#151
Posted: 10/1/05 at 3:48pm
Now Robbie, I will say that it is possible he was adopted.
PEACE.
IN MY LIFE REVIEWS- FIRST PREVIEW — Page 7
#152
Posted: 10/1/05 at 3:54pm
Well, my husband did say that maybe I am My Mother's Son was to explain why his mother was Puerto Rican. "You wouldn't think to look at me..."
#153
Posted: 10/1/05 at 4:25pm
Margo is tired.
Exhausted in fact from last night.
Last night may have been my all time favorite theatrical experience....... not "best," mind you or "most compelling" or any nonsense like that ........ but my god what a good time it was .................
WOW.
IN MY LIFE surpassed all negative expectations and I *think* is the single most bizarrely entertaining thing I've ever seen in a professional theatre. I love this show and plan on returning (as often as I can get comps)..
How can't you love a show that has TWO actual musical commercials -- one for Volkswagen, another for Dr. Pepper -- interspersed in the proceedings performed by God himself (in the guise of a man who looks like a combination of Stubby Kaye and Kevin James from the "King of Queens" complete with baseball cap)? I mean, it would be sacreligious not to love this show, right? (there are also product placements for Coca-Cola, General Foods cereals and an odd reference to 7-11 Slurpees).
How can't you not love a show so committed to multiculturalism and diversity that the very blonde, blue-eyed hero's dead mother and sister are portrayed by actors who would appear to be of a VERY different ancestry -- Spanish/Latino perhaps? Or perhaps Italian since the mother sings her first song in that language (though she sings in English for the rest of the show)? Perhaps the recessive genes kicked in with a particular vigor? Perhaps he was adopted? Perhaps they were gypsies who kidnapped him from his crib? It's unclear (as is why the mother is dressed like a 1950s Puerto Rican version of June Cleaver complete with Barbara Billingsley's helmet of a wig?) ....... And by the way, where is the father? -- he's apparently not in heaven or on earth (the show covers both places) ...... was he a bad man who was sent to some musical theatre hell (where this show will end up in due time)? Or was papa just a rollin' stone?
This show is the product of an imagination truly unique in the annals of theatre and not one that really jibes with any conventional notion of what a Broadway show is supposed to be or look like. Director/ book writer/composer/lyricist Joe Brooks has created his own vision of musical theatre that is truly unlike anything anyone else has ever seen or attempted. Mind you, I'm not saying that that's always necessarily a good thing.
Brooks tells a story (that is somehow both underdeveloped, yet exposition heavy) of two young people who meet in a cafe and feel an immediate spark -- he's apparently some musician she's heard of, but it's unclear. He has Tourette's Syndrome, OCD, low self-esteem (and a tragic fashion sense that the show fails to address entirely) yet within 30 seconds of meeting she wants to go home and sleep with him. OK. Fine. It's the '00s -- whatever.
Cheap laughs abound from his condition (I wasn't offended, but could see how some may be). They move in together, fall in love...... it's all very cute and sweet and lovely ..... They discuss their pasts, he tells her about his sister and mother being killed in a car accident -- they both pop up at various times, singing musical numbers.
Anyway, I guess the "heart" of the show is this odd little sweet relationship that plays out in this tiny little tenement apartment set that shifts upstage and downstage, in and out of the center of the action (not sure why they bothered with the expense of it -- half the show takes place there and the setting could have been easily conveyed without it). Brooks has no shortage of syrupy ballads and duets for the two characters -- none of the songs are particularly interesting or distinguished, but hey, there they are.
What makes this show decidedly unique and .... strange, bizarre, crazed, unintentionally funny are these "SCENES" which Brooks has constructed to break up the telling of the central love story. SCENES which elevate what would be a rather moribund and predictable musical into ..... well.... what might be the stuff of theatrical legend.
Shortly after the central couple's initial meeting, an angel from heaven descends (on two wires ......... they apparently got the budget deal from Foy) into the scene. I think he's angel ..... anyway, whatever he is, his name is Winston and he's played by an actor names David Turner who is having the time of his life at the moment ....... and may I say THANK GOD for him. Without Winston, this show is a bad Valerie Bertinelli Lifetime movie (I really just don't get anyone saying Boevers saved anything or that Brooks should cut everything except the central love story -- OMG how incredibly BAD and BORING would that show be?????). With him ......
