I Married an Angel @ Encores — Page 2

People forget that the mission of Encores! is to revive musicals of the past that wouldn't necessarily be done today.  I'd rather have the chance to revisit the work of giants like Rodgers, Hart, and Joshua Logan than see another staging of Hair or Bye Bye Birdie. Hearing the "lost" orchestrations of Hans Spialek (a genius in his field) is worth the price of admission for me. My favorite Encores! presentation ever was Pardon My English, an "un-revivable" Gershwin flop that proved to be delightful—in spite of notorious flopdom and a completely insane plot.   If that's not "your thing," don't go.  I myself avoid Broadway's Jukebox Musicals, because I know they won't meet my preferences of what a musical should be. 

For years, aficionados for clamoring for Encores! to do The Golden Apple, then many chat board regulars trashed it.  You just can't win.

I Married an Angel is in the tradition of screwball musicals like the films of Lubitsch, Mamoulian, and Rene Clair.  Many were not what would be called politically correct today.  It's like analyzing the plots of Fred & Ginger films, picking apart their storylines, and not appreciating songs that were very popular in their time.
- Michael Colby

Updated On: 3/23/19 at 08:31 AM

Ludlow29 wrote:

 

"People forget that the mission of Encores! is to revive musicals of the past that wouldn't necessarily be done today."

Exactly. And I'm glad of it.

" I'd rather have the chance to revisit the work of giants like Rodgers, Hart, and Joshua Logan than see another staging of Hair or Bye Bye Birdie. "

I feel the same way, though I could happily sit through any and all stagings of Bye, Bye, Birdie.

"Hearing the "lost" orchestrations of Hans Spialek (a genius in his field) is worth the price of admission for me."

Ten times the price. Just ravishing. Silver, gossamer, silk.

And the score! Heavenly. Champagne and rose macaroons.

I am still walking on air this morning.

 

 

Michael Colby,

Encores’ mission has never been quite clear- at least in practice. They have put on both Hair and Bye, Bye Birdie, as well as shows like 1776 and Merrily We Roll Along that are revived all the time and do not need to be done at Encores.

I do think I Married an Angel is an appropriate choice for Encores, but if they’re going to do it must be cast to perfection. It was not sung well and they didn’t have the talent to pull off the speciality numbers in the Roxy dream sequence. If this is going to be my one shot to see this R&Hart curiosity, then I want to see it done well or don’t waste my time.

The programming at Encores has been very suspect lately. Why are they repeating shows like Call Me Madam which has already been done (and recorded) when there are so many other shows yet to be produced.

Some of their best stuff has been their Gershwin/R&Hart type shows. They are totally appropriate for Encores, but they fall apart like the tissue paper (or gossamer and silk as After Eight calls them) they are when performed this way. When you spill water on silk it is ruined.

---

Of course that is true, After Eight. I take responsibility for purchasing ticket before reading reviews, but when a show is only playing a handful of performance over a short time period there is no choice but to purchase tickets in advance.

I have always supported Encores and will continue to purchase tickets to all of their shows. I hope it’s not too much to ask them to cast and perform them well?

A friend of mine spoke to a certain higher-up at Encores during the run of the Call Me Madam about the casting of I Married an Angel and this person admitted they were having trouble casting the roles correctly. Shouldn’t there be more thought put into into the programming of these Encores seasons? Shows should be selected partly based on interested talent.

Encores largely relies on subscribers to fill the seats. People who will not wait for the reviews, but those who trust the people in charge to do program, cast and present the shows at a high quality. Usually Encores succeeds, but here the failed to deliver.

---

WhizzerMarvin:  You're right that the mission of Encores includes better known titles, as well as curios.  After all, their first show was Fiorello.  Like any theatre company these days, they need some box office insurance and will include, for example, 1776 and Chicago as guaranteed audience draws.  I was falling back on the mission of the company that preceded Encores, The New Amsterdam Theatre Company (of which I was a founding member). 

Where Encores has changed is going from semi-staged, book-in-hand, presentations to more fully staged and memorized events.  I wonder if this change has deterred some performers, who find it too difficult to master a role in so short a rehearsal time. Even doing a musical with script-in-hand can be daunting.   No one wants to look like Olympia Dukakis, who clung to her script throughout 70 Girls 70.

