ILLINOISE Reviews- Page 7

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/5/24 at 12:00pm

God that was beautifully written, Auggie. <3

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/5/24 at 12:06pm

The best use of the word ineffable I've ever witnessed.

[Bobster159]

Posted: 5/5/24 at 9:59pm

dramamama611 said: "I feel the same way. I think it IS the best new musical, by far - but fear it won't be recognized as such. In addition the lack of acting noms (and even the placement of Ubeda in supporting) are harbingers of that, and I think it being a limited run also harms it."

Regardless of the quality of this show, how are folks defining a musical where we're considering this one? Is Message in a Bottle at City Center also a musical (which, by the way, is excellent; I would argue better than Illinoise)? Are Matthew Bourne's works? Mark Morris's? ABT's? NYCB's? There are clearly blurred lines, but I'm struggling with how this isn't definitively dance theater. Is it the fact some of the music is sung? Plenty of narrative dance shows would never be called musicals that also have sung music.

I really wish the Tonys had a Best Entertainment category like the Oliviers. That way, we might get more shows like Illinoise/Slava's Snowshow/Cirque, etc., and we wouldn't have to shoehorn things into boxes they don't really fit.

[Robbie2]

Posted: 5/5/24 at 11:37pm

Hey, Tony Awards! It’s time to resurrect the Best Special Theatrical Event category

[kurtal]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 9:19am

As I've previously posted on this board, I love Illinoise. I do think it's going to have a hard time winning Best Musical for all the reason that have been discussed here.  Regarding what this show is -- I have had an easier time thinking of it as musical theatre but also am comfortable saying that it's not a musical, per se.  

[inception]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 9:56am

Is Martha Graham's Appalachian Spring a musical or a ballet?

While it also sold out its initial New York run in 1944, it never moved to Broadway, so audiences never faced this similar dilemma. Also it is significantly shorter, at just over 30 minutes.  But it unquestionably tells a clear story.

So is it a longer runtime, or the addition of vocalists, that turn Illinoise into a musical instead of remaining classified as a ballet?

Not having seen it for myself, it seems its definition as a musical came with its move to Broadway purely as a marketing ploy.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 11:35am

While it's far from the prototypical musical, Illinoise is clearly a show that tells a story through music, so I think it fits. If a production of La Boheme can be nominated for Best Musical Revival, I don't think it's a stretch at all to consider Illinoise for Best Musical.

Of course Contact is an even closer parallel, but I know there's lots of controversy around that so I'll distance myself from that comparison. 

[ACL2006]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 12:09pm

Contact really stirred things up when it won. And back then there was no social media or even message boards.

 

Illinoise winning would stir things up as well. Contact had no singing, but used tracks of classical and rock music. Contact had dialogue whereas Illinoise doesn't.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 12:34pm

I think Movin' Out is the best comparision (nominated as Best Musical) - as Contact (please correct me if I'm wrong) used previously recorded  music/vocals.

IF the Tonys still had a special theatrcal event, I wouldn't be adverse to Illiniose being placed there but would still be ok if it was place in musical  For me, it works fine to be categorized as a musical since it has a narrative, along with live music and singing. 

(Mentioned, likely again, Illinoise is by far, my favorite musical of the seasonl.)

[SisterGeorge]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 1:24pm

if you loved ILLINOISE in spite of not being a major dance fan, I would recommend trying Mark Morris' new THE LOOK OF LOVE if it comes to a theater near you. Perhaps not quite as deeply moving or profound, but equally sweet and beautiful and FUN! with terrific arrangements of Burt's best and awesomely performed live by a dynamic combo and vocalist. There's no through plot, but each number is an exquisitely told micro-story.

[Markie27]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 1:33pm

I also would like to make a a case about Illinoise being a musical.  We have to remember that unlike ballet or dance performances that have recorded vocals or live vocals from the orchestra, Illinoise three vocalists are PART OF THE CAST.  if you would check you playbills they are even have character names - Barsine, Nacna and Arctiini (named after families of moths). Even in the cast appearances these lovely talented “moths” are included (they’re the first in order) which acknowledges their presence in the story itself.  So yes like a true musical - the cast is singing… but only through these three moths. Like a narrator if you will. 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 3:26pm

So many of my absolutely favorite posters on this site have raved about ILLINOISE since its Armory shows, that my husband and I had no choice but to book great seats (Orch N 1, 3) for this on our whirlwind NYC trip last week. For context, we knew nothing of the score save the glimpse of it shown on the teaser clip on YouTube. And we're generally big fans of Mark Morris and Matthew Bourne's dance work.

Sorry to say... (yeah, that's all you need to read)... the show just left us so perplexed by the adoration. The music making was one of the best things to enjoy, great singers and instrumentalists, though the songs were never more than pleasant and the lyrics were mostly unintelligible. Fine set and lighting, but 90 minutes looking at that same graffiti'd wall up center grew tedious. The first use of those handheld LED balls was lovely; the tenth time? Meh.

