LaCageFans: THE WEDDING SINGER Review

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 12:39am

THE WEDDING SINGER Review

Watching "The Wedding Singer" is like being force-fed an overdose of '80s pop-culture and memorabilia coated with syrup. Romantic comedies, by their nature, are supposed to be feel-good experiences, but "The Wedding Singer" tends to overdo it in the schmaltz department. The new musical, based on the movie of the same name, now playing at the Al Hershfeld Theatre, is sickeningly sweet and terminally cute, yet fascinatingly feel good fun, while being less than fantastic. Quite the feat!

It would not be so bad if there were more than a precious few moments of originality to ease the progression from 1-to-2-to-3 in the scripted-by-numbers book with less than urbane music and lyrics. This musical wants nothing more than to desperately be liked, and there is no reason that a fun time could not be had, but only if one can see through all of this shows faults. The major problem is, there's not much to the book at all to like -- at least nothing that's new or interesting.

While the book & music suffer fatal flaws, the cast does not and they help turn the mediocrity into a festive evening. Stephen Lynch is surprisingly effective as a likable romantic lead and Laura Benanti does a good job as the pretty girl-next-door. But the romantic tension, the most critical aspect of any love story, is absent – but try as they might Lynch & Benanti still pull of the impossible and make these two likeable throughout.

Then there's the setting. Instead of just establishing that "The Wedding Singer" takes place in 1985, Chad Beguelin and Tim Herlihy’s book seem determined to cram the evening full of every '80s reference they can think of. It becomes oppressively unnecessary as the night goes on.

"The Wedding Singer's" main characters (and eventually fated-to-be-together soul mates) are Robby (Lynch) and Julia (Benanti). He's a wedding singer who loves his job crooning to newly-married couples because of his romantic nature. She's a waitress who meets him when they work a wedding together. Since both are otherwise engaged (literally), they form a platonic friendship. Then the complications start. Robby's fiancee, Linda (an entirely too small of a role for the brilliant Felicia Finley), leaves him at the altar, sending him into a tailspin. Meanwhile, Julia's beau, Glenn (Richard H. Blake), finally sets the date. Julia goes to Robby for help in planning her wedding, figuring that his experience will prove invaluable As the weeks pass, the attraction between them grows. Everyone, including Julia's relatives and Robby's best friends (Matthew Saldivar and a pitch perfect tour de force by Kevin Cahoon), notices it -- everyone, that is, except Robby and Julia. So, do they recognize the mutual attraction before Julia says "I do" to her cad of a fiancee? Does Robby's girlfriend, who suddenly wants him back, spoil things? It doesn't take a crystal ball to answer those questions.

What this show does need to take though is more time - to create an enjoyable score (although you will be humming this title song for days to come) plus a thorough book. Too bad the material just isn’t there because director John Rando has a fantastic ensemble and eagerly effective design team under the supervision of Scott Pask. But if one is in the mood for a light hearted romp and doesn’t mind limp Valentine's Day farce, than Wedding Singer is the way to go.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 12:48am

Well, a fair review. I'm not gonna hound you for not liking the show. Everyone has their opinion. But I really didn't mind all the 80s references. I thought they were great. And I thought the two leads had great tension. Like :SPOLIER: when they kiss for the first time, it was such and akward moment, yet you wanted them to kiss so bad. I felt for them. On a side note, I thought Amy Spanger's character wanted Julia to kiss her, I was like "wow, this is interesting." ha. I also felt for them when Robbie saw her outside the window. I just desperately wanted them to be together, which I knew they would. The only problem I had was with their first meeting. It seemed way too staged. They need to work on that. But I loved the score & sets.

[kidmanboy]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 8:55am

I have yet to see the show (I will be seeing it on Monday). However, I don't understand all the complaints about the 80s references. The film's only purpose was to make fun of the 80s. Why are people so surprised that the musical's doing the same thing?

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 9:17am

The film's only purpose was to make fun of the 80s.

I wouldn't say that was the film's only purpose.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 9:28am

Solid review, LaCageFan. Though I disagree with you about the casting of Lynch and Benanti. I don't know if it's so much they're miscast as misdirected. Rando gives them zero to work with. I mean, we all know Benanti is an established actress, but it's like she doesn't know what to do with herself up there. Give her something, Rando! Character, motivation, a feeling? I don't know, I'm not the director. Lynch is another story. Not only is this his Broadway debut, but it is his first theatre credit. His background is in stand-up comedy, and from what he displayed on stage, he couldn't have been a very good comic. But again, he's like a lost puppy up there. Give this man something to work with. At least Amy Spanger takes the role into her own hands and turns in a faboo performance. Girlfriend can dance! And her voice is pure classic 80s. Perfect. And damn, she's fit! I hope this show gets her noticed and she starts to get steady work, because she is a talent to be reckoned with. I'd be more impressed with Cahoon if this role hadn't been done a million times before. I don't know, from Rando's track history, I think he just landed the Tony for Urinetown by pure luck and default. They weren't going to give Urinetown Best Musical, because it wasn't going to appeal to the masses like Millie, so they threw it the Book & Score Tonys, and both deservedly so. And direction could have gone to anyone that year, so they threw Urinetown a bone, and Rando ended up a Tony winner. Because aside from Urinetown, he hasn't proven himself very well. And back to Wedding Singer casting for a second: am I the only one who thought David Josefsberg (Abraham of ALTAR BOYZ fame), who is in the ensemble, would be the perfect fit for Robby? I mean, he can pull off goofy and sincere and sweet and commit to it, which is what Lynch's problem is. His commitment to the role comes and goes. If they recast Lynch & Benanti NOW with Josefsberg & Tina Maddigan (Benanti's standby, who I bet has a much better hold on the role), this show could actually turnout to have a working center and open to mixed to semi-positive reviews.

