Light in the Piazza - Review with SPOILERS

[BroadwayMel]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 6:23pm

I saw Light in the Piazza on Friday evening. I'm going to give away the plot twist, so you might want to stop reading now.

I had very high hopes for this production. Perhaps this was a big part of the problem. I had heard the buzz about Victoria Clark and the score and expected to be moved to pieces.

Not so much. The score? Beautiful at the time. I really enjoyed the music and I liked the fact that the creative team realized that the audience was intelligent enough to understand the meaning behind the song without having to use a "dummy screen." I emerged from the theater humming the title song; however, I could hardly remember any of the score the next day. (Perhaps attending Wall to Wall Sondheim didn't help.)

*WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD*





The book certainly needs work. For those of you not acquainted with the story, a summary: A fairly well-to-do American mother (Clark) and her 20-something daughter (Clara -- played by O'Hara) are vacationing in Florence, where the daughter falls in love with the son of a wealthy Italian merchant (Morrison). From the beginning of the story, we're told that the daughter is "special." We're teased with it throughout the first act as the mother tries to run interference between the couple and later, the young man's family. Well here's the secret: When the daughter was 12, she was kicked in the head by a horse. The daughter's mental capacity will never develop past that age.

Herein lies the problem: I had a really hard time buying that Clara had the capacity of a 12-year old. Really. There were a few moments of immaturity, sure. However, the circumstances that brought on these episodes -- becoming lost in a bad section of Florence among the ladies of the night and their solicitors, reacting to her future sister-in-law kissing Clara's fiance on the lips in order to make her husband jealous, could plausibly cause anyone to react poorly. Similarly, I'm not sure of many 12-year olds (at least 12-year olds in the mid-1940s) who are interested in ripping off the Matt Morrison's shirt.

Clara's father -- seen through phone calls to America -- is really the only voice of reason in the story. He brings out the point that if Clara doesn't have any sense of responsibility - if she has a baby, she will lose it or drop it. However, her mother eschews this advise and consents to let her daughter marry. The musical ends with their wedding.

OK? So, now I'm unfulfilled. A friend of mine, who attended the show and had read the book, informed me that in the novel, the mother realized that Italian women were treated like children and showpieces by their husbands, and therefore Clara would be better off in Italy than in America. Now, I can actually buy this argument; however -- this point was NOT brought out in the musical at all. I just felt there were a number of loose ends that were never tied up.

As for the cast? O'Hara was beautiful, but still warming to the part. Matt Morrison was fantastic -- it's a deep year for actors, but he'll probably get a nomination. Victoria Clark -- good as always, but I'm not sure the hype is quite on target. She's certainly the best I've seen out of leading actresses. To be clear - its not lack of talent, its lack of material.

I left feeling unfilled -- and I'm sure I won't be the only one.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 3/21/05 at 7:28pm

I dunno. Your argument seems to be that you didn't buy Kelli's character would do what she did -- but, the hard thing for Kelli is balancing letting everyone know what is wrong with her and not letting on what is wrong. Keep in mind -- she only has the ability to ACT like a 12 year old (and it is possible that the doctors were wrong about her ability to grow up). So, she could easily be turned on by Matt (good God, who isn't)...and I know about 234,000 12 year old girls who would pee themselves to see Matt with no shirt (to them, I say -- buy tickets for house left, stage right).

The one thing I wanted to know is what the specific problem you had with Victoria's performance was. I found it deeply moving, and subtle, and I believe it'll go down as one of those performances we all try to live by.

I also, though, understand that when a show gets talked up, the scrutiny is deeper. Perhaps that is why you felt the way you did about the show. I know I've done that on more than one occasion.

[BroadwayMel]

Posted: 3/21/05 at 9:43pm

To be clear -- I didn't have a problem with Victoria Clark's performance. Hardly. I've enjoyed her throughout the years. My problem was with the lack of material (book/etc.) to support her. She gave a great performance, and I actually predict she will take home the Tony.

However, I'm a big believer that some roles really bring out the best in particular actors. (For this year -- see Sara Ramirez and NLB. Both are wildly talented stars who have finally found roles that really showcase their talent.) The role doesn't really do Victoria justice. My bet is that she'll win, since the year isn't really deep for Best Actresses. However, I think we've yet to see the best of her.

Posted: 3/22/05 at 12:21am

funny... i know a great deal of 12 yr olds that want nothing more... and atleast one 16 yr old who wants a LOT more. i wasnt exactly innocent at 12 either, but if i posted details this would surely be deleted.

My seat had a nice view of his back.