LITTLE WOMEN - Thoughts on Tonight's Preview

[Caleb]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 12:33am

should warn everyone that this is fairly long, and IT DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS. These are just my opinions, and I tried to offer them with the optimistic spirit that I think the preview period deserves.

THE GOOD

THE CAST - Everyone is raving about Sutton Foster, and rightly so, but really the whole cast is terrific. Sutton Foster leads them well, but they all clearly know what they're doing and, boy, do they do it well. Sutton does deserve special mention, simply because she is the main character. She bugged me at first because I think she has terrible posture, but it improved in the second act, so maybe it was a conscious choice made by her to convey Jo's maturity.

THE LIGHTING - I don't consider myself a person who would normally notice something like this, but the lighting was just terrific. I really noticed it during the seamless transition to Cape Cod in the second act. It goes from the March house to Prof. Bhaer to Cape Cod seamlessly, yet strikingly effectively. It is beautiful throughout.

"Some Things Are Meant To Be" - You'll notice that I didn't put the entire score under the good, but I believe this song deserves special mention. What a piece of art. It fits into the scene so well, it is a beautiful piece of music, and it is sung gloriously by Megan McGinnis and Sutton Foster. Not only are both of their voices radiant, but they blend incredibly on some stunning harmony. It moved me to tears, and I'm not a crier, but that's not why it's good. A song or show shouldn't receive praise because it makes people cry. It should receive praise because it conveys its story well, and this song certainly does that. It just so happens that the story it conveys is incredibly moving. Besides being a great song and being sung well, both woman prove that they are also marvelous actresses, something many people forget about when singing. This song is staged well, lit well, concluded well, and I just can't say enough good things about it. It is also a nice way of helping the audience understand the pain of Beth's death without giving us a hackneyed death bed scene. I know that if this show is nominated for Best Musical, which I bet it will be, they will probably have Sutton perform "Astonishing" on the Tonys, but I would really love it if this song were on the telecast. I think it would be a nice chance to show people that this show isn't really about brassy showstoppers, but about love and heart and relationships. I've already waxed too much about this, but this was an example of how good this show can be if everything is executed this well.

THE ORCHESTRA - This is something that often doesn't receive praise, but it deserves to in this case. How refreshing it is to look in a Playbill and NOT see Keyboard 1, Keyboard 2, Keyboard 3 . . . listed under orchestra. There was an orchestra of 12, and they were all playing real instruments!!!! Kim Scharnberg's orchestrations were wonderful (I expected them to be, seeing how he arranges and orchestrates a lot of Linda Eder's material and it's always top notch). Thank you to the musical team of Little Women and the producers for writing and paying for a real orchestra. Don't think it goes unnoticed or unappreciated.

THE IMPROVABLE

BOOK AND LYRICS - I almost put this in the in-between category, but I just couldn't. There were to many times that I wasn't entirely sure what was happening, and those kinds of problems MUST be fixed. It's not that I didn't like the book, but there were times I simply didn't understand it, and those kinks need to be worked out. The timeline of the first act was confusing, especially the way it was listed in the Playbill. Many songs would be listed under several different times and places, so you couldn't simply glance at a song and figure out when it was taking place. You had to really examine the program, and that took me away from the performance. Also, I'm not sure that the timeline needs to be as fractured as it is.

Also, there are some things that just don't make sense. When Amy goes off to stay with Aunt Marge, it was unclear that she was going to LIVE with her. I thought she was merely staying there for a while until Marmee got back from Washington visiting her husband. If Amy did go and live with Marge, why? This is information that we need in order to follow the plot.

I thought Jo's dissatisfaction over Meg's engagement was sudden and immature. She sounded like she literally thought the promise they made when they were younger meant that they would live together for the rest of their lives and never be involved with anyone else, EVER. Jo's not that dumb, and she can't act that way. There needs to be a better explanation.

In the beginning, Amy suddenly (actually, almost instantly), became very angry and very bratty without and explanation. Some explanation came after it, but it would have been nice if some hints were dropped earlier that she didn't entirely love her arrangement with her sisters, and that she was often jealous or dissatisfied.

The character of Prof. Bhaer was underdeveloped, as was his relationship with Jo. I'm not sure I completely bought the ending because of this. She refused to marry Laurie, but she has no problem marrying him? I found myself saying, "Who is he again?"

