#51
Posted: 5/3/07 at 11:52pm
*edited for uneccessary meanness*
Updated On: 5/4/07 at 11:52 PM
LOVEMUSIK Reviews — Page 3
#52
Posted: 5/3/07 at 11:56pm
I think that not being able to understand the English language due to severe dialects is a very valid complaint. I don't care how authentic they are, if you can't understand what is being said what is the point? I hardly think it makes that woman a "drip". In fact, Brantley mentions the same thing in his review. CarolineQ, have you seen the show?
PEACE.
#53
Posted: 5/4/07 at 12:22am
tony for the women is between Donna and Christine. NO competition from anyone else.
I agree that the show isn't the best, but what a vehicle for Donna. Actually for both. GG isn't great either, but what a vehicle.
no other ladies have a shot.
I agree that the show isn't the best, but what a vehicle for Donna. Actually for both. GG isn't great either, but what a vehicle.
no other ladies have a shot.
#54
Posted: 5/4/07 at 12:28am
The Times review is positive for the actors but not the show itself. I cringe to thing of what will take their spot come Tony time.
Updated On: 5/4/07 at 12:28 AM
#55
Posted: 5/4/07 at 12:32am
massofmen, Audra gives a pretty damn amazing performance as well. I'd place Audra's performance right beside Donna's, but Christine still comes out on top for me.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
#56
Posted: 5/4/07 at 12:35am
Yeah, I think the Times review is Mixed-to-Positive. He definitely found many faults with the show (and there are), but he also found many attributes that seem to override the faults.
Good!
And I wouldn't be surprised if the transfer rumors were to start Tony buzz. Why would the Tony's award a limited run (of a show that appeals to the intellectual) when they have plenty of other - perhaps even better - shows with open ended runs?
Good!
And I wouldn't be surprised if the transfer rumors were to start Tony buzz. Why would the Tony's award a limited run (of a show that appeals to the intellectual) when they have plenty of other - perhaps even better - shows with open ended runs?
Updated On: 5/4/07 at 12:35 AM
#57
Posted: 5/4/07 at 1:58am
I don't think that you can call Brantley's review "mixed to negative" at all. It's very m-positive.
He barely mentions the negative aspects, and jams the brilliant aspects down your throat.
He barely mentions the negative aspects, and jams the brilliant aspects down your throat.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#58
Posted: 5/4/07 at 2:09am
Barnes gives it 3 stars:
"If, in the remarkable - no, sensational - hands of both Donna Murphy as Lenya and Michael Cerveris as Weill, the music comes off more convincingly than the love, that was ultimately the story of their lives."
...
"The book is frankly clunky. But time and time again it is luckily resuscitated by the music and the altogether remarkable performances from the whole cast under Harold Prince's inspired direction."
...
Prince instinctively understands the period - he was the first to stage "Cabaret," featuring Lenya - and he has coaxed and coached magnificent performances from Murphy and Cerveris.
Murphy doesn't impersonate Lenya - I knew her slightly and admired her enormously - but reaches down to the essence of what she was and how she sang.
Cerveris has, in one sense, an easier task. All most of us know about the composer is that he was bespectacled, owl-faced and stood, quite comfortably, under 5 feet.
But, like Murphy, Cerveris makes the character come alive, as does the fire-crackingly brilliant David Pittu as Weill's major collaborator, the playwright Bert Brecht, here a thoroughly nasty and ruthless character. (The man was always very civil to me, but he would be, wouldn't he?)
And a final word for Prince's own splendid collaborators: Patricia Birch for the musical staging, the scenery by the always clever Beowulf Boritt, the costumes by Judith Dolan, and the lighting by Howell Binkley.
It's a pity about Uhry's loose-paged book, which is no "Jersey Boys." But there's more than enough here to savor and enjoy."
NY POST
"If, in the remarkable - no, sensational - hands of both Donna Murphy as Lenya and Michael Cerveris as Weill, the music comes off more convincingly than the love, that was ultimately the story of their lives."
...
