Guys and Dolls Review Posts go here!- Page 6

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 5:08pm

Good for them!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 5:19pm

I will be vilified, but couldn't one elephant in the room be the show itself? Does anyone else think GUYS AND DOLLS is much harder to pull off as "fresh" in 2009? It has one of the perfect scores of the American musical theater, every number a gem. So maybe leave the always singable songs in the piano bars a while. The primary colrs cartoon of a book not only creaks in places, it takes a long time to tell a story built around silly, very low stakes. On we go, to the sewers, to Havana, and while it has its charms, it's shockingly precious in places, too cute by half. I've seen about 8 major productions, enjoyed some, and checked my watch often at others. It's one of the hardest piece of material to pull off at any time, let alone 2009/ Its casting requirements are unique -- in a way, all 4 leads are character parts. I would listen to just about any recording, but sometimes just seeing the costumes -- all those garish suits,ugh -- makes me want to stay away from it in the theater. And yeah, the 92 production was just about ideal. I'd much rather see THE MOST HAPPY FELLA, but hell, we've had two of those in the past 30 years.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 5:20pm

As long as they get by. I figured they'd hold open until at least the Tony noms.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 5:30pm

The creakiness of the material, the length of time it takes to tell the story, etc. all showed up in this production.

[RyToast1]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 5:40pm

My favorite part of the NYT article about the show staying open...

"The producers were also discussing how to market the show, given the dearth of positive blurbs from critics that usually run in advertisements."

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 6:52pm

As soon as producers issue statements saying they vow to keep a show op[en, it's sure sign that it will close sooner rather than later.

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 6:56pm

How is it a sure sign?

[Paul W. Thompson]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 7:23pm

I have not seen this production, and I confess that my position this whole year has been a big "why?" I just never felt that this revival was a good idea, given the (relative) fresh memory of the Prince/Lane revival.

But, having appeared in three productions of the show in my early days, it makes me wonder, how exactly can you mess up "Guys and Dolls"? If you just trust the material and do the characters and the jokes and the whole Runyan thing, the show takes on a fairy tale Manhattan life of its own and charms the pants off of audiences.

Whoops, maybe I just answered my own question. Trust the material, do the characters..........
Updated On: 3/2/09 at 07:23 PM

[MamasDoin'Fine]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 8:01pm

oops!
I bet they wish they had brought the stella Donmar production over from London now!
That production got rave reviews and pulled in stars like Patrick Swayze, Ewan McGregor and Jane Krakowski to fill the Piccadilly Theatre for 2 years.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 8:04pm

At least they can pull quotes about Mary Testa. She seems to be the only thing about the production getting decent notices.

[nlm]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 8:25pm

I'll bite, I honestly thought Lauren Graham would be panned more than she did, she actually faired better than some of the others (yes she got the pan in some of the publications, but not as many I thought she would). I thought Kate would survive more than she did.

The rest of the reviews though, pretty much said what I thought (after going away to think about the show and not my initial first night comments, etc).
Updated On: 3/2/09 at 08:25 PM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 9:05pm

This whole mess may - and I have no proof of this - simply have been a case of "Why bring the Donmar production here and have to share the profits with them?"

If that is the case, the question posed has been answered.

And for those who say the material is dated, there is now a wealth of material from the Donmar production on youtube. Go watch the Havana scene which is great (wonderful choreography featuring the understudies, imagine how good the real leads were) and especially the performance of "Sit Down Yo're Rocking the Boat" which really does outshine the Walter Bobby version from '92.

AND Ewan McGreggor and Jane Krakowski and for a while Patrick Swayze. It makes this show look like community theatre with decent choreography.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 9:10pm

I said it in my review and I'll say it again, I would have MUCH rather waited for the London production for years than have this extremely dull and lifeless production open (what seemed like) rather quickly.

I'll wait years for a fantastic production of GUYS AND DOLLS than wait a week for a boring one any day.

Updated On: 3/2/09 at 09:10 PM

[nlm]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 9:13pm

Forgot to mention in my above post that the Donmar production is great, the Australian production which was held last year and will again be staged starting this week for a return season used the Donmar production format. As allofmylife highlighted, their Havana number is a major standout in the Donmar production.

