GROUNDHOG DAY Previews- Page 5

[Laurapattifan]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 10:35am

QueenAlice said: "Barrett Doss is lovely. She reminds me of a young Audra McDonald. There is no way she is getting a Best Actress nomination for this. Sorry.

 

"

Haven't seen it yet, but she's not featured? 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 11:04am

The source material is challenging. This story doesn't have a traditional drive, a quest, a moral dilemma, or a need for a protagonist to solve a problem. The problem -- stuck in this day -- is solved, but not through a lot of decisive, protagonist-generated action. All of those issues are reduced, and/or marginalized in service of a brilliant conceit.  The romance -- lifeblood of musical comedy -- is muted, back-burnered, and kicks in very late in the film. So, the adapters had their hands full, trying to musicalize a story that is circumstantial and not about fixing a solvable crisis the audience finds relatable. If that makes it anti-cookie cutter, okay, fine. It just makes it hard in terms of emotional investment.  If that means a more non-linear take produces innovative returns, terrific. Fingers remain crossed.  But a story without narrative drive can quickly go adrift in a musical comedy. Every minute of stage time is valuable. It's not about innovation or breaking away from a boilerplate mold. It's about keeping people participatory in the storytelling.

[jbird5]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 11:14am

Laurapattifan said: "QueenAlice said: "Barrett Doss is lovely. She reminds me of a young Audra McDonald. There is no way she is getting a Best Actress nomination for this. Sorry.

 

"

Haven't seen it yet, but she's not featured? 

 

"

Barrett is co-billed with Andy Karl- but in smaller type. Their pics are by themselves in the playbill. So yes she is the lead.

I guess an obvious cut is the opening of Act 2. I feel bad for the actress if that happens. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 11:26am

Auggie- this is an excellent analysis of what I thought was wrong with the production. I've never seen the movie but it sounds like the source material has lots of traps and I think they fell into every one of them bringing this to the stage as a musical. 

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 12:50pm

 

These reports are interesting to me. This is one of my most anticipated shows of the season. I know the movie by heart. I got an audio boot of the London production and really liked the score (as a Minchin novice – I haven’t seen or heard MATILDA or any of his other work), to the point where I just put it on and listened straight through like a cast album, despite its so-so quality. So, having enjoyed the sound and then hearing that the production values are fun/spectacular and great things about Andy Karl (who seemed a very odd casting choice at first), I feel like I’m primed for a good night in the theater.

For those who have seen it and not enjoyed it or found it a mixed bag, do you think trimming it by 20 or so minutes might make any positive difference? I think one of the reasons the movie works so well despite the nontraditional narrative trappings that Auggie points out is there’s about 20 minutes of setup/intro, a 20 minute softening/denouement, but that middle hour moves like a shot once the plot device kicks in. I don’t think musical theater is kryptonite to that structure, especially when comedy is involved.

Updated On: 3/18/17 at 12:50 PM

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 1:13pm

Auggie27 said: "The source material is challenging. This story doesn't have a traditional drive, a quest, a moral dilemma, or a need for a protagonist to solve a problem. The problem -- stuck in this day -- is solved, but not through a lot of decisive, protagonist-generated action. All of those issues are reduced, and/or marginalized in service of a brilliant conceit.  The romance -- lifeblood of musical comedy -- is muted, back-burnered, and kicks in very late in the film. So, the adapters had their hands full, trying to musicalize a story that is circumstantial and not about fixing a solvable crisis the audience finds relatable. If that makes it anti-cookie cutter, okay, fine. It just makes it hard in terms of emotional investment.  If that means a more non-linear take produces innovative returns, terrific. Fingers remain crossed.  But a story without narrative drive can quickly go adrift in a musical comedy. Every minute of stage time is valuable. It's not about innovation or breaking away from a boilerplate mold. It's about keeping people participatory in the storytelling.

 

"

Guess you can say the same to Sunday in the Park

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 1:34pm

 I would not compare the structure or characters in Groundhog Day to those in Sunday in the Park with George by any stretch of the imagination. There is a singular drive to the character of George and that is to be an artist – "to break through to something new, something of his own." And that quest is surrounded by people who doubt him, and personal relationships that are fraught and complicated to say the least.