"The book is frankly clunky. But time and time again it is luckily resuscitated by the music and the altogether remarkable performances from the whole cast under Harold Prince's inspired direction."
...
Prince instinctively understands the period - he was the first to stage "Cabaret," featuring Lenya - and he has coaxed and coached magnificent performances from Murphy and Cerveris.
Murphy doesn't impersonate Lenya - I knew her slightly and admired her enormously - but reaches down to the essence of what she was and how she sang.
Cerveris has, in one sense, an easier task. All most of us know about the composer is that he was bespectacled, owl-faced and stood, quite comfortably, under 5 feet.
But, like Murphy, Cerveris makes the character come alive, as does the fire-crackingly brilliant David Pittu as Weill's major collaborator, the playwright Bert Brecht, here a thoroughly nasty and ruthless character. (The man was always very civil to me, but he would be, wouldn't he?)
And a final word for Prince's own splendid collaborators: Patricia Birch for the musical staging, the scenery by the always clever Beowulf Boritt, the costumes by Judith Dolan, and the lighting by Howell Binkley.
It's a pity about Uhry's loose-paged book, which is no "Jersey Boys." But there's more than enough here to savor and enjoy."
NY POST
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#59
Posted: 5/4/07 at 2:12am
I like that the critics seem to think there was no love between the two - or that was the weakest part.
Their relationship was totally anti-romantic - which is what gave it its romanticism.
The fact that Lenya went on and devoted her life to Weill says something. Perhaps it was guilt - but there's a reason the guilt was there.
Their relationship was totally anti-romantic - which is what gave it its romanticism.
The fact that Lenya went on and devoted her life to Weill says something. Perhaps it was guilt - but there's a reason the guilt was there.
#60
Posted: 5/4/07 at 2:49am
Oh, I don't think it was guilt. I think she was more infatuated with him than she EVER let on.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#61
Posted: 5/4/07 at 6:45am
for me, it was incredibly romantic!
at least in the way Murphy & Ceveris play it, one can tell that they are deeply in love at first sight...& are devoted to each other, & each other's creativity for the rest of their lives. not only do they love each other, but they love & respect each others work.
i thought the whole point was that physical closeness & fidelity didnt matter; each took the other into their minds, hearts & art, from that first moment in the rowboat, & never let them go.
& that is what endures.
at least in the way Murphy & Ceveris play it, one can tell that they are deeply in love at first sight...& are devoted to each other, & each other's creativity for the rest of their lives. not only do they love each other, but they love & respect each others work.
i thought the whole point was that physical closeness & fidelity didnt matter; each took the other into their minds, hearts & art, from that first moment in the rowboat, & never let them go.
& that is what endures.
#62
Posted: 5/4/07 at 7:14am
This show is really a wet dream for Brantley. The actor he salivates over the MOST of any other is Cerveris. The actress he HEAPS with more praise than any other (yes, even more than Chenoweth) is Murphy. To have the two of them share a stage is a true Brantasy.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
#63
Posted: 5/4/07 at 7:36am
Wanna Be A Foster: a true Brantasy.
hee hee hee!!!!
hee hee hee!!!!
#64
Posted: 5/4/07 at 7:56am
ahmelie, i *know* you would go gaga for Donna!
Ack! I'm leaning back towards Lovemusik!
And the most annoying thing is that I'm going up to NYC with my school in two weeks, and we're seeing A Chorus Line. Which I'd really rather not see... maybe I'll sneak away from the group for a night...
Ack! I'm leaning back towards Lovemusik!
And the most annoying thing is that I'm going up to NYC with my school in two weeks, and we're seeing A Chorus Line. Which I'd really rather not see... maybe I'll sneak away from the group for a night...
Theatre is a safe place to do the unsafe things that need to be done.
-John Patrick Shanley
#65
Posted: 5/4/07 at 8:52am
Boy do I agree with Wanna be a Foster. I could've predicted not just the tone but almost the words Ben uses to lick Cerveris and Murphy with his wet warm tongue. Donna is Brantley's near obsession. His take on her WT spin on Ruth was one of the key reasons the show moved from Encores, as everyone here knows.
