Jackie Burns - IF/THEN — Page 5

"Isn't there a website that you can check to be sure an understudy is NOT going on, before you choose to buy tickets?"

I don't know; in the case of illness/emergency, that would be a last-minute change, wouldn't it? As for planned vacations, I think that's normally announced on social media, but only for the principals (Colella tweeted about her vacation herself).

I just checked Twitter and there's at least one person who thought Jackie Burns tonight was actually Idina Menzel. Heh heh.

---

I have to say it is annoying that there is a big ad in Times Square about "see the biggest star live" and then she's not in the show... like is she out for health reasons or just doesn't want to do 8 shows a week? The score doesn't seem as vocally high as the Wicked stuff.

First off, Jackie Burns is giving a remarkable performance in a so-so show. She really nailed every beat. I felt bad that half the audience, even with a slip of paper in the Playbill, still thought she was Idina. So many confused audience members at intermission.

To me the show was just a headache. It took so much effort to be like "okay, now we're in this story" and there were times when I wasn't sure whose story we were in. Also, why does she only have same sex couples? It felt way forced and trying to be "modern." The music felt like B sides. Act 2 was def. stronger, but still it was ballad after ballad. The airplane scene felt forced.

My biggest complaint was the ensemble. Like, I'm just confused as to how these people got cast? They all had great resumes, but none of them could sing. They'd go to their solo lines and they'd just be so bad. The curly haired younger girl was great, but oof those guys. Maybe the score was just written in a weird place in all of their voices? Even Snyder sounded SOOO NASALLY. La Chanze even, vocally, came off rough to me. And was KILLING it with the comedy though.

Also, I don't get how anyone in the world would fall for Anthony Wrapp or his character. He was so obnoxious and yet he landed this cute doctor who was normal? And then on the flip side this hot girl, Beth or Liz or whoever, was sleeping with him? Huh? Yeah right.

OT but not. When I saw "The Rothschilds" back in the day, it was late August, Hal Linden was the billed star, and unbeknownst to me (I was a teenager, and hey, we had no theater boards then) he was on vacation. This was before printed inserts always landed consistently in Playbill, and unless one checked the board in the lobby -- this was the Lunt Fontanne if memory serves -- I didn't know I didn't see Linden for nearly a year. The man I saw -- wonderful performance -- was I believe Howard Honig.

---

"I have to say it is annoying that there is a big ad in Times Square about 'see the biggest star live' and then she's not in the show... like is she out for health reasons or just doesn't want to do 8 shows a week? The score doesn't seem as vocally high as the Wicked stuff."

If someone calls out due to illness, people need to get over it.

That said, Menzel's absence this week was noted on Ticketmaster at least early September. I hope the vendor would have attempted to contact ticket buyers with that changed information; likewise, IF/THEN had been communicating regularly over Twitter and their Facebook about the change. The only comment about Menzel being on vacation was through Burns' twitter, I think. The week in November was noted at least sometime this month. It's my belief that at least one of these planned absences has to do with her work in Frozen, since the short is coming out next year, because it seems uncharacteristic of Menzel to take two vacations so close together.


"First off, Jackie Burns is giving a remarkable performance in a so-so show. She really nailed every beat. I felt bad that half the audience, even with a slip of paper in the Playbill, still thought she was Idina. So many confused audience members at intermission."

I wouldn't feel bad at all. It's amusing. That means the show itself has merit if people are getting into it somehow, and that the understudy is fantastic. The latter is certainly no surprise since Burns was an Elphaba.


"To me the show was just a headache. It took so much effort to be like 'okay, now we're in this story' and there were times when I wasn't sure whose story we were in. Also, why does she only have same sex couples?"

If you went in without any prior knowledge at all, I can see how it might be confusing. On the other hand, I've seen others say they did so and followed it fine barring a couple spots. YMMV. As for that last sentence, I have no idea what you're talking about.


"My biggest complaint was the ensemble."

Can't say. Maybe they were having an off day or a virus (god forbid) is going through the cast again. I think Snyder had a concert last night. I laugh at the general "can't sing" assessments, though...I mean, I can't stand Rapp's voice and his stage physicality makes me irrationally rage, but I wouldn't say he "can't" sing either. People say Menzel "can't sing" but hey, she has a Tony.


"Also, I don't get how anyone in the world would fall for Anthony RAPP or his character."

FTFY. I didn't care for Maureen in RENT, but I'm not about to complain about that. Still, it's a mistake to conflate the character with the actor. I've seen other commentary about how great Rapp was in acting Lucas, or liking Lucas, but in general it seems that character has a largely lukewarm reception. I believe there were more backstage dynamics involved in the casting choice there, and I would love to see his u/s instead. But whatever.

---

Updated On: 10/1/14 at 09:14 AM

I concur....more patience than me too...:)
kudos to Pootie2

"What was so absurd about what I said? It's just my viewpoint on the show. I get that some of you idealize this show for whatever reasons, but it's not a great show. If the composers weren't Pulitzer winners nobody would have put this on Broadway."

