Little Women 1/5/05 w/o Sutton

Posted: 1/6/05 at 9:35am

Did anyone attend last night's performance of Little Women? If so, how was Sutton's replacement? I had comp tix, but decided not to attend once I learned that Sutton would be absent. A few people who have seen this show told me it was tedious and that Sutton was the highlight. I decided (probably a bad move) to not sit through it and feel frustrated. I would love to hear feedback (which will probably make me feel worse, but...)

[CTY]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 1:11pm

i almost fell asleep in it...yes, isn't that awful. granted i was really really exhausted, but the story bored me to death...maybe because i'm a guy and can't really relate to GO SISTERS GO!

sutton was great, as usual, but idk if i could have watched it w/o her. i think you made a good move lol.

Posted: 1/6/05 at 1:20pm

CTY----thank you for your input. I appreciate hearing that maybe I made the best move. All day today I've been beating myself up, thinking "I should've seen it". :)

[Benzy92]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 1:26pm

Bad theatre is better than NO theatre :)

I saw Little Women with Sutton and found it to be a little long, and some parts boring. The songs didnt advance the story either. However, the cast was amazing, and Sutton deserves another Tony.

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 1:53pm

Benzy,

Bad theatre is better than no theatre, but if you're spending budgeted money, it's nice to wait for Sutton.

[Benzy92]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 2:33pm

yes, with budgeted money, but he had a comp which meant it was free theatre! :)

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 2:39pm

Oh no.

Is this gonna be like that whole "Is Kristin In Wicked?" thing again?

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 2:40pm

no, it's gonna be more like

Is Idina signing or no?

[NightLaughs]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 2:41pm

I am a huge advocate for this Little Women but I wonder if Sutton is that big of a draw the show would go downhill when she leaves. I hope this is not the case....

I would have been highly upset if I went to see the show and Sutton was out. I agree, some things you just have to budget. Theater ain't cheap these days. (Was it ever?)

[Benzy92]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 2:41pm

No, because Sutton Foster is usually very good at attending her scheduled performances. She is sick. It happens!

[NightLaughs]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 2:46pm

True.

Feel better Sutton!

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 2:52pm

'Sutton Foster is usually very good at attending her scheduled performances.'

That's not what a lot of posters were saying back when she was in the latter part of her run in MILLIE.

I, however, have no knowledge if that was true or not.

[katiafooshia]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 2:59pm

I, unfortunately, was at last evening's (January 6's) performance of Little Women, and was not at all impressed. I did get to see the show with Sutton in it two weeks ago, and so I wasn't too upset when I found out that Sutton was sick. I was optimistic about her Standby, Julie Foldesi, and boy was I disappointed.
First off, she played the role so drastically different from Sutton that the show as a whole lost it's effect. While Sutton played Jo very tomboyish and klutzy, Julie had none of that and did not earn a single laugh from the audience. She played the role very sweetly and elegantly, and I think part of that is because she also understudies both Meg and Beth. I didn't get the manly vibes or klutziness from her, nor did Julie convey to the audience the fire in her that Sutton revealed to every single person in the theatre. Julie's voice was mediocre and while she was fine getting through the duets and group numbers, I felt sorry for her during her solo songs. "Better" wasn't too awful. "Astonishing"...I think I stopped breathing, I was so worried for the poor girl. This song is definately not in her range, and that in conjunction with the fact that she got off with the orchestra and had to skip some words to catch up was NOT good. She ran out of breath at the end and could barely say "last", and as the sheer curtain descended for intermission, a good number of people got up, left, and didn't come back for Act 2.
I hoped she would redeem herself for Act 2, but I was sadly mistaken. If it hadn't been for the grace and talent of Maureen, I do believe the theatre would have been completely empty for Act 2.
I am a Little Women fan, but I'm really concerned for the show. If the entire show is poor when just one performer is missing, what does that say about it? They will definately need to find some stronger understudies.
Well, I guess all I can say is that I'm grateful my tickets were only $30, though last night's show certainly wasn't even worth that.