We end up in heaven, which in Brooks' vision of it, is an endless display of filing cabinets going up as far as the eye can see -- imagine heaven by Staples (are they also a corporate sponsor?). Through a series of "In One" scenes, Winston appears in as a sort of more foppish version of the Emcee from Cabaret and does a series of campy musical turns with a small ensemble -- that they basically have nothing to so with the plot, as it were, I chose to ignore (though there is some nonsense about preparing for God's opera that I never quite understood). In the scenes, he is dressed variously as Klaus Nomi (with a touch of Ziggy Stardust), as a gay glam pirate, as a member of Devo, as Willy Wonka (the Depp version), as Sgt. Pepper and a few others that can't easily be described. The numbers are eye-poppingly bizarre, surreal and a heck of a lot of fun.
This show has its own internal logic that oddly makes sense much of the time. Yes, there are too many ballads and the lyrics are laughably awful and the dramaturgy is sloppy and incomplete and the basic blocking often lacks stage balance (Brooks makes a few Directing 101 mistakes) and there are as many unintentionally funny moments as intentionally funny moments, but you know what? This isn't a "Bad" show. It really isn't. Bizarre? Yes. Surreal? Certainly. But as weird as it gets -- and boy, does it get weird -- it's never less than competently put together. It's visually arresting, yet silly at the same time, like a high camp Robert Wilson or something (and this show a heck of a lot better than the Robert Wilson/Lou Reed musical on the life of Edgar Allan Poe I had to sit through at BAM several seasons ago).
And I have to hand it to Brooks -- for somebody with no professional experience at most of this stuff, he's obviously done his homework and I admire his courage. If only more of our veteran directors and producers had half of his guts or ingenuity, maybe we'd have a more interesting slate of musicals in town right now. The so-called experts keep sending us lame jukebox musicals and pathetic revivals and unimaginative adaptations of movies (though some are good). While Brooks has a lot to learn about book writing and staging (though he does pace the show like a true pro) and his lyrics are beyond help, he could teach a thing or two to some of our big Broadway creative people (I won't mention names) about being entertaining and exploring original concepts and not taking everything so seriously that you squeeze all the fun and spontaneity and life out of a production.
IN MY LIFE has tons of "issues" to be sure which I'm sure the critics will destroy it for, but it's also, in spite of everything, one of the most entertaining shows in town. It's an odd, one-of-a-kind experience that probably won't be around for very long. Go see it -- you'll have a blast.
http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/
Exhausted in fact from last night.
Last night may have been my all time favorite theatrical experience....... not "best," mind you or "most compelling" or any nonsense like that ........ but my god what a good time it was .................
WOW.
IN MY LIFE surpassed all negative expectations and I *think* is the single most bizarrely entertaining thing I've ever seen in a professional theatre. I love this show and plan on returning (as often as I can get comps)..
How can't you love a show that has TWO actual musical commercials -- one for Volkswagen, another for Dr. Pepper -- interspersed in the proceedings performed by God himself (in the guise of a man who looks like a combination of Stubby Kaye and Kevin James from the "King of Queens" complete with baseball cap)? I mean, it would be sacreligious not to love this show, right? (there are also product placements for Coca-Cola, General Foods cereals and an odd reference to 7-11 Slurpees).
How can't you not love a show so committed to multiculturalism and diversity that the very blonde, blue-eyed hero's dead mother and sister are portrayed by actors who would appear to be of a VERY different ancestry -- Spanish/Latino perhaps? Or perhaps Italian since the mother sings her first song in that language (though she sings in English for the rest of the show)? Perhaps the recessive genes kicked in with a particular vigor? Perhaps he was adopted? Perhaps they were gypsies who kidnapped him from his crib? It's unclear (as is why the mother is dressed like a 1950s Puerto Rican version of June Cleaver complete with Barbara Billingsley's helmet of a wig?) ....... And by the way, where is the father? -- he's apparently not in heaven or on earth (the show covers both places) ...... was he a bad man who was sent to some musical theatre hell (where this show will end up in due time)? Or was papa just a rollin' stone?
This show is the product of an imagination truly unique in the annals of theatre and not one that really jibes with any conventional notion of what a Broadway show is supposed to be or look like. Director/ book writer/composer/lyricist Joe Brooks has created his own vision of musical theatre that is truly unlike anything anyone else has ever seen or attempted. Mind you, I'm not saying that that's always necessarily a good thing.
Brooks tells a story (that is somehow both underdeveloped, yet exposition heavy) of two young people who meet in a cafe and feel an immediate spark -- he's apparently some musician she's heard of, but it's unclear. He has Tourette's Syndrome, OCD, low self-esteem (and a tragic fashion sense that the show fails to address entirely) yet within 30 seconds of meeting she wants to go home and sleep with him. OK. Fine. It's the '00s -- whatever.