But all would be forgiven if the stories moved us. It was clear watching the early soloists that we were being shown secondary stories, treading water till the leads would take over. Without context, we got too little info to enjoy most of them, although reading the song titles on the billboard helped on some. (Thankyou, John Wayne Gacy!) The appearance of politicians' faces was the only other clue of political protest beneath the surface. The choreography started off with promise, but the reliance on repetition as a trope meant less and less could surprise us as the show went on.

Which brings me to the truly perplexing tale of Henry and Carl. We groaned to realize this would be another gay kid in love with a straight boy story. Really? Does Carl ever indicate he loves Henry back? We learn Carl loves a girl who has her own tragic fate to endure. Eventually Carl will take his own final step in the story, urged on by 6 or 8 ... what shall we call them? Shadows of mortality? But why?? Was Carl responsible for what happened to the girl? Guilt-ridden? We just couldn't makes sense of the story we were shown.

Glad to learn Henry grows up and finds a beautiful gay man who will love him back, but we walked out of that theater with so many questions stuck in our heads (which the playbill booklet did little to answer). And the biggest question was: how did we see such a different show than the one you all so enjoyed?

 

 

[gibsons2]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 3:51pm

Someone in a Tree2 said: "So many of my absolutely favorite posters on this site have raved about ILLINOISE since its Armory shows, that my husband and Ihad no choice but to book great seats (Orch N 1, 3) for this on our whirlwind NYC trip last week. For context, we knew nothing of the score save the glimpse of it shown on the teaser clip on YouTube. And we're generally big fans of Mark Morris and Matthew Bourne's dance work.

Sorry to say... (yeah, that's all you need to read)... the show just left us so perplexed by the adoration. The music making was one of the best things to enjoy, great singers and instrumentalists, though the songs were never more thanpleasant and the lyrics were mostly unintelligible. Fine set and lighting, but 90 minutes looking at that same graffiti'd wall up center grew tedious.The first use of those handheld LED balls was lovely; the tenth time? Meh.

But all would be forgiven if the storiesmoved us. It was clear watching the early soloists that we were being shown secondary stories, treading water till the leads would take over. Without context, we got too little info to enjoy most of them, although reading the song titles on the billboard helped on some. (Thankyou, John Wayne Gacy!) The appearance of politicians' faces was the only other clue of political protest beneath the surface. The choreography started off with promise, but the reliance on repetition as a trope meant less and less could surprise us as the showwent on.

Which brings me to the truly perplexing tale of Henry and Carl. We groaned to realize this would be another gay kid in love with a straight boy story. Really? Does Carl ever indicate he loves Henry back? We learn Carl loves a girl who has her own tragic fate to endure. Eventually Carl will take his own final step in the story, urged on by 6 or 8 ... what shall we call them? Shadows ofmortality? But why?? Was Carl responsible for what happened to the girl? Guilt-ridden? We just couldn't makes sense of the story we were shown.

Glad to learn Henry grows up and finds a beautiful gay man who will love him back, but we walked out of that theater with so many questions stuck in our heads (which the playbill booklet did little to answer). And the biggest question was: how did we see such a different show than the one you all so enjoyed?"

 

We didn't see a different show. Many people beyond this board didn't enjoy this show and think it doesn't belong on Broadway. Its best musical nomination is so glaringly unearned, it's laughable. It's just that few people here know very well how to create a hype around a show they liked, that's all. We all are guilty of it when we want our personal favorite shows to succeed. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 4:11pm

Cool so next time you post that you like a show, we can turn around and completely discredit your opinion because “you want it to succeed”. Makes TOTAL sense.

[gibsons2]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 4:35pm

Jordan Catalano said: "Cool so next time you post that you like a show, we can turn around and completely discredit your opinion because “you want it to succeed”. Makes TOTAL sense."

Discrediting other people's opinions is everyone's favorite sport here, be real. Like I said, we all are guilty of being biased towards our favorite shows and will defend them till a closing notice. And that's cool. Art is subjective, we aren't affected by it the same way, and that's the way it supposed to be.

[Consistency]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 4:36pm

“Many people beyond this board didn't enjoy this show and think it doesn't belong on Broadway”

I haven’t seen “Illinoise” yet, but that statement could apply to virtually every show that’s ever had an audience of more than a few hundred people. It definitely applies to quite a few of my all-time favorites, like “Sweeney Todd” (which a coworker once declared to be “musical torture.”)

Doesn’t mean the fans are just “hyping it” or whatever - it’s just how art works.

[gibsons2]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 4:42pm

Consistency said: "“Many people beyond this board didn't enjoy this show and think it doesn't belong on Broadway”

I haven’t seen “Illinoise” yet, but that statement could apply to virtually every show that’sever had an audience of more than a few hundred people. It definitely applies to quite a few of my all-time favorites, like “Sweeney Todd” (whicha coworker once declared to be “musical torture.”)

Doesn’tmean the fans are just “hyping it” or whatever - it’s just how art works."

Illinoise is a show that belongs on a dance theater stage and not in a Broadway house. When you see it, you'll understand. It is not a musical. 

