I rarely post reviews here of the shows that I see, but this thread makes me really angry so I'm going to. First of all, people COME HERE to read reviews that will help them determine what shows they should spend their $100+ on, and not all "pieces of art" (that made me laugh out loud) deserve their cash. If I can steer someone away from wasting a ton of money to see this disaster, then I consider it a public service.
Here is what I think of the new musical "Glory Days":
1) No, the sets and costumes are not good. Well, the costumes are fine, I guess, but ultimately unremarkable. The set is completely thoughtless: a wall of lightbulbs, the only purpose of which is to occasionally backlight the actors in corny tableaus, and huge metal bleachers upon which the actors scurry like retarded chimps in a maddeningly unnatural manner throughout the show's duration.
2) No, the score is not good. It's monotonous, and most of the lyrics are contrived; often, they don't even suit the melody and seem to be stuffed awkwardly into a preconcieved and ill-fitting musical structure. And JESUS CHRIST! THE MUSICAL DIRECTION! This show merely confirmed for me that I am completely over pop-Broadway vocal stylings. I'd have payed anyone in that theatre $20 to sing a single note with vibrato. And/or without an unnecessary riff.
3) No, the book is not good. There is no real plot or conflict, and, honestly, no one cares about the issues that these people are whining about. The pop culture refences and "19-year-old" lingo fall flat, and the humor is absolutely anti-witty. Somehow, this piece manages to stride headlong into EVERY SINGLE pitfall of young writing: incomplete themes, forced dialogue, erratic structure, generic characters, the inability to create depth in a "slice of life" piece. And what sucks is that there IS a way to correctly portray this demographic and stay true to its inherent angst, immaturity, and confusion. There were pieces in my freshman year Playwrighting course that were more deserving of a Broadway production.
4) And finally, no, the acting wasn't good. To be honest, the actors didn't have much with which to work. But they also didn't go out of their way to rise above the material, which has proved time and again to be the saving grace of shows with some similar issues (read: "Bare"). Most notably, Andrew Call was so spastic that I couldn't even look at him without feeling overwhelmed with irritation; sucks because he's pretty and has a nice voice. (Now that I think about it, he probably snorted some lines before he went on; I know that that would be the only way that I'd make it through this show.)
In any case, I think that ITF's rant on the second page has valuable points. It's certainly a testament to the indefinitive nature of a single critic's views; however, I don't buy the whole "don't come on the board and trash a show because someone from a different background might see things that you didn't". No. If I think a show is an utter waste of time and money, then I have the right to tell people for (in my opinion) their benefit. And the sooner this amateurish trainwreck leaves Circle in the Square in lieu of a more deserving show, the better.
"Goodness is rewarded. Hope is guaranteed. Laughter builds strong bones. Right will intercede. Things you've said I often find I need, indeed. I see the world through your eyes. What's black and white is colorized. The knowledge you most dearly prized I'm eager to employ. You said that life has infinite joys."
Updated On: 4/28/08 at 02:51 AM