Cheap laughs abound from his condition (I wasn't offended, but could see how some may be). They move in together, fall in love...... it's all very cute and sweet and lovely ..... They discuss their pasts, he tells her about his sister and mother being killed in a car accident -- they both pop up at various times, singing musical numbers.
Anyway, I guess the "heart" of the show is this odd little sweet relationship that plays out in this tiny little tenement apartment set that shifts upstage and downstage, in and out of the center of the action (not sure why they bothered with the expense of it -- half the show takes place there and the setting could have been easily conveyed without it). Brooks has no shortage of syrupy ballads and duets for the two characters -- none of the songs are particularly interesting or distinguished, but hey, there they are.
What makes this show decidedly unique and .... strange, bizarre, crazed, unintentionally funny are these "SCENES" which Brooks has constructed to break up the telling of the central love story. SCENES which elevate what would be a rather moribund and predictable musical into ..... well.... what might be the stuff of theatrical legend.
Shortly after the central couple's initial meeting, an angel from heaven descends (on two wires ......... they apparently got the budget deal from Foy) into the scene. I think he's angel ..... anyway, whatever he is, his name is Winston and he's played by an actor names David Turner who is having the time of his life at the moment ....... and may I say THANK GOD for him. Without Winston, this show is a bad Valerie Bertinelli Lifetime movie (I really just don't get anyone saying Boevers saved anything or that Brooks should cut everything except the central love story -- OMG how incredibly BAD and BORING would that show be?????). With him ......
We end up in heaven, which in Brooks' vision of it, is an endless display of filing cabinets going up as far as the eye can see -- imagine heaven by Staples (are they also a corporate sponsor?). Through a series of "In One" scenes, Winston appears in as a sort of more foppish version of the Emcee from Cabaret and does a series of campy musical turns with a small ensemble -- that they basically have nothing to so with the plot, as it were, I chose to ignore (though there is some nonsense about preparing for God's opera that I never quite understood). In the scenes, he is dressed variously as Klaus Nomi (with a touch of Ziggy Stardust), as a gay glam pirate, as a member of Devo, as Willy Wonka (the Depp version), as Sgt. Pepper and a few others that can't easily be described. The numbers are eye-poppingly bizarre, surreal and a heck of a lot of fun.
This show has its own internal logic that oddly makes sense much of the time. Yes, there are too many ballads and the lyrics are laughably awful and the dramaturgy is sloppy and incomplete and the basic blocking often lacks stage balance (Brooks makes a few Directing 101 mistakes) and there are as many unintentionally funny moments as intentionally funny moments, but you know what? This isn't a "Bad" show. It really isn't. Bizarre? Yes. Surreal? Certainly. But as weird as it gets -- and boy, does it get weird -- it's never less than competently put together. It's visually arresting, yet silly at the same time, like a high camp Robert Wilson or something (and this show a heck of a lot better than the Robert Wilson/Lou Reed musical on the life of Edgar Allan Poe I had to sit through at BAM several seasons ago).
And I have to hand it to Brooks -- for somebody with no professional experience at most of this stuff, he's obviously done his homework and I admire his courage. If only more of our veteran directors and producers had half of his guts or ingenuity, maybe we'd have a more interesting slate of musicals in town right now. The so-called experts keep sending us lame jukebox musicals and pathetic revivals and unimaginative adaptations of movies (though some are good). While Brooks has a lot to learn about book writing and staging (though he does pace the show like a true pro) and his lyrics are beyond help, he could teach a thing or two to some of our big Broadway creative people (I won't mention names) about being entertaining and exploring original concepts and not taking everything so seriously that you squeeze all the fun and spontaneity and life out of a production.
IN MY LIFE has tons of "issues" to be sure which I'm sure the critics will destroy it for, but it's also, in spite of everything, one of the most entertaining shows in town. It's an odd, one-of-a-kind experience that probably won't be around for very long. Go see it -- you'll have a blast.
http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
Updated On: 10/2/05 at 04:25 PM
#154
Posted: 10/1/05 at 4:34pm
Thanks, Margs.
I cannot wait to see this - maybe it is gonna stay around for all these "commercials."
I cannot wait to see this - maybe it is gonna stay around for all these "commercials."
#155
Posted: 10/1/05 at 4:40pm
Great stuff Margo! That is all so very true.
As I said before the "God's Opera" part makes the show fun, the love story is really quite boring. (As well as being overly expositional and insipid.)