The reason why your assessment carries absurdity to some is because you state your opinion as fact; of course I'd argue the same vice-versa. Having "mixed reviews" only means that not all the folks who have seen this were in the target audience, IMO. It's like some old crotchety dude going to Wicked and complaining it's "a terrible show" when he's not in the target audience; the only accurate statement would be "I hated it." I feel IF/THEN's target audience is more niche than most, and the marketing is problematic because Menzel's bell curve fan base sits at a lower age range, which is just weird.


"And my statement was about the fact that she only had same sex couple friends. Lesbian and gay friends. It just felt super forced and then with them all getting married... eh.... It all felt very LIFETIME."

Oh, you meant friends. I don't find it out of bounds that some people will just have greater social exposure to same-sex couples than others who have never met a gay person in their lives (that they know of), but I'd expect the character has more friends, just none as "local" to the story. On the whole of things, this is quite a minor quibble: IF/THEN is very contemporaneous, given that gay marriage was only recently OK'd at the federal level and NY OK'd it sometime while the show was just starting to develop (I think). What's considered normal instead of "forced" will change over time. And people marrying around the same time isn't a big deal (half my friends in my circle had babies in the same year), besides which you seemed to have missed the plot point where just because someone gets married doesn't mean it ends well, and I'm not talking about Elizabeth.


"And my comment about the ensemble wasn't about Rapp. I actually quite enjoyed his songs, and sure his character got under my skin, but he's fine in the role. It's just a matter of casting. However, the ensemble had such weak voices. Tamikra (sp?) couldn't sustain anything, a few of the ensemble guys were flat, everyone was super nasal. Just terrible."

My point is that these types of evaluations are subjective and relative. I hate Rapp's singing, and other people think he's great. Some have claimed Menzel is way too nasal, but I don't hear it very much, or that she "can't sing" at all when they just don't care for the high belt.

If the ensemble "can't sing" as you so assert, I would think they're more readily replaceable than the principals, but clearly the casting authorities don't agree with you. This issue also doesn't seem common at all given the commentary I've trawled out of curiosity, so any number of factors could be involved.

Now, a big part of your problem was comprehension, or following the instant story switches, making the whole show confusing; obviously a show isn't going to land if a viewer can't follow the story, but by the same token, your experience isn't the final truth of it either when others don't have the same experience. In terms of probability, even a 50/50 split means there's more going on than a show being merely "confusing."

I firmly subscribe to the target audience economic philosophy where a "bad" product is actually very rare outside consumer groups; there have been products "before their time," and there will always be products with too small a target audience to survive economically, or products that aren't accessible to a wider and more appropriate market, so on. Broadway is in fact a very inaccessible form of entertainment.

I can appreciate the fact that some people simply won't like a given show (and I hope they didn't spend too much money on it), but it's always more interesting to hear the dissection of particular bits rather than someone stating opinion as fact. That goes for entertainment writing in general, though, which explains why I don't care for reviews unless they can really get into the meat of things like sociology or character psychology or history or mechanics, and appropriate areas for suspension of disbelief.

---

"That new Frozen short, she could record that before her shows, just like she recorded an entire album during If/Then."

I was under the impression--entirely my own conception, of course--that Menzel would have to go to Walt Disney Studios in Cali to record properly, given that she recorded in-studio alongside Kristen Bell for the movie at the directors' behest (for that more "natural" blending of dialogue and stuff).

---

I thought the ensemble was very strong and very in sync. The only time I noticed anything weak was the backup vocals during "It's a Sign". Other than that, the ensemble was fantastic in my opinion.

Is it possible Idina snuck off to California for a few days to film a spot for Glee's final season? Eesh the thought of her utilizing her 3 days off flying across the country to do more work makes ME exhausted.

^Yes I am aware. But many in the cast have had week long vacations so far (as is standard for shows that run for a while) whereas Idina's only off days have been due to illness. Also, if you haven't seen the show, her workload as far as stage time and number of songs is absolutely incomparable to the rest of the cast. So for her to have three days off without work doesn't exactly seem undeserved to me.

"I consider Jackie Burns to be Idina if Idina had some vocal technique."

We're done here.

RippedMan, you're only further proving your cluelessness, and you're not helping your case at all. Menzel has a reputation for being a "workhorse," earned pretty early in her career and starting from RENT; for example, Schwartz in an interview called her the hardest working performer he had ever worked with.

Look, it's apparent you take a very deep personal offense to IF/THEN and wish ill upon Idina Menzel because you hate her singing and believe she doesn't deserve a break, but really now. Claiming Menzel has no work ethic because she's taking a vacation is laughable.

P.S.: It wasn't just since March. The cast has been performing since the DC try-outs, so it's been almost a full year including all the rehearsal time.

---

Updated On: 10/2/14 at 11:52 PM