 

The main problem with the Groundhog Day as I see it is we do not care about the central character. He is nasty and not likable. It doesn't help that he is surrounded mostly by unlikable cartoonlike characters in a recurring situation that is absolutely maddening to watch over and over again. 

Perhaps im just not the target audience for this, but I found it mostly mean-spirited, filled with boy's grade school level  humor and unappealing until the last half hour-  which as I said earlier felt like they were from a completely different musical. Some clever staging for me doesn't save a musical in which I just don't care about the central character or the world he inhabits.

 

But to bring up Sondheim,I understand the whole reason GD probably got turned into a musical in the first place is because Stephen Sondheim in passing once said he thought this could make a compelling musical. I don't think he meant to literally take the movie beat by beat and drop in on the stage. Sondheim probably had some inner conception of how the material could be rethought to work as a musical, but we will likely never know how.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 2:18pm

 

Actually, he said the idea intrigued him, but the movie was perfect and could not be improved.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 2:29pm

QueenAlice said: "Sondheim probably had some inner conception of how the material could be rethought to work as a musical, but we will likely never know how."

I think he specifically said that what excited him was the possibility of writing a show in the form of theme and variations, which would have been a particularly apt form for Groundhog Day (or Sure Thing, which was originally rumored to be his project with David Ives).

 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 2:33pm

Sondheim is a smart man! To answer your other question Growl, I don't think trimming would fix (for me) the central issues with the piece but it couldn't hurt. This should not be a nearly 3 hour musical.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 2:53pm

I wouldn't dare reductively distill "Sunday...", a masterwork, down to a single idea. So I won't  compare the shows.  But I will say one thing it has that the film of "Groundhog" doesn't quite have: a central character with both an obstacle and a strong, understandable goal. And that's why we go on the journey.  Part of "Sunday's..." genius, of course, is its ability to take an internal process -- the artist's -- and present it, dramatize it, externally, and theatrically. In some way, it's still mysterious to me, how it works, and I've seen it half a dozen times (going against 4/16).  I hope "Groundhog.." finds its way. The film is so beloved, not a small number of people will love to hear it sing. If they end up satisfied, it will find its audience I believe.   

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 2:59pm

 

QueenAlice said: "This should not be a nearly 3 hour musical."

With that, I agree!

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 3:11pm

Growl- in my opinion, the single most valuable thing the team could do at this point is to ADD a song- something explaining why the central character is such a jerk and what we wants. This is musical theatre 101 and unconventional subject matter or even unconventional structure doesn't really forgive a show not giving us this information. Going back to the comparison with Sunday, we at least learn a great deal about why George is the way he is through the other characters in the play (his mother, his girlfriend, his colleagues). Here we know absolutely nothing.

 

As others have said they could cut 15 minutes easily with superfluous  character songs

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 3:27pm

Ben raved about it, especially Andy Karl - A lot more than I did.

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 3:39pm

I didn't know Sondheim had found GD to be an interesting plot for a musical, but that piece of information is fun to know in light of the fact that he's adapting this Bunuel piece about a dinner party that essentially keeps repeating itself. The dinner guests can't seem to escape this never ending soirée just like Phil can't seem to escape this one day!

[Kimbo]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 3:41pm

jbird5 said: "I guess an obvious cut is the opening of Act 2. I feel bad for the actress if that happens."

 

That won't happen.

From The Hollywood Reporter: "Perhaps the most Minchin-esque touch is "Playing Nancy," in which ditzy small-town beauty Nancy archly deconstructs her assigned dramatic function as "the perky-breasted, giggly one-night stand," a minor player in the lives of more important characters. A refreshingly bold opener for the second act, this witty ballad is a smartly self-referential commentary on sexual politics both on and offstage, like a built-in Bechdel Test. A few more similarly inspired touches might elevate Groundhog Day from good to great, but respect is due for these gently subversive twists on the cinematic source material."

From the Evening Standard review ("Why this Hollywood blockbuster is just what London's theatre needs" –  "a throwaway thought in the film about being one of life’s also-rans is amplified in song rather touchingly by Nancy."