I like your end take on Brooks, I agree he has major guts and I appreciate him trying something so innovative.
As I said before the "God's Opera" part makes the show fun, the love story is really quite boring. (As well as being overly expositional and insipid.)
I like your end take on Brooks, I agree he has major guts and I appreciate him trying something so innovative.
I stand corrected, you are as vapid as they say.
Updated On: 10/1/05 at 04:40 PM
#156
Posted: 10/1/05 at 4:41pm
so do you think that through the previews they'll edit the show through previews to put in an intermission? or do you think it will stay without one?
#157
Posted: 10/1/05 at 4:44pm
I didn't think they needed an intermission and they'd have lost a sizeable chunk of the audience with one, so I doubt they'll put one in.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
#159
Posted: 10/1/05 at 4:54pm
I am so honored that I will get to see this show tonight thanks to a friend.. I can now say that IN MY LIFE, I have witnessed a show up there with the "Carrie The Musical" gods.
#160
Posted: 10/1/05 at 4:56pm
oh and PS.. does Jenny still sing a song about "Moo Shu Pork"?
#161
Posted: 10/1/05 at 5:09pm
IN MY LIFE is being highly touted as the work of the composer who wrote "You Light Up My Life". Come to think of it, "You Light Up My Life" isn't a very good song.
Oh, I've gotta see this one!
Do they have Monday evening perfs?
Oh, I've gotta see this one!
Do they have Monday evening perfs?
"Long live God!" (GODSPELL)
#162
Posted: 10/1/05 at 5:27pm
So, who's going to the show tonight?
"Two drifters off to see the world. There's such a lot of world to see. . ."
#163
Posted: 10/1/05 at 5:39pm
I'm going tonight!!!! In less than three hours, I will be finally seeing In My Life!!!!!!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
[title of show] on Broadway. it's time. believe.
#164
Posted: 10/1/05 at 7:38pm
I just posted my review....I enjoyed it, somewhat.
#165
Posted: 10/1/05 at 8:38pm
"like a high camp Robert Wilson or something"
That alone is reason enough to see the show. I tried to sit through Wilson's Parsifal. He made a 5-hour opera seem to last 18 hours. I didn't make it.
I wish I could get up to see this show for my birthday this month. It sounds like a very memorable experience. I would love to be a part of it.
That alone is reason enough to see the show. I tried to sit through Wilson's Parsifal. He made a 5-hour opera seem to last 18 hours. I didn't make it.
I wish I could get up to see this show for my birthday this month. It sounds like a very memorable experience. I would love to be a part of it.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#166
Posted: 10/1/05 at 11:10pm
Yeah for your review, Margo. I've been running around today happy as a clam and I think its all thanks to this most bizzare morbidly fascinating evening in the theatre. I can't wait to see it again (free of course!)
#167
Posted: 10/1/05 at 11:27pm
Clearly this show is a mind-altering substance, causing euphoria, confusion, and uncontrollable laughter. They need to start dealing tickets to this thing under that premise. :P
Updated On: 10/1/05 at 11:27 PM
#168
Posted: 10/1/05 at 11:28pm
I saw it tonight, comp ticket. The price was right.
This was like some bad acid trip. Absolutely the weirdest thing I've ever seen on Broadway.
I felt bad for the cast. They are very talented. But the precocious kid with the big voice bugged me. And the Winston character was a bad ripoff of Alan Cummings Emcee, which drove me crazy. The big lemon coming down at the end really summed it up better than any review ever could.
This was like some bad acid trip. Absolutely the weirdest thing I've ever seen on Broadway.
I felt bad for the cast. They are very talented. But the precocious kid with the big voice bugged me. And the Winston character was a bad ripoff of Alan Cummings Emcee, which drove me crazy. The big lemon coming down at the end really summed it up better than any review ever could.
#169
Posted: 10/1/05 at 11:34pm
I just came back from seeing the second preview of In My Life. And I must say that I really enjoyed myself. And I don't think I was the only one. I just think that it's funny how us "actors" or "theatre lovers" love waiting for seemingly bad things to happen and aren't open about things. I actually really liked the originality of the story and completely got it. Was it a perfect show no but was it entertaining and moving and funny yes it was. It just cracks me up to see how people get off on tearing things down. I am sorry but I did not have that same kind of experience that you seemed to have had at the show. I thought we got into this industry because of the joy and love of theatre not the deconstruciton of it.