But is anyone really surprised by these reviews? They're far from nasty put downs, and almost everyone has fallen all over themselves to point out the considerable ambitions and hard work that went into the project. Sometimes, the best intentions and solid performances do not a satisfying evening make. You can cite numerous examples of this syndrome, dating back to almost any era, new shows or hybrids. I remember HALLELUJAH, BABY's reception, which was not dissemilar. Everyone appreciated Arthur Laurents' ambitions -- to dramatize the entire civil rights struggle -- while acknowledging how deadly tedious the result was. In that case, Leslie Uggams carried the show for almost a year. I doubt Murphy will do the same, as her following is fairly Manhattan-centric.
But is anyone really surprised by these reviews? They're far from nasty put downs, and almost everyone has fallen all over themselves to point out the considerable ambitions and hard work that went into the project. Sometimes, the best intentions and solid performances do not a satisfying evening make. You can cite numerous examples of this syndrome, dating back to almost any era, new shows or hybrids. I remember HALLELUJAH, BABY's reception, which was not dissemilar. Everyone appreciated Arthur Laurents' ambitions -- to dramatize the entire civil rights struggle -- while acknowledging how deadly tedious the result was. In that case, Leslie Uggams carried the show for almost a year. I doubt Murphy will do the same, as her following is fairly Manhattan-centric.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
#66
Posted: 5/4/07 at 9:08am
cut BUDDY ON THE NIGHT SHIFT and THE ILLUSION WEDDING SHOW numbers & the show will be half an hour shorter & more focused!!!
#67
Posted: 5/4/07 at 10:41am
didn't you find that the first part of act two also played out a bit cheap looking when they turned "Broadway"? there was something really awful about the sets once you got around to BUDDY ON THE NIGHT SHIFT and THE ILLUSION WEDDING SHOW. the rest of the show looked so arty and beautiful and then you go to America and yer like "ewww".
i agree that cutting those two songs out would improve the show a LOT.
i agree that cutting those two songs out would improve the show a LOT.
Updated On: 5/4/07 at 10:41 AM
#68
Posted: 5/4/07 at 12:44pm
The middle of Act Two seemed like a completely different show - which may have been the point.
I think there are plenty of better songs that could have been used in various places...and songs that should not have been used at all.
I think there are plenty of better songs that could have been used in various places...and songs that should not have been used at all.
#69
Posted: 1/10/21 at 6:44am
Can anyone answer this for me - did Donna Murphy actually sing 'Pirate Jenny' at the end of Act 2 of this show? If so, why is it not on the cast recording? If not, why would they not have her sing the song? It makes 0 sense to me.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#70
Posted: 1/10/21 at 9:58am
She did not sing Pirate Jenny. It was the most disappointing part of the show for me. They built up how legendary the performance was, and then it ends with her putting on her makeup in her dressing room to go perform the show at Theatre De Lys, the orchestra plays the song as underscoring, then she triumphantly walks off to make her entrance and then curtain, end of show.
#71
Posted: 1/10/21 at 1:10pm
Go to 3:50 in this clip and you'll see exactly how "LoveMusik" ended:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpxqLKSvfhs
#72
Posted: 1/10/21 at 3:02pm
Thanks, that is highly disappointing. Maybe in Hal Prince and/or Alfred Uhry's mind/vision they thought it was more powerful to leave that moment to our imagination, and maybe it's a little bit of pandering to what the audience wants - but I think if Donna Murphy was able to sing the full song, it could have been a great way to end the show on a high point and give Donna Murphy a flashy moment/ending (perhaps with a little bit of artistic licence in her singing interpretation to show some of her virtuosity in singing ability, even if the real person she is playing didn't quite have the same).
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#73
Posted: 1/10/21 at 3:26pm
Thanks for posting that! It’s nice to see that my memories mostly line up with reality. I’d forgotten that there was a scene after and they played the 3Penny overture but otherwise that’s exactly how I remember it. I’m always a little wary when I post theatrical memories that they’ve morphed in my brain to something quite different than what I really saw.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95