[Kad]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 4:54pm

Broadway has been home to dance, opera, variety performance, concerts, comedy, and more since the first theater opened. Illinoise is as much home there as anything else. 

It’s silly to insist on such a rigid, narrow definition of “musical theatre” - a term that has frankly always been rather porous, since the line between musical and play and operetta etc has always been rather poorly drawn. 

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 5:13pm

If anything, Illinoise has an actual storyline so I'd say that puts it closer to the "standard" definition of a musical than other revues like Fosse or Jerome Robbins' Broadway (both of which won for Best Musical).  A musical story is told through singing and dancing, and while the dancing is more in focus than other musicals, all the same elements are there.

It's fine to not like the show or say that it wasn't what you expected for a "musical", but saying that it doesn't belong on a Broadway stage just seems gatekeep-y, since Broadway has always had somewhat arbitrary definitions anyway.

[gibsons2]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 5:13pm

Kad said: "Broadway has been home to dance, opera, variety performance, concerts, comedy, and more since the first theater opened. Illinoise is as much home there as anything else.

Have they all been Tony nominated in the best musical category? 

 

[Kad]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 5:15pm

gibsons2 said: "Kad said: "Broadway has been home to dance, opera, variety performance, concerts, comedy, and more since the first theater opened. Illinoise is as much home there as anything else.

Have they all been Tony nominated in the best musical category?

"

Contact and Fosse each won Best Musical. Movin' Out was nominated.

Baz Luhrman's La Boheme was nominated for Best Revival of a Musical and Joseph Papp's Pirates of Penzance won that category in the 80s.

A number of revues have been nominated and some have won, including Ain't Misbehavin'.

So, yes. There is plenty of precedent for things that aren't traditional "musical theater" being nominated and winning. The Tonys have an expansive definition of "musical."

Updated On: 5/6/24 at 05:15 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 5:46pm

As Kad said, the definition of musical theatre can be porous, but I'm happy to give my definition. A musical theater piece is one that uses a book (plotline), score (through live singing) and the movement of body through space and time (choreography and/or staging) to tell a cohesive story. Usually, one of those elements takes the lead in telling that cohesive story. For example, the book to 1776 carries the most weight, though it has a delightful score and has a whole lotta bodies on stage moving around. Les Miz focuses most on score to tell its story effectively. Movin' Out and Illinoise use choreography as the main conduit for the story. Not every show is West Side Story (which I would argue divides the storytelling relatively equally between all three elements). 

And I still don't have a problem with a revue being considered a musical. I do have a problem with Fosse winning over Parade, but that's something that I've almost worked through in therapy. :)

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 8:02pm

Someone in a Tree2 said: "So many of my absolutely favorite posters on this site have raved about ILLINOISE since its Armory shows, that my husband and Ihad no choice but to book great seats (Orch N 1, 3) for this on our whirlwind NYC trip last week. For context, we knew nothing of the score save the glimpse of it shown on the teaser clip on YouTube. And we're generally big fans of Mark Morris and Matthew Bourne's dance work.

Sorry to say... (yeah, that's all you need to read)... the show just left us so perplexed by the adoration. The music making was one of the best things to enjoy, great singers and instrumentalists, though the songs were never more thanpleasant and the lyrics were mostly unintelligible. Fine set and lighting, but 90 minutes looking at that same graffiti'd wall up center grew tedious.The first use of those handheld LED balls was lovely; the tenth time? Meh.

But all would be forgiven if the storiesmoved us. It was clear watching the early soloists that we were being shown secondary stories, treading water till the leads would take over. Without context, we got too little info to enjoy most of them, although reading the song titles on the billboard helped on some. (Thankyou, John Wayne Gacy!) The appearance of politicians' faces was the only other clue of political protest beneath the surface. The choreography started off with promise, but the reliance on repetition as a trope meant less and less could surprise us as the showwent on.

Which brings me to the truly perplexing tale of Henry and Carl. We groaned to realize this would be another gay kid in love with a straight boy story. Really? Does Carl ever indicate he loves Henry back? We learn Carl loves a girl who has her own tragic fate to endure. Eventually Carl will take his own final step in the story, urged on by 6 or 8 ... what shall we call them? Shadows ofmortality? But why?? Was Carl responsible for what happened to the girl? Guilt-ridden? We just couldn't makes sense of the story we were shown.

Glad to learn Henry grows up and finds a beautiful gayman who will love him back, but we walked out of that theater with so many questions stuck in our heads (which the playbill booklet did little to answer). And the biggest question was: how did we see such a different show than the one you all soenjoyed?

"

You’re not alone. The audience I saw this with seemed extremely restless. I don’t know if they liked it or not but speaking only for myself, I agree with every single thing that you said above. 

[Listener]

Posted: 5/6/24 at 11:54pm

Never heard about this Seat View site before! Interesting. Do people upload their pics to it or are they simply taken from social media sites?

 

Updated On: 5/7/24 at 11:54 PM

[60'splayoff]

Posted: 5/8/24 at 4:45pm

Just got an email that tonight's performance is cancelled due to a "tragedy within the community of Illinoise". Yikes, I hope everyone is ok.