From the Guardian:  "Rita is one of the beneficiaries of the musical format, which gives her room to reveal in song emotions that would have no other place in the story.  That goes double for Nancy, a minor character who gets a solo at the start of Act Two – “Playing Nancy"– in which she challenges her own slender role in the narrative."

Let's also remember the cast album has already been recorded and is being released in 3 weeks. At this point the score is the score, love it or hate it.  And with that, here's Ben Brantley on the musicalization, from his rave in London (one of several US critics to love it over there), one of many to note how the musical improves upon its source material: 

"As he demonstrated in his score for “Matilda,” Mr. Minchin is an inspired mixmaster of darkness and brightness. Even this show’s early numbers, extolling the homespun virtues of small-town life with harmonic “aahs” and folksy bluegrass chords, have a depressive undertow. And when Mr. Minchin feels like signaling angst, he brings on the electric guitars and vocals for Mr. Karl that bring to mind Michael Stipe losing his religion.

It is cool (as in hip) and warm (as in cuddly); it is spiky and sentimental. It transforms its perceived weaknesses into strengths in ways that should disarm even veteran musical-haters. You know that whole trapped-in-time element of the plot, wherein everything is repeated ad infinitum? Isn’t that what often drives you crazy about musicals, having to listen to the same damn melodies and watch the same dance steps over and over?  Well, Mr. Warchus and company know all about those fears and make cunningly sadistic use of them."

 

Updated On: 3/18/17 at 03:41 PM

[CT2NYC]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 4:04pm

I haven't seen the show yet, but I'm planning to, with some reservations. The success of the movie really hinges on Bill Murray's performance. The role seems tailor-made for him, to the point where a lot of the dialogue sounds ad libbed. For all intents and purposes, Phil Connors IS Bill Murray. So, when another actor takes on a role like this one, he needs to do one of two things: 1) try to impersonate the original, such as Alex Brightman channeling Jack Black in SCHOOL OF ROCK (which I thought was pretty successful, BTW), or 2) make the role his own, to the point where the final result is equal to or even surpasses the original film version, such as Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in THE PRODUCERS. The latter is far more difficult, and if even moderately unsuccessful, inevitable comparisons to the film actor will arise. Here's hoping the very talented Andy Karl is able to put his stamp on this role.

Updated On: 3/18/17 at 04:04 PM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 4:07pm

I will say that London is a very different climate from New York these days. Audience tastes are likely going to be different as well.

[perfectliar]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 5:22pm

Kimbo said: "Let's also remember the cast album has already been recorded and is being released in 3 weeks. At this point the score is the score, love it or hate it. "

This doesn't mean anything. Though rare, scores can change after being recorded. 13 immediately comes to mind

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 5:23pm

Has anyone sat mid-extreme house left or right for this show and can speak for the sight lines? Thanks!

[ZellMorrowsPledge]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 5:56pm

Anybody have any pictures of the merch?

[ryankon]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 6:04pm

Queen Alice, I agree with you.  I'm a feminist.  Haven't we seen enough stories of bad behaving men seeing the light at the 11th hour?  I think we've moved beyond that place.  He's a boor.  He (sort of) changes his behavior.  And we need this story for what reason?  The whole experience made me uncomfortable.   There is certainly a great deal of talent on that stage...but my days of accepting scraps from men behaving badly are blessedly over.  I love musical comedy.  Didn't find much here.  

[jonah3500]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 6:04pm

When I saw the (failed) first preview for Groundhog Day, I was in the seventh row on the very left, and the view was fine, didn't miss a thing. Of course I only saw the first 15 mins of the show, but the seats were fine.

[sciencegirl]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 6:12pm

ClumsyDude15 said: "I won lotto for tonight (Saturday) and you get a code to use for Ticketmaster and when I logged on there was rear orchestra and center and side mezz. I chose center mezz Row M. 

 

Just clarifying - was the total price of your winning lottery seat $40?  Did it include the ticketmaster fees?

 

[binau]

Posted: 3/18/17 at 7:56pm

The sales for this look TERRIBLE..in a season with so many great shows happening, most of which seem to be doing just fine at the moment (surprising: who would have thought WAR PAINT or COME FROM AWAY would have a strong start) - is Groundhog Day going to be (surprisingly) that doesn't make it?