#170
Posted: 10/1/05 at 11:45pm
I agree with alot of what you stated liotte but the reason why the God opera was there is to counterbalance the tragedy of the love story. you need that kind of camp if you will to level the playing field. Because their story is very honest and real and the heaven part isn't sentimental at all. That is what I loved about it. The complete juxtapostiion of it all. And also if you really think about it the randomness made sense to me as well because you are dealing with a lead character who has tourets (sp) syndrome things are not linear for them AT ALL. It is all about randomness and that is why in my opinion all of the random stuff that was happening in heaven made sense because it was all happening from within that is why he could see them when he was having an MRI or when he saw his sister. It really made complete sense to me. Is it perfect no but it is only in it's second day of previews we do not give anything a chance AT ALL. It is very sad to see how cynical people can be. not to say that you are or were with your review but it just sounds as though people were gunning for it before it even opened and as it being the worst show someone's ever seen I think that's bull*&%! I really enjoyed myself. And like I said they (the creators) are seeing it as well and they know what is excessive and what isn't. I do hope that this show has a chance. And no one can blame the creator for being original. Because that was a truly original musical. AND the set was great and it was very deceptive. Again, playing with the theme of nothing is as simple as it appears. And the projections were great I thought. I really think people are knocking it for the sake of knocking it.
Updated On: 10/2/05 at 11:45 PM
#171
Posted: 10/2/05 at 12:03am
You know a show's in trouble when everyone laughs at the lead when he dies.
#172
Posted: 10/2/05 at 12:21am
Some people may be knocking the show for the sake of knocking it, I honestly believe its terrible, very funny at times though. I say if you like it, great, have a good time and tell us about it.
I must say that saying the only reason people don't like shows is because they don't understand them, is quite an unhelpful comment as well. I have a life already though, I don't need a new one.
I must say that saying the only reason people don't like shows is because they don't understand them, is quite an unhelpful comment as well. I have a life already though, I don't need a new one.
I stand corrected, you are as vapid as they say.
Updated On: 10/2/05 at 12:21 AM
#173
Posted: 10/2/05 at 1:03am
I dissent. Not so much as to say the show is great, or even good, or even viable for any kind of run on broadway, But it certainly isn't as bad as people here are making it out to be. I saw the matinee today (the second preview) and Jenny was being played by the understudy.
I went in there today expecting a total ****bomb of a show and what i saw was something with real heart and Potential with just too many flaws to fix during a broadway preview.
First, let me say everyone in the cast was great, and i mean everyone, from little Chiara Navarra to the Jessiva Boevers understudy Courtney Balan. It was wonderful to see such a talented and hard working cast.
Second, some of the songs are actually quite good. The title song "in My Life" is an ear catcher and has good lyrics.
The negative things do jump out right from the begginning. The whole WIntson storyline would be better off not being in the show. The story of the JT his disease and his dead family is more than enough to make a competent interesting and endearing show.however, for having such a **** role David Turner certainly makes the most of it (his self-refferential jokes were quite funny). God as a fat, schlub with a penchant for jingles was a little tiresome.
In order for this show to work it needs its book gutted. Keep the core love story and the story about vera and make that your musical and you have something worth seeing.
Yes this was a horrible review, but i just had to dissent (i think some of you are bad mouthing this show just because it's the cool thing to do, but i do understand, for those of you genuinely making negative comments, why you would do so, because the show has so many issues).
oh and the award for worst lyric of the night goes to one of the better songs in the show "secrets" after the scene in the hospital. "I heard a rumor, that someones got a tumor." that was just bad.
I went in there today expecting a total ****bomb of a show and what i saw was something with real heart and Potential with just too many flaws to fix during a broadway preview.
First, let me say everyone in the cast was great, and i mean everyone, from little Chiara Navarra to the Jessiva Boevers understudy Courtney Balan. It was wonderful to see such a talented and hard working cast.
Second, some of the songs are actually quite good. The title song "in My Life" is an ear catcher and has good lyrics.
The negative things do jump out right from the begginning. The whole WIntson storyline would be better off not being in the show. The story of the JT his disease and his dead family is more than enough to make a competent interesting and endearing show.however, for having such a **** role David Turner certainly makes the most of it (his self-refferential jokes were quite funny). God as a fat, schlub with a penchant for jingles was a little tiresome.
In order for this show to work it needs its book gutted. Keep the core love story and the story about vera and make that your musical and you have something worth seeing.
