Gigi Previews- Page 6

[Judith84]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 12:30pm

I was planning on rishing but gave in and bought tickets for Saturday's matinee. Does anyone know if Vanessa and Corey stage door for matinees? 

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 12:43pm

If Cott performs the title song anywhere please share. That was a highlight. 

[de_lovely]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 1:50pm

^ Agreed, that is the performance I'm anxiously awaiting. But I kind of doubt it will ever be chosen. First of all, it doesn't feature Vanessa Hudgens, who they want to make sure everyone knows about. And the second, the song itself is kind of a spoiler? (if you are naive enough to think all that pink advertising with hearts doesn't equate to love story...)

Oh well, usually my favorite songs performed on talk shows never seem as magical as they did in the theater.

[marknyc]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:02am

Saw this last night.  Enjoyable, but with some significant drawbacks.  Interesting that the women, especially Victoria Clark and Dee Hoty, are great, whereas the men are lacking.  Corey Cott is too callow as Gaston, and Howard McGillin brings little to the role of Honore, especially when he's competing with the ghost of Chevalier.  But nothing can explain the change to the ending.  The film's final scene is perfect - one of the best in all musical films, I think.  Why they felt the need to dilute such a wonderful ending is beyond me.  But I think the show will please people who have not seen, or don't really remember, the film.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 11:11am

"Why they felt the need to dilute such a wonderful ending is beyond me."

 

I think that "they" were going for the same thing that the Cinderella team was going for - to tailor an existing tale to be more palatable for the teenage girl market. This isn't a Gigi for adults, but rather for a less sophisticated audience, an audience with no interest in how things were different in another time and another place, but who prefer a Happy Meal version - plastic, American, familiar, and highly simplified.

[dfrillsnedit]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 12:31pm

""Why they felt the need to dilute such a wonderful ending is beyond me."
 
I think that "they" were going for the same thing that the Cinderella team was going for - to tailor an existing tale to be more palatable for the teenage girl market. This isn't a Gigi for adults, but rather for a less sophisticated audience, an audience with no interest in how things were different in another time and another place, but who prefer a Happy Meal version - plastic, American, familiar, and highly simplified."

I saw the show on Friday night, and lord does this paragraph PERFECTLY summarize my feelings.

I had grown up with the movie, seeing it countless times with my grandparents. Ever since then, I had always wanted to see it on stage, with all the glitz, charm and beauty that the film version offered. Instead, the show that I ended up seeing, felt like the most rushed, hack job of an adaptation I've ever experienced. 

Granted, I did like some of the changes. "Thank Heaven For Little Girls" was much less creepy here than it was in the movie, so that I appreciate. Making Gaston's lady friend have singing lessons rather than ice skating was fine. Even Victoria's version of "Prayer For Me Tonight" was beautiful. But shifting "I Remember It Well" to the park rather than the beach seemed pointless, along with the reprising "I Don't Understand..." with the same lyrics word for word as before. 

Also, did anyone feel that the jokes were pretty flat? The majority of the audience I was with (save my friends and a few people) were cricket style silent throughout the majority of the evening. The only time the audience fully expressed any sort of reaction was during the title number, for which I did think was the highlight of the entire production. The worst of this was during the "slide show" sequence, which I personally think needs to be deleted ASAP. 

Otherwise, this production didn't live up at all to the nostalgic connections I had to the movie. Not that it had to be the same, but the feeling felt cold, and plastic, as said above. Never thought I'd say that about a Lener and Loewe show.  

 

[newintown]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 12:37pm

I must confess total bewilderment at how anyone could find Chevalier's "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" to be "creepy" in any way. The lyrics, if one is actually listening to them, clearly state that he loves little girls because they grow up to become women; the character has no pederastic interest in an affair with a little girl.

In its revised version, though, the song is about absolutely nothing at all, except as an excuse to give the old gals more stage time.

I suppose that, if the song is inherently creepy when sung by an adult man, when sung by Gigi's grandmother and great-aunt, it becomes creepy and incestuous and sapphic...

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 12:37 PM

[broadwayfan24]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 12:42pm

As someone who hasn't seen the movie and only knew two songs before going to see the show, (The Night they Invented Champagne, Thank Heaven for Little Girls) I really enjoyed it. It was delightful. A nice show where you can escape for 2.5 hours and just have fun with it.

However, me not seeing the movie or knowing the show beforehand may have a lot to do with my opinion. I don't have the nostalgia that other people on this board have.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 12:45pm

Can someone refresh my mind and remind me how the movie ended...I have seen it but not for a long time.

Regardless, I didn't like the ending of the play...at all. It was very uncreative and blah.

 

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 1:38pm

I also haven't seen the movie and I actually didn't know a single song from the show, maybe that's why I loved this so much. I don't think I'd watch the movie because it can't be compared with this magical Broadway show.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 1:58pm

"I don't think I'd watch the movie because it can't be compared with this magical Broadway show."

Well, it did win the Oscar, you know.

Not being in the dark about either version, I would  recommend revising the quote above to more accurately say that the pedestrian Broadway version can't compare to the classic and exemplary film.