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 09:28 AM

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 9:41am

I honestly thought the problem here wasn't the acting, or really the direction for the most part...they did what they could with it...but the BOOK was plain old dreadful & the music (aside from the main song, which is catchy) isn't much better.

[jdixon69]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 9:45am

I think trying to parse out blame/credit for elements of a show you liked/didn't like is a doomed enterprise. Say you don't like the costumes for a certain show. Is it the costume designer's fault? Or the director's fault, for choosing the costumes? Or the producer's fault, for being too cheap to buy the right costumes? Or the actor's fault, for refusing to wear certain costumes?

Trying to say a bad performance is a casting error that is the entirely the fault of one individual is presupposing a certain amount of inside information that I think is lacking. And while it's fun to speculate, propogating the wrong answer here is unfair to all involved.

[jdixon69]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 9:48am

Oops, I think the above is in the wrong thread. Sorry, haven't had my first cup of joe yet.

[LeaGirl]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 9:50am

I for one thought the music was adorable and appreciate the 80's references (ok I laughed long and hard) but found a lot of the direction VERY ODD.

Most pertinant example: When (spoiler I GUESS) Robbie surprises Julia by singing "Grow Old With You" - LAURA is blocked so that maybe... oh... HALF the audience can see her reaction to him. I'm sure it was a great reaction, but since I was on the right side of the house, I sure as hell didn't see it (I was NOT in partial view or far right). I don't know if it's her fault for not realizing she's standing in an odd place, or the directors fault, but there were a LOT of little dropped moments like that which ticked me off.

I had a ton of fun though, I realize the music/80's kitsch won't be everybody's cup of tea but they need to tighten up little things like that. And lose most of that drawn out scene in Vegas. It kills the emotional build.

[NBC]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 12:03pm

John Carrafa directed Good Vibrations, not John Rando. (Carrafa choreographed Urinetown.)

[Karma76]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 7:46pm

FYI want to be a Foster. Stephen Lynch has a degree in theatre and did summers at the Barn theatre in Michigan. He is an acomplished actor just has not done broadway. He got into comedy kind of by accident.

[MistressoftheHouse]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 8:39pm

Karma76 - I've been waiting for someone to bring this up! If anyone's ever interested/bored, one of Stephen's fan sites has pictures of him in various other shows. So he did the comedy thing, but I guess acting was always his intent.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 10:02pm

Also, Stephen's legions of fans may disagree with you about his abilities as a stand up comic. I really liked him.

LaCage, solid review, much in line with how I feel about the show. It feels like a traditional musical jam packed with references to the 80s to make it hip that mostly follows the plot of the movie it's based on.

[Yeah, um, no.]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 10:08pm

And Stephen isn't exactly as "stand up" comic in the traditional sense. He doesn't tell jokes. He writes and sings sweet folky songs with wildly inappropriate lyrics, sort of in the vain of Tenacious D.
Unofficial Stephen Lynch Site

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 10:15pm

Excellent review as usual LaCage.

Out of four stars how many would you give it? How bout a letter grade?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 12:44am

I like your review as well. It seems that neither of us though it was that good, but still a good time. Regardless, nice review- although I have much harsher feelings on it than you seem to have..


wickedrocks: I know you weren't asking me, but I'll give my two cents, as always, as well. I would give it 2 out of 4 stars. Maybe a C+.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 1:17am

Maybe its me - because this show was my first "preview" show and I was in NYC and seeing a Broadway show, so I was already excited - but I didn't really try and pick the show apart while I was watching it. I was just too enthralled by everything going on onstage to worry about the way she was standing or if he was "committed" or not. And I'll fight hard for this show. I thought it was so good. I thought Lynch was great. I thought he had the comedy down, but he also had the more serious stuff down as well. I can tell he's taking it seriously and he seemed to be enjoying himself. I didn't find any of the blocking akward or anything. I also thought Kevin Cahoon was so great. I thought he actually did a lot with his part. And I wouldn't complain about the directing. The directo really only tells the actors where to go. All the other stuff (the motivation, feelings) is up to the actor.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 1:25am

The director ONLY stages the show, and everything else is up to the actors?

You're kidding, right?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 1:28am

No, not kidding at all. I'm not saying that's ALL he does. But its not his job to be the sole providor of motivation and feeling. What else is the actor there for? to look pretty and sing the songs? The actors suppose to know their character in and out. They're suppose to know their scene objective and the tactics they are going to use to get them. A good director doesn't give the actor too many line readings, but lets them do what they want with the character, then just molds it.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 1:29am

Well I'm glad you have such insight...

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 1:30am

Is that sarcasm? I'm not trying to be an ass, just telling you what I was taught and what I think. Don't get why people get so touchy.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 1:37am

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I don't mean to be rude at all, but there's more to a director than you think. People say a director is only as good as his cast, but I don't think that's really true. A cast and a show is only as good as their director, clearly.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 1:42am

Well, I think there is a lot a director does, but - at least the ones I work with - they don't do much in terms of helping you develop your character. I mean, they're willing to help if you ask, but they don't go around and like help explain each character. But they def. do have the overall say of things and whatnot. A good director can make a ****ty cast great. But a great cast can make their director's crappy direction shine. So I guess its all how ya look at it. I just don't think calling out the director for the fact that Laura B. doesn't have a character is right. Its not his fault that she didn't develop her character. Granted, he should have spotted that, but mabye he tried to get more out of her? Ya never know.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 1:46am

Well then I assume that you've only worked with directors on a really elementary level - because that's not what director's do.