Aunt Marge's first scene with Jo feels somewhat phony. I can't really pinpoint what I didn't like about it, but it threw me off. Perhaps Jo seemed too eager to abandon all of her principles just for the chance to someday, in the distant future, go to Europe. It didn't quite ring true.

I have one other question regarding the book: What happens to the father? Unless I was completely deaf, his absence after the war ends is never explained. Did he die? Is he still off somewhere working? What's going on? Where is he? It's not that I feel he needs to be in the show in the second act, but we need to know why he's not.

I don't mean to sound like I hated the book. To be honest, most of it was really good, and there isn't much that needs to be changed. I just felt that there were logistical problems that seem so fixable that it would be a shame if they aren't fixed. Alan Knee has written a solid book that could be even better, and I hope it is.

As far as the lyrics go, they aren't bad, but they only occasionally fly off the music (I don't know if I phrased that well, but I hope you know what I mean). I can't think of any specific examples where they fell short, but I felt like they could be more. Mindy Dickstein obviously has talent (you know how much I liked one song in particular), so I would imagine she has the talent to touch up a few lines here and there. I feel like the lyrics could really be, to quote one of the songs, "Better."

IN BETWEEN

MUSIC - There are moments when the score really works. And there are moments when it doesn't work so well. But most of the time, I must confess, I feel like it's just about to work, but it won't let go.

Jason Howland obviously knows how to write a stunning melody. But there are a lot of times I feel like the score is holding back so it won't be either too sentimental, cheesy, or perhaps too melodious. But I often found myself wishing that the songs would have been more developed. For example, Jo's first solo, "Better", feels like it should really be a big musical moment. To make a comparison, I felt like it should be to this show what 'The Wizard and I' is to Wicked. Whether or not you like that score, that song is the first real musical tentpole in the plot, and it instantly tells us who Elphaba is and puts us squarely on her side. "Better" sounds like it has that potential, but it shies away from it. The danger with such an emotional show is overinulgence, but I actually felt like the score could have indulged a little bit more in its own beauty.

Also, there are some songs that didn't seem appropriate in tone. "Could You," the song between Aunt Marge and Jo, was funny and charming, but it was like, "ALL OF THE SUDDEN WE'RE A FUN MUSICAL, NOW LAUGH!!!" Now that I think about it, most of my problems with the score pertained to numbers like this, that seemed too "musical comedy", like they were trying desperately to keep the show from being a score entirely of ballads. I don't think there's a problem with this story being ballad heavy. "I'd Be Delighted" felt like it came from out of nowhere. They're off to a ball, when suddenly Meg gets nervous.
Meg: But what do I do if I'm asked to dance?
Marmee: Why, you simply say [start the music], I'd be delighted.
It felt like a cheap set up to a song that it ultimately unnecessary. The same goes for "Five Forever". Do we need that song? If we do need, does it have to be so determinedly cheerful? This problem was most noticable with Amy and Laurie's song, "The Most Amazing Thing". We've just gone through the wonder that is "Some Things Are Meant To Be", and what comes next? A comedy song conveying the awkward situation of Jo's sister marrying her former suitor. That transition really didn't make sense, and to be honest, took me out of the drama faster than I can tell you. After that, it was hard for me to get back into the drama. I think taking that song out and making the scene more serious will not only improve that scene, but everything after it. If it were gone, "Some Things Are Meant To Be" would really serve as the motor that drives towards the dramatic conclusion, and I think it would work a lot better. Without that song, there isn't a single "Up-number" in the second act except for the opener, but I really think that's okay. The second act isn't supposed to be cheerful. It's supposed to be engaging and moving, and it is, it really is, but that song hinders it.

There were some moments that were appropriately musicalized, but they just never really took off. I'm thinking primarily of "More Than I Am", the love song between John and Meg, and "Small Umbrella in the Rain", the love song between Jo and Prof. Bhaer. These are moments that Jason Howland should be able to give a gorgeous melody to, but they don't really stand out. Perhaps he should take a tip from his colleague, Frank Wildhorn, and make the music of these moments unabashedly romantic. I think it would work.


OVERALL ASSESSMENT

I think the show is good now, but it could be better, and that's what previews are for. I tried not to be too hard, as they are still in previews, but instead tried to focus on constructive comments.