Just my opinion, mind you.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:11pm

>In its revised version, though, the song is about absolutely nothing at all, except as an excuse to give the old gals more stage time.<

In the new version, it becomes a scene between the two women and their differing views for Gigi's future.  Alicia sets her sights on Gaston and sees Gigi's potential.  Mamita still sees Gigi as a little girl and an unlikely prospect to "win" Gaston.  To say it is about nothing at all is not true.  

>Can someone refresh my mind and remind me how the movie ended...I have seen it but not for a long time.<

In Colette, the story ends immediately upon Gaston's marriage proposal.  In the movie, Gaston is stoically silent after the scene where they storm out at Maxim's, drags a wailing Gigi up the stairs to Mamita's apartment, and then asks Mamita for Gigi's hand in marriage. Mamita says "Thank heaven," Chevalier picks up with ..."for little girls" etc. in the Bois de Bolougne, and we see Gigi and Gaston ride off.  In the new version, Gaston and Gigi leave Maxim's, discuss that unhappy experience, she moves to end their relationship, finding the role as his mistress impossible for her, he proposes marriage and they waltz to "In this Wide Wide World".  

 

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:19pm

I'm not saying one is better than the other, I am just saying that I loved the show so much I have no desire to see the movie. FYI: An Oscar, or a Tony or whatever doesn't mean it's "good" and also you are smart and you know better than comparing a movie to a Broadway show. There's no comparison. But of course, you're always allowed to express your opinion. Don't ever stop! :)

[newintown]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:22pm

"In the new version, it becomes a scene between the two women and their differing views for Gigi's future. Alicia sets her sights on Gaston and sees Gigi's potential. Mamita still sees Gigi as a little girl and an unlikely prospect to "win" Gaston."

 

That may be true, but I certainly didn't see it; with no lyric changes, that interpretation is all sort of applied, not inherent. Neither specifically says anything that reflects the motivations you describe.

 

All I saw were two adept performers mildly chuckling as they sang nostalgically about little girls.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:37pm

"FYI: An Oscar, or a Tony or whatever doesn't mean it's "good" and also you are smart and you know better than comparing a movie to a Broadway show."

I think that whenever a famous source is adapted, those who are familiar with the source are unavoidably going to draw comparisons between the two works. And I can't really think of an argument that champions not being familiar with anything, particularly when one has the choice either way.

And, although you make a good theoretical point about the relationship between Oscars and quality, I can't think of any films that won Best Picture that I think are bad.

[marknyc]

Posted: 4/6/15 at 2:53pm

Let's be clear that none of us bemoaning what was lost from he film are doing so out of "nostalgia".  The film is a great work, and amazing in that they were able to discuss what was essentially prostitution in 1958.

Of course, a film must be adapted for Broadway - but if you are going to change important scenes, the changes must be at least as good as the original.  This ending was far weaker than the film's moving final scene (which was far better than the original 1948 French film's ending).

Some of the dialogue changes are also surprising in that we seem to be able to be even less frank about the show's topic in 2015 than in 1958.  Gaston's offer that "She will be spoiled like no woman has ever been spoiled before" is changed to "She will be cherished like no woman has ever been cherished before."  Why?

And changing Gaston from an aging, bored, wealthy playboy to a young man interested in new technology makes no sense at all.  The whole point of the original is that Gigi teaches him that there is more to relationships than contracts and gossip.  Here, Gaston has no transformation at all.

The point is that some things are great as is and are tampered with at your peril.  Those who have not read the book, seen the French film, or seen the MGM film don't know what they're missing.

Updated On: 4/6/15 at 02:53 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 1:04am

Just quickly, because I'm really tired tonight, but I saw it tonight and absolutely adored it. Vanessa was so charming and really just the highlight to the best revival I've seen so far this year. 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 11:16pm

The New Yorker's blog had an interesting, and slightly odd, piece about the history of the property and an interview with the woman who wrote the new version posted today http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/good-clean-fun-a-revival-of-gigi

[acekatherineplumber2]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 11:49pm

Man, the show clips video that Broadway.com posted today of the show are positively breathtaking. I've watched it three times already!

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 11:49 PM

[VotePeron]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 11:57pm

I saw this Saturday night and nearly loathed it. It is so poorly paced, inanely directed, and the book and score are ridiculously bad. It is so freaking LONG. The lead actors are giving wonderful performances, and the ensemble numbers are great.

The 3 minute promo video released today makes me angry. It advertises a show that simply does not translate into a well put together 2 hour and 45 minute piece.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 12:26am

I've rarely disagreed with something as much as I do with what you just wrote.

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 12:41am

I am on the fence with this one, but am giving it a chance in May! Reviews should be interesting. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 1:47am

^exactly how I feel! It'll have to wait until til May...my theater dance card it full for April.

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 2:15am

ljay889, dramamama611

I feel the same...

[Pammylicious]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 2:08pm

"
And changing Gaston from an aging, bored, wealthy playboy to a young man interested in new technology makes no sense at all.  The whole point of the original is that Gigi teaches him that there is more to relationships than contracts and gossip.  Here, Gaston has no transformation at all.
The point is that some things are great as is and are tampered with at your peril.  Those who have not read the book, seen the French film, or seen the MGM film don't know what they're missing."

 

This bothered me the most.  Gaston as a pisha  20-something year old.  How in the world does he have hardcore mistress experience? A man set in his ways.  Gaston is a boy in this production not a man.