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 3:06pm

If Sutton Foster isn't there when I go, I'm probably going to exchange my tickets.

[ken8631]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 3:20pm

I have tickets for next Thursday, hope she's better by then!!! It's the only reason I got them, after seeing her in "Millie".

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 3:21pm

You thought it was long? It is only 2 hours and 20 minutes.

Updated On: 1/7/05 at 03:21 PM

[PJ]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 5:03pm

The show is definitely longer than 2 hours and 20 minutes. I saw a matinee at 2 and didn't leave the Virginia until 5 minutes to 5.

Just checked telecharge: 2 hrs 45 mins.

Posted: 1/7/05 at 5:22pm

katiafooshia----thank you for the review. It doesn't surprise me (unfortunately, based on what I've been hearing), but does make me feel better that I made the correct decision to leave w/o seeing the show. (I've been upset at myself for doing that ever since). I've also heard that some people were so bored during the incredibly long first act that they had convinced themselves there was no intermission and they could "hang on a while longer"---only to be shocked to discover there WAS an intermission and then a second act. That was WITH Sutton Foster performing! (My friends loved her!).
I was so looking forward to seeing her again (after her incredible performance in Millie) and was so disappointed when she was out-----that's why I left----I didn't want to feel frustrated seeing someone else perform in what I heard was a mediocre show. Your review sounded right on target. (too bad)

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 5:29pm

The show is at least 2 40 because it got out when I got out of Hairpsray...

[NightLaughs]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 5:49pm

Thank you for the review.


Ack, I'm so nervous for this show... I hope it'll pull through.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 6:30pm

"I am a huge advocate for this Little Women but I wonder if Sutton is that big of a draw the show would go downhill when she leaves. I hope this is not the case...."

It seems a little crazy that Sutton Foster would keep the show open, because you "non-theatre people" probably do not know who she is. That being said, every single person who I know of that is remotely interested in seeing this show says it's because of Sutton. Part of me highly doubts that she has enough "name power" to be keeping a show open though. I'm sure she pulls in a bit of an audience though. I know I'd exchange my tickets if she were out.

I'm a bit nervous about this show too. I've been really hoping the writing was very tight because I love Little Women, and I could only hope for a musical version to be just as great as the novel. But it seems as though it has somem flaws...a few that probably aren't fixable in previews.

I'll just have to wait and see. But the music I've heard from it is quite enjoyable, but nothing to rave about. I hope it turns out nice in the end though.

[ElphieZ]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 8:22pm

boy am i disappointed with some of these reviews. i was looking forward to going to ny and seeing it in feb...if it lasts that long after it opens? haha. i love sutton and will support her in anything, but the reviews have made the show sound a bit painful! i want to bring a friend who doesn't usually go to the theater, this might not be the show to drag her to!

here's hoping a miracle happens between now and opening?

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 1/8/05 at 8:53am

I saw it yesterday (Friday, 1/7/04) without Sutton and was also very disappointed. And I was looking forward to this show more than anyone. I would have exchanged my ticket to see Sutton some other time, but I was there with a group of people for a special occasion who wouldn't be able to get together to see it at any other time. I wish I could have exchanged my ticket, though. The stand-by wasn't awful, but she just didn't seem to have that certain spunk, spark and energy. The stand-by for Laurie was also in, and I'm sorry to say that he was terrible. Incredibly miscast; he didn't "get" the character at all. Besides my issues with the actors, I felt that the flow of the story and the plot had problems as well. So, overall, it wasn't a good experience.

[shira467]

Posted: 1/8/05 at 12:01pm

I enjoyed the musical. Granted, I'm female, so I can relate more. But I left with my heart on the seat, because it just won't make it, with or without Sutton. But that doesn't make Sutton any less fabulous to me!