The theatre community should recognize this show for what it is: a quality book musical written by new talents who are both legitimately trained in their fields and are trying (and on many counts succeeding) to craft an intelligent piece of musical theatre. We need to welcome new voices to the Broadway community, and these are voices worth welcoming. There is clearly a lot of potential here, and it would be a shame if people dismiss it without thinking. The show has an original score, a fair amount of legit-style singing (something that had nearly vanished on Broadway save for 'Phantom'), a real book, virtually no special effects, and young writers who are writing quality music. The score and book fit well together, they inspire good performers, and the evening feels complete. Broadway should, and I hope they do, welcome the show with open arms. In return, Little Women should fix the problems it has and be an even better show than it already is.

[etheb]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 12:54am

I was also at the preview tonight, and i really enjoyed it. I am not as experienced or knowledgable as you obviously are, Caleb, but I'll do my best to give my own commentary.

As far as the plot goes, because i ADORED this book as a child and read it like a gazillion times, i didn't have the same issues with continuity. It's been long enough since i've read it that i didn't notice if things were left out, yet i could still understand what was going on at times when it would be unclear to a naive audience. (and Caleb, if any of those questions about the plot were real as opposed to rhetorical, i would be happy to clear up any confusion!)

The production itself was really good. i haven't seen many Broadway shows, but I thought this was right up there with the things i've seen. the lighting, sets, and costumes were wonderful, down to the last detail--and i should know, we sat second row on the side (yeah student rush!!!). my one complaint in this area was that sometimes the set pieces downstage completley blocked my view of the action upstage. even a couch had the ability to obscure several people at once. considering that the slope of the seating area is not that steep, i think there were probably a lot of people with the same issue. this could be improved.

The acting, i thought, was incredible. Sutton fit the character SO well; she was just as i had always imagined Jo--and Louisa (May Alcott, the author; LW is mostly autobiographical)--to be. The rest of the characters were right on target too. I found Amy to be a little grating and annoying, but then again, she's supposed to be like that! One problem i had was that the other characters besides Jo were underdeveloped compared to how they are in the book. Every character in the book is very complex, and that depth just didn't come across on stage.

And finally, I have to put in a word for the orchestra. As a musician myself, I always pay special attention to that, and they were superb. there were lots of beautiful solo work and i got goosebumps several times when the orchestra swelled.

Overall, I loved this show. despite the bitter cold, I got *almost* the whole cast to sign my playbill (the woman who played Aunt March somehow snuck by) and got a picture with Sutton. It was a very lovely evening. i'm looking forward to going back after it officially opens to see the changes. yay LW!!!

[Tiny-Toon]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 1:25am

Thanks for the reviews!
I'll go rush it soon

[musicalfandukie]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 1:42am

great reviews:)

[Caleb]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 1:46am

Hey, where exactly were you sitting? I was student rush too, and I was in A9, which is the very front completely left side, and I had the same problem with the couch! I also couldn't see Sutton when she went up on the left staircase. Was I sitting right in front of you?

[etheb]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 10:14am

yep, we were in B 7 and 9!

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 3:44pm

What were the sets like? realistic? big? lots of scene changes? any info would be great.

Akiva

[etheb]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 4:50pm

the sets were simple, but beautiful. there were sliding panels that looked like lace, which i thought was appropriate to the show. then small furniture pieces moved in and out, but one couch actually doubled as the attic couch and the couch in Jo's boarding house room. i don't think that's done often on broadway, where they can afford to make 2 couches!

there were wooden staircases at both sides of the stage, and a wooden walkway that was lowered whenever Jo told a story--thereby raising the action in the story up above the "real" action. the set for the cape cod scene was so beautiful, it looked like an impressionist painting.

the set isn't nearly as complicated as the one for, say, wicked, but it does change frequently and is very visually interesting.

[keatonbynumbers]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 5:06pm

Ah, thank you so much for this. Someone else I know who was at the preview commented on the lighting, too, but he's a lighting geek, so it's nice to see someone else comment... I'm rather excited to bask in Sutton Foster, but I was a little worried about the music, because I've been somewhat disappointed with what I've heard already.

It sounds like it relies too heavily on the assumption that most people have either read the novel and/or seen one of the movies, wouldn't you say?

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 6:46pm

Thanks....if anyone knows any links to pictures of the sets I would really apreciate seeing those

Akiva

[etheb]

Posted: 12/16/04 at 11:30pm

this site has lots of pictures! enjoy!
Little Women Production Diary