Yes this was a horrible review, but i just had to dissent (i think some of you are bad mouthing this show just because it's the cool thing to do, but i do understand, for those of you genuinely making negative comments, why you would do so, because the show has so many issues).
oh and the award for worst lyric of the night goes to one of the better songs in the show "secrets" after the scene in the hospital. "I heard a rumor, that someones got a tumor." that was just bad.
when ducks grow thumbs then maybe my opinion will change.
#174
Posted: 10/2/05 at 2:44am
But Zoneface...that's all part of the problem. Broadway isn't the venue in which to mount a show that "has heart and potential, but too many problems to fix during previews". I'm the person who defended Prymate...so it's not that I can't be open-minded about shows. But tell me, with a straight face, that In My Life should be mounted on Broadway and marketed to the masses at full ticket price. Yes. If they are willing to sell it as a make-fun spectacle. But certainly not as a heart-warming love story.
Now that I've had a day to mull over my reactions, I realized more of my issues with the show. The love story was either stupid or flat out offensive, depending on the charitability of my mood. Think about it...needy girl walks into a diner and picks up a guy acting totally bizarre and shouting out obsenities in rhymes and without hesitation, and takes him back to her apartment. All she knows about him at the time, apparently, is that he is the guy who wrote and recorded the songs on a CD that she loves and listens to a lot. She has no reason to know that he has Tourettes at the time. (He tells her later, post-coitally, and she explains "Oh, I had a room mate with the same thing. That doesn't bother me at all." Oh, O-kay... ) Back in the diner, though, she picked him up because he was an artist and told him he was he soulmate... immediately. No conversation. No nothing. They rush home, have overly quick sex, his fault... if you catch my drift, and start planning their lives together. What about this story is heart-warming and touching? The reason they were together is because she was a fan (although it's not clear why/how) and because he went with her because she said "come home with me"...which would be fine, but I never really "got" the progression that led to this being about love after the initial pick-up.
And what about Winston's characterization as someone's vision of the arch-stereotypical flamboyantly gay guy? Okay, if it's high camp to an 'insider' audience. But the people I saw who were loving the show didn't seem to be the types who were getting the camp factor. They were laughing AT him, not WITH him.
Troubling messages and undercurrents, in my opinion.
Now that I've had a day to mull over my reactions, I realized more of my issues with the show. The love story was either stupid or flat out offensive, depending on the charitability of my mood. Think about it...needy girl walks into a diner and picks up a guy acting totally bizarre and shouting out obsenities in rhymes and without hesitation, and takes him back to her apartment. All she knows about him at the time, apparently, is that he is the guy who wrote and recorded the songs on a CD that she loves and listens to a lot. She has no reason to know that he has Tourettes at the time. (He tells her later, post-coitally, and she explains "Oh, I had a room mate with the same thing. That doesn't bother me at all." Oh, O-kay... ) Back in the diner, though, she picked him up because he was an artist and told him he was he soulmate... immediately. No conversation. No nothing. They rush home, have overly quick sex, his fault... if you catch my drift, and start planning their lives together. What about this story is heart-warming and touching? The reason they were together is because she was a fan (although it's not clear why/how) and because he went with her because she said "come home with me"...which would be fine, but I never really "got" the progression that led to this being about love after the initial pick-up.
And what about Winston's characterization as someone's vision of the arch-stereotypical flamboyantly gay guy? Okay, if it's high camp to an 'insider' audience. But the people I saw who were loving the show didn't seem to be the types who were getting the camp factor. They were laughing AT him, not WITH him.
Troubling messages and undercurrents, in my opinion.
Sueleen Gay: "Here you go, Bitch, now go make some fukcing lemonade." 10/28/10
Updated On: 10/2/05 at 02:44 AM
#175
Posted: 10/2/05 at 7:57am
I found the show to be neither ludircrous (sp?) nor boring. Agreed, that the score wasn't particularly inspired, but that is no drawback nowadays. As for the lyics being laugable, no it's just that they wern't that interesting (for really laugable lyrics, I suggest that someone look to something like the "Miricle Brothers"-"kickable make me sickable". As for people laughing during the death scene, that was just a miscalculation of having him fly up in the air at that point (this after-all is what previews are for).
So for those who have gleefully been looking for something to feel superior to, sorry guys this just is'nt it. Entirely watchable.
Great cast.
So for those who have gleefully been looking for something to feel superior to, sorry guys this just is'nt it. Entirely watchable.
Great cast.
TWOGAAB
"A Class Act" will never die!
Updated On: 10/2/05 at 07:57 AM
BroadwayWorld TV
Ticket Central
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $95
Tickets From $139
Tickets From $192