John Lahr on "Guys & Dolls"

[karen24]

Posted: 3/4/09 at 10:07pm

I did a search and didn't see that anyone had posted on this, so...
Lahr reviews "Guys & Dolls" in this week's New Yorker. Although to me it seemed that for at least the first half of the review, he was raving more about the show itself than about this particular production, it was definitely one of the most positive reviews I've seen so far. He didn't like "Runyonland" or the addition of the "Damon Runyon" character, but he had kind words for the cast, even Platt. I'm sure the producers will be very happy with this--at last, some quotes they can use in their advertising!
I'll put a link below; you have to register to read the whole review online.
John Lahr:

[mallardo]

Posted: 3/5/09 at 6:19am

Thanks for posting this. As someone else who liked the show it's gratifying to read - to say the least.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 3/5/09 at 7:33am

I am going to see this next week. Can't wait despite the so-so reviews on this show.

[Hahabimbi]

Posted: 3/5/09 at 8:19am

I still have hopes that I´ll like it too, cos I want to like it.

there´s a interesting material with the dramaturg James Magruder in NY Times about Guys and Dolls and New York references.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/02/theater/20090302_GUYS_FEATURE.html

[Jon]

Posted: 3/5/09 at 11:14am

So, the producers felt it was necessary to hire a dramaturg to do research and explain to the cast the meaning of the words "guy", "doll", "crap game", etc.???

These actors never heard of Google?

No wonder tickets cost $125.

[wonkit]

Posted: 3/5/09 at 1:30pm

Jon - my reaction too. 300 notes on GUYS and DOLLS? No wonder it was so joyless.

I went to the matinee yesterday and this wonderful show almost managed to survive this production. Oddly, the only song that seemed like the "real" G&D was "Marry the Man Today." Spunky and funny and wonderfully sung. Now if they could just resuscitate the rest of the songs, it might be worth sitting through.

[Hahabimbi]

Posted: 3/5/09 at 6:13pm

"So, the producers felt it was necessary to hire a dramaturg to do research and explain to the cast the meaning of the words "guy", "doll", "crap game", etc.???
These actors never heard of Google? "


I found this comment very stupid since Im from country where EVERY single play has a dramaturg.

[wonkit]

Posted: 3/5/09 at 6:46pm

I think a dramaturg can be very helpful. But when rehearsals begin with such dreck as the dictionary and slang dictionary definitions of "guy" and "doll" you are going down the wrong corridor marked "too much extraneous information."

[A Director]

Posted: 3/5/09 at 9:51pm

Having a dramaturg for a production has no impact on ticket price and little to do with the quality of the production.

Guys and Dolls is filled with mid-20th century slang and references that few contemporary actors would know. Many actors like to know what they are singing or talking about. Granted, knowing this might or might not influence their performance.

Of course, there is Google, but during rehearsals there isn't much time to do research when the majority of time is spent learning the show.

I checked one American Slang dictionary and found three definitions for "doll." Which one applies to the use of the word in Guys and Dolls?

[wonkit]

Posted: 3/5/09 at 11:11pm

Which definition applies? The one that produces a coherent and enjoyable production. I was a white suburban 8 year old girl the first time I saw the movie of GUYS & DOLLS - and I "got" it. At some point you have to trust the material, especially when it is this good. If you are doing "Lion in Winter," by all means do some historical context, but resist the temptation to over-think every production. It's theater, not a PhD thesis. Example - lyric: What's playing at the Roxy? within 4 bars you know its a movie theater. You don't necessarily need to know where it was, how many seats it had, what the ticket price was, etc.

[A Director]

Posted: 3/6/09 at 12:36am

wonkit - So, you were a brilliant white suburban 8 year girl! Clap! Clap! Did little you know what Hollanderize was? Or even big you? No, but some might want to know why Loesser picked the Roxy instead of some other theatre.

In, INTO THE WOODS, the Witch sings, "Nice is different from good." The actor playing the role might want to know what is the difference. The information might give the actor some insight into the role.

I agree that over-thinking ANY production should be resisted. I know the difference between theatre and a PhD thesis. On the other hand, it appears you know nothing about what dramaturg does.

[Necromancer07707]

Posted: 3/7/09 at 2:52am

...Did anybody happen to read the terrible rant review in the Times earlier this week? It was at the top of the arts section. I'm starting to get sick of their pompous rant reviews that only cause more pain to the industry.

[homeimp]

Posted: 3/7/09 at 12:40pm

The problem with some (most?) reviewers is they think that their reviews are more important and of greater interest than the show. Don't forget you get extra points for sarcasm and nastiness. More bonus points if you can find a way to throw an insult at ALW or Frank Wildhorn along the way. Make sure to reveal as many plot points as you can. Also to clearly describe the best special effects moments so the audience won't be surprised when they come. John Lahr doubles his salary for added verbosity and pompousness. Just one person's opinion...

[wonkit]

Posted: 3/7/09 at 9:11pm

Dear "a Director" - go Hollanderize yourself.

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 3/7/09 at 10:38pm

Please forgive me.

But I listened to the Magruder piece [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/02/theater/20090302_GUYS_FEATURE.html], and about 4 seconds had elapsed and I heard this: I'm the production "drama-tur g" -- (hard g)...

And I thought, Hmmmm. That doesn't seem right.

So I found this citation, from this Mis-Pronunciation Maven guy Elster:

Dramaturge “DRAM-uh-TURJ”...Be sure to pronounce the g like j, as in surge and dirge. Do not say DRAM-uh-TURG...Some of my friends who work in theater have taken to pronouncing dramaturge...with a hard g (as in gurgle and burger) rather than a soft g (as in merge, purge, and urge), and I have heard a number of actors and prominent theater professionals say it this way. I am not sure where this peculiar innovation came from or what the motivation for it is, but I can assure you...It is without question an ...erroneous...mispronunciation. And don’t be misled by the e-less...variant spelling dramaturg,...All sources…countenance only a soft g...[said Charles Harrington Elster in his book of mispronunciations].

So -- I had to ask myself,

"Who IS this guy?"

'Cause -- why would he call himself by a mis-pro-nom?

Just sayin'.

[mgcproductions]

Posted: 3/8/09 at 12:24am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oget1w6CaDE&feature=channel_page