I'll raise this question, can a company prevent more than one staging of their version at the same time (concurrently)?

[sabrelady]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 9:16pm

I hafta agree w all the complaints about the projection/set. Felt like I was in a bad video game. I actually had to cover my eyes and look away, I got so dizzy w the movement. (and not in a good dizzy).
And what was that weird white fur coat Platt(?) wore running out of the Mission crap game?

Lauren Graham was sweet, kinda Betty Hutton meets Judy Holiday.
Oliver Platt has said he plays Nathan like a schlub and I agree. Worst. Gambler. Ever.

Bierko was adequate. He and Jennings -Grant had this strange on/off connection .

Choreography and the dancing rocked and I really like the orchestra.
I think those who believe the strength of the G&D name will keep it running have a valid point.
My only real complaint is that Forbidden Broadway is no longer around to puncture the overweaning ambitions that pass for Des Mc Anuff's direction.

[boyfromoz2]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 9:17pm

The Australian production IS the Donmar production, with a stellar Australian cast. While in Melbourne in mid 2008, the show was billed as a pre-Broadway tour. The show has now moved up to Sydney and is indeed opening this week. How sad to think that this amazing production will probably never play New York

[nlm]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 9:18pm

The Australian production IS the Donmar production, with a stellar Australian cast.

That's what I stated above and agree is brilliant. Seeing it for a fourth time (that version) in Sydney next week. And agree with the rest of your post. I'm also waiting for Jamie Lloyd to be pinched by Broadway because his direction is superb for such a young director.

With the Broadway production, honestly even with the cast they have now, they could have worked well in the Donmar Production. Personally I'm putting the blame on Des more than anyone else since at the end of the day he's the director.
Updated On: 3/2/09 at 09:18 PM

[boyfromoz2]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 9:21pm

I'm totally jealous!! I saw it in Melbourne twice last year and absolutely loved it. Sadly I'm not in my hometown of Sydney this year and won't be able to catch it.
Is it the complete cast from Melbourne at the Capitol? I know Marina, Shane, Ian, Lisa, Gary and Magda all came up, but are all the supporting characters (like Wayne Scott Kermond and the guy who played Arvide) the same as well? The Melbourne cast was PHENOMENAL!!

[nlm]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 9:24pm

Yep complete cast is coming up including supporting actors and ensemble (seriously need to start a thread in the WE forum for the show to avoid heaping it all on here).

Updated On: 3/2/09 at 09:24 PM

[boyfromoz2]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 9:28pm

nlm: new thread on WE board coming right up :)
https://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=992057&dt=2&boardid=3 Updated On: 3/2/09 at 09:28 PM

[TimeSquare3]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 9:28pm

DEAR LORD IN HEAVEN!! WHY DID YOU GIVE US THIS A CURSED PRODUCTION!?!?!? Des should be lynched.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 10:16pm

At least Adam Feldman's TimeOutNY review starts with an entertaining parody lyric:

When you see a guy heave a long-winded sigh,
You can bet that he’s coming from Guys and Dolls.
When a bum buys tix that a bum can’t afford,
It seems fair that the bum get something less rum
On the way called Broad-.

When a movie slob gets a leading-man job,
And you wish they had gone through more casting calls:
Call it dumb, call it clever,
But it’s a so-so endeavor--
This uneven revival of Guys and Dolls.

Guys and Dolls

Updated On: 3/2/09 at 10:16 PM

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 10:36pm

Just for contrast, thought I would re-visit the Times review of the Lane/Prince Guys + Dolls (1992).
Frank Rich on 1992's G+D

[justbecause]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 10:40pm

jordongrl ~ I remember reading in your blog that you enjoyed G&D and thought Lauren Graham was really good.

Why bash it now?

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 3/2/09 at 10:44pm

Because she just realized Graham'll be competing with Alice Ripley for the Tony and didn't want to give her new arch-nemesis any more help. Whatever - we all know Allie Trimm is taking it.

Or she's just a bandwagon jumper.