- Michael Colby

Updated On: 3/23/19 at 01:31 PM

I don’t have a distaste for “these shows.” I had a distaste for *this* show. I’ve seen several - though not all - Encores offerings since moving to the city over 10 years ago and have at the very least been able to appreciate the glorious sounds of scores I would never have heard live otherwise. Just because some of us don’t appreciate this specific show doesn’t mean we should stay away from Encores altogether. It means we expect more from a company that usually does a pretty great job of making even the most unproducable of shows delightful.

Yes, Sara Mearns is a lovely dancer. Yes, the score was played beautifully by the always dynamite orchestra. But the choreography was nothing all that special, especially compared to Bergasse’s glorious On the Town choreography, and the cast was pretty meh across the board. I will attest to very much enjoying “How to Win Friends and Influence People” and wish the rest of the production had been as excitingly performed and that the rest of the company had been as committed to the ridiculousness as Hayley Podschun.

Updated On: 3/23/19 at 02:07 PM

Encores is a subscription series, so while people do "have a choice," a lot of them are taking it on faith that the Encores folks will come up with something excellent.  And often they do.  But not so much this time.

I went into this show expecting a slight book with a lot of entertaining dancing.  I got the slight book, some beautiful dancing, glorious music played by an incredible set of musicians, and gorgeous costumes, but the flip side was wooden acting and an uneven cast.  Sarah Means moves beautifully, but her vocal delivery is bland and boring and I felt most of the rest of the cast was trying, but the energy just wasn't there.  Except for Hayley Podschun as Anna Murphy and Ann Harada in a tiny part.  Tom Robbins was funny as Szigetti, but I felt he lacked chemistry with Nikki M. James.

And can someone explain the purpose of the Roxy numbers to me?  I just rode them out and waited for the final reconciliation between Angel and Willie.

Oh, and was anyone else there Friday night hearing the elderly lady in the rear of the orchestra making loud comments during Act 2?

In regard to "At the Roxy Music Hall:"
I can't remember which, but either Joshua Logan or Larry Hart called the "Roxy Music Hall" section a "divertissement"--i.e. a diversion from the crazy plot complications for a bonus sequence.  The segments were all Ballanchine's satires on dance and other entertainment of the era.  Like Larry Hart's jokes in the lyrics to "Roxy Music Hall," it would be difficult—maybe impossible—to translate the humor to anyone unfamiliar with the targets covered.   I can't comment on the current staging, since I'm seeing the show tomorrow.  I know in the 3 incarnations I witnessed (two of which I worked on), this sequence was pared down to minimal, in part because the music wasn't available.  But I look forward to hearing the recently restored music tomorrow.

Both shows this season have been poorly directed and have displayed very little creativity.

I heard through the grapevine that they knew this show was in trouble and they brought in other people to help the director but it was too little too late.

A Director said: "Ludlow29 said:

Ah, yes, the Dorothy Hart biography! In it she claims Noel Coward was the Show Doctor for I'D RATHER BE RIGHT. Do tell! The book for the show was written by Moss Hart and George S. Kaufman. Their style is very different from Noel Coward's, so why bring in Coward to work on this musical? Where did you find this information Mr. Just A Researcher? Did you and Ms Hart make things up?"

Where in the world does someone come up with this stuff?  Dorothy Hart never mentions Noel Coward as a doctor of I'D RATHER BE RIGHT.  She writes: "Cohan [George M. Cohan, the show's star] tampered with some lyrics about his friend Al Smith."

I was just out of college when I worked on Mrs. Hart's book.  I wouldn't dare tell her what to write.  The only thing I mentioned were typos in the lyrics when I saw an early copy, and Mrs. Hart told me I was overstepping my authority. - Michael Colby

 

Hey Encores! How about doing another Rogers and Hart work, a little thing called "I'D RATHER BE RIGHT"  Geirge M Cohan was the original star and he was up in age then.  So why not ask Joel Grey to be the star.  He's the right age and he done Cohan before.  Sound good?

Updated On: 3/25/19 at 11:03 AM

Wow! Thanks for the news! This is wonderful.