of the theme song would be inappropriate. It still feels like there needs to be a better way to end the play.
Posted: 12/2/21 at 10:42pm
Auggie, I was at the same matinee. Your post is very well written and insightful. My thoughts....not so well written. I really for the most part liked the first act. I thought it went by quickly. I loved the title song. The young boy who plays young Cary is doing a great job. 2nd act just dragged and dragged. It really started to get dull. Other than seeing Tony in a bathing suit. Can you confirm, that the main actor playing young Cary, not the understudy was on at the matinee? I'm pretty sure he was. I have to confirm the info for someone else.
Posted: 12/3/21 at 10:00am
No understudies were on the board by the box office, nor were there program inserts or announcements. It's an AEA requirement to post or call replacements, so it's safe to say that we saw Atticus Ware. Who is extraordinary, by any definition. Still in previews, the show's fluid at least until a few days before the 12/13 opening. In general, covers don't fully rehearse a show until after opening, though the pandemic may be a factor here. No doubt a child's performance -- particularly one with so much athletic dancing -- needs careful attention. Young Ware is breathtaking in the role of Archie.
Posted: 12/3/21 at 10:33am
First time I've had an opportunity to post since seeing the show on Wednesday night. What an absolutely lovely show! My theater date and I both loved it! It didn't drag for us at all. In fact, we were sorry it ended so soon. The reprise of Flying Over Sunset was out, and I agree that it would have made for a better ending. Still, I loved almost everything else about it... from the staging, to the sets, to the lighting, and, of course, the music and performances! All glorious! I can't sing its praises enough! So glad I take what's said on this message board with a grain of salt. I don't know what the professional critics will have to say, and, frankly, couldn't care less. Except, of course, for the fact that good notices may improve ticket sales and possibly result in the show being transferred to another house once its limited engagement at Lincoln Center has ended. And for those here who claim that there is no common thread between the characters other than the fact that they trip on LSD... you've got to be kidding me! Do you need a house to fall on you? The show is about loss and loneliness and regret, all traits that the three (actually four) main characters share. It couldn't be more clear. Please, if you're on the fence about it, ignore all the naysayers and SEE THIS SHOW! You may or may not enjoy it as much as I did, but buy a ticket, go, and decide for yourself. It's a beautiful piece of work!
Posted: 12/3/21 at 10:38am
Thanks for the info, Auggie. Someone who used to post here, his daughter was Atticus's dance instructor. He was asking about him and I wanted to confirm that is who I saw. He is very good in the role and am curious when people mention Tony's tap number that they are not including his praises.
Posted: 12/3/21 at 10:42am
Great post, Lucious. Correct about the common trait of loneliness and regret. Even I caught that. 
Posted: 12/3/21 at 10:47am
Luscious said: :"And for those here who claim that there is no common thread between the characters other than the fact that they trip on LSD... you've got to be kidding me! Do you need a house to fall on you? The show is about loss and loneliness and regret, all traits that the three (actually four) main characters share. It couldn't be more clear."
AGREED! I was shocked to see how many were saying this. The themes and character arcs are extremely clear, and these is much more to the story and the connection between the characters than just LSD.
Posted: 12/4/21 at 8:27am
According to ATC Tony was out last night.
Posted: 12/4/21 at 9:44am
:"And for those here who claim that there is no common thread between the characters other than the fact that they trip on LSD... you've got to be kidding me! Do you need a house to fall on you? The show is about loss and loneliness and regret, all traits that the three (actually four) main characters share. It couldn't be more clear."
AGREED! I was shocked to see how many were saying this. The themes and character arcs are extremely clear, and these is much more to the story and the connection between the characters than just LSD.
It's not that the theme and character arcs aren't clear. They are clear, but they just aren't substantial enough to make one emotionally care much about the characters. Again, I liked it, but the people around me at Lincoln Center thought it was meh. But maybe it will find an audience. I'm looking forward to the critic's reviews and hearing about any additional changes that have been made since I saw it.
Posted: 12/4/21 at 10:51am
I agree that the themes were clear- in fact, explicitly stated at the end of the show in “The 23rd Ingredient”. But I agree with pmondrian that they’re also very thinly explored (and it feels like that explicit statement was tacked on to force the show into a more coherent shape).
This show isn’t unclear or hard to grasp. It could actually benefit from more opacity.
Posted: 12/4/21 at 11:08am
Having "clear themes" does not make a show successful, nor does adult subject matter or inherent seriousness. Shows are successful when they are dramatic, compelling, and memorable. Flying Over Sunset is none of these things.
Posted: 12/4/21 at 1:14pm
The poster objecting to our disappointment: re-read some of our posts. My problems with the show's second half are not about the disparity between members of the trio. Their differences are drama fodder. My objections focus on how little the second half mines the collision of sensibilities, and -- more importantly -- the trauma in their origin stories. In particular, Luce, having already explicated the pain of losing her mother and daughter in car accidents, seems poised to deal with the emotional abandonment by her husband. She's in the presence of two charming men, one a global sex symbol, yet when she trips, she again bumps into hallucinatory imagery that conjures her duel tragedies. It's the theatrical redundancy that troubled me. We wait for one of these men to pierce her trip and play a role in her ultimate catharsis. Yet they exit the stage, and two (expertly acted and sung) female stand-ins re-appear for a new confrontation with the same painful losses. I don't understand why Lapine believes that material advances the therapeutic premise of the throughline.
And I agree with Kad: the show's at its best when Lapine isn't hammering home his ideas, underlining and italicizing what he dramatizes. As I posted above, he doesn't trust the audience. I feel like much of the exposition dump is the result of questions after workshops. But the show doesn't want from information; it needs more mystery, more elliptical discussion, not more concepts nailed to the Beaumont floor. I'd like to leave the show with questions, not only the answers both spoken and sung.
Posted: 12/4/21 at 1:54pm
I think Lapine’s thesis and intention with this show are clear and noble: he clearly believes, as many scientists and researchers do, that there is benefit to use of psychedelics, and their use should be destigmatized and laws should be reformed to allow further research and eventual use. But, if anything, he treats this thesis too preciously and cautiously. And, in doing so, as Auggie succinctly puts it, he loses the mystery and magic that draw people to psychedelics in the first place.
Posted: 12/4/21 at 2:13pm
binau said: "According to ATC Tony was out last night."
He's apparently out of the matinee today as well.
Posted: 12/4/21 at 4:39pm
Is he back in tonight?
* Update: Yazbeck is out of tonight's performance again.
Posted: 12/4/21 at 7:48pm
Sunday in the Park with George, Into the Woods, next to normal, Grey Gardens, War Paint are among my most favourite shows of all time. I think LSD as a subject matter is highly interesting as is the concept of having them sing only while high. I wanted to love this show and literally flew mainly to see it. Yes, it’s slightly disappointing because my expectations were so high that this would be one of the best shows of all time. However, I would say that it has its moment and Carmen Cusack in particular gives what I think is a Tony-worthy performance with the right competition. She delivers the title song and the act two 11 o’clock with the same kind of vocal ability and emotional acting performance as Christine Ebersole in War Paint or Grey Gardens.
Updated On: 12/6/21 at 07:48 PM
Posted: 12/4/21 at 9:48pm
JaredBway said: "binau said: "According to ATC Tony was out last night."
He's apparently out of the matinee today as well."
confirmed. Danny Gardner rose to the occasion.
Posted: 12/5/21 at 1:08am
I saw this afternoon’s performance and I gotta say I was so pleasantly surprised. The things that need fixing have all been said, but I had a lovely time. Found the first act to be quite wonderful and while I questioned choices in the second, I was never bored as others have mentioned.
