Little Women

[pacificnorthwest]

Posted: 1/26/05 at 9:59am

I'm sure many threads have already discussed this, so forgive my tardiness in posting. I went reluctantly to Little Women early on in previews - - relunctantly because I try to see every musical and yet I wasn't enthusiastic about what I expected to be a syrupy overly sentimental evening. I was pleasantly surprised. I thoroughly enjoyed the show and most of the audience seemed to love it. I say that knowing full well that Broadway audiences are far less discriminating than they once were, to put it mildly, but I felt genuine enthusiasm from the crowd. So I found the reviews disappointing, even though most did give high marks to Sutton Foster, who was, indeed, wonderful. Just wondering what some of the rest of you thought about the show and the critics.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/26/05 at 10:02am

I'm glad you liked it. Do a search - there are threads on the show and also threads on how people felt about the reviews.

[Macy2]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 12:02am

See, on the contrary, I was a bit disappointed in Little Women. Well, maybe more than a bit. I thought that the person in front of me summed it up best when she, rising after the end of the show, said to her companion, "Hmmm. Passable." And I would agree.

Contrary to the raves of the Sutton fans, I found her performance...well, a performance. I never forgot that I was watching Sutton play a part. In fact, I felt like I was watching Sutton as Millie trying to be Jo. Maybe's it just me, but I feel like her acting is more effort than substance. Not to mention that the costumes at times felt like they were either stolen from Les Miserable or from La Cage Aux Folles. What was up with that?

As for the sets...one word, again, sum them up: Yikes. You'd think that in a musical based on a classic novel that for the first time hits Broadway, the person doing the sets could do better than that. I don't know -- it looked more like a set from an affluent private high school than Broadway. And I say that having been on both.

Maureen McGovern was the true star of the show. I think she got the short shrift in the show, as well as on the marquis. Put her name in lights, she deserves it. In fact, give her a better show. I wish she had spent more time on the stage -- Sutton's circus pony antics at Jo were distracting at best, and annoying most of the time. Don't get me wrong -- I know Sutton has the love of many people here -- and she's got the dancing, and I understand people like her voice, but otherwise, I really don't get the Sutton hype. And by the way, when Beth died, I almost didn't care. I like the song she and Jo sang, but other than that -- total missed opportunity to make something really special happen on the stage (other than Maureen McGovern).

I give it a C+. Say what you will about Ben Brantley -- most of the time he makes me laugh, and most of the time, he's right.

[apdarcey]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 1:55am

obviously you think he's right, joining just today and using his circus pony statement about sutton...

[Macy2]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 2:01am

Hmm -- does it matter that I joined today, or are you just upset that I have an opinion that clearly doesn't match yours? I saw the show, I gave my thoughts. If you disagree, something more substantive would be appreciated.

[apdarcey]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 2:07am

if you search you can find my opinion, i just think it's funny that you quote brantley's review from millie for this...

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 2:09am

its generally not appreciated when it looks as if you joined just to be negative.

i cant comment on the show, havent seen it yet! Updated On: 1/27/05 at 02:09 AM

[apdarcey]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 2:16am

double Updated On: 1/27/05 at 02:16 AM

[apdarcey]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 2:16am

thank you mistress... (and i assume you're happy about the matthew morrison news)

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 2:17am

Of course I am! but I dont want to threadjack.

[Macy2]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 3:45pm

Didn't join to be negative...I joined to engage in intelligent conversation about the theatre. For the most part, people here seem willing to do just that. Clearly, however, the "positive police" are present. So my question is, why bother discussing any of this at all if we're only allowed to say positive things? And to that end, have you seen the exultant posts about the closing of "Good Vibrations"? If you disagree with my assessment of Little Women, fine -- let's talk about it. But if you simply don't want to hear something negative about the show, may I suggest avoiding threads about it? It seems to me that I'm not the only one who thought it could have been better.

[Michelleruth2]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 4:40pm

I went to yesterday's matinee. All the seats appeared to be filled. And the audience was on their feet at the curtain call.

I really enjoyed the show...especially listening to Maureen McGovern sing. She is phenominal!!!

The first part of the show was better than the second, but overall, I would recommend seeing it.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 4:45pm

Macy, thats not the point, it doesnt matter to me one way or another if you dont like little women, but people have and do sign up just to trash a show and/or a performer. when its the first thing you post, people will assume thats why youre here. likewise if the first thing you posted was OMG LITTLE WOMEN ROCKS! youd probably be labelled a shill. once youre here for a bit, and post other thoughts, people wont assume this anymore.

[Macy2]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 4:56pm

Mistress Spouzic -- I do see your point, and I'm sure that the board has suffered many such people. For my part, I signed up because my boyfriend and I saw the show and he, not really being a "theatre person" per se, just wasn't terribly interested in discussing the details of the performance. None of my friends have seen the show yet, either, so I was looking for a forum to discuss it.

Anyway, I'm finally giving in and seeing "Hairspray" this Saturday, so I'm sure you'll be hearing from me soon on that, too (hopefully not so negatively...but who knows. My standards are pretty high).

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 5:00pm

Hairspray is an awesome show. Im totally biased. :)

[andyf]

Posted: 1/29/05 at 6:35pm

So I saw the show last night with NativeNYer.

I hate to say it, but the score was really forgettable. "Astonishing," "Days of Plenty," and "The Fire in Me."

"An Operatic Tragedy" really let me down. The scene was really cute, but on the Broadway.com video they show the sisters running around and singing all over the place, but they actually only sing that one part that the video shows. The scene was still pretty cute, but there wasn't much of a song at all.

The book really bothered me...at least I think I mean that the book bothered me. John Hickok has the first line in the show, sits there through the first scene and then I'm pretty sure we don't see him again for the entire first act. If you don't count "An Operatic Tragedy," Beth was probably onstage for 10 minutes during the first act and has one really quick, really dumb song, if you use that term loosely enough.

The second act was a LOT better, mostly because Beth finally makes an appearance and Amy is MIA. Oh, speaking of Amy...no solos. Nothing even close. ONE really short duet near the end. (Sidebar - are we really supposed to hate Amy that much?) Anyway things actually HAPPENED in the second act, so I definitely enjoyed it a lot more. It was nice to get to hear Megan McGinnis finally speak and even *gasp* sing. I especially liked her scene and song in the second act because it was with Sutton, and it didn't bore me as much as the first act.

Maureen McGovern was good, but still we don't really see her, or really any of the characters, nearly enough. I know it would be hard to handle all of their stories, but...that's what the creative team is supposed to do right?

"Days of Plenty" and the scene leading up to it were good. The applause after Maureen finished kept going even after she made exit (which was a long one) and just continued for a bit. She deserved it, it just sucks that we had to wait more than two hours to finally hear something passable come out of her mouth.

Sutton was great. She had a lot of fun with the role (especially acting out the stories and...just being Jo). "Astonishing" was good to finally hear and I remember liking "The Fire in Me" last night, but even now I can't remember it...

Which I guess brings me to the score. Sadly, it was really just as not-good as people have been saying. A perfect example is Laurie and Amy's duet near the end of the show. That's Amy's only song where she isn't singing with the other 3 sisters, and it's terrible. Well maybe not terrible...I mean it was cute (i.e., short and pretty purposeless), but I'd be really mad if that was my only non-quartet.

Anyway, the only 3 songs I really enjoyed were the three I've mentioned. Beth and Jo's duet in Act Two wasn't so bad, but I guess the fact that I'm reffering to it as "Beth and Jo's duet in Act Two" and not by that actual name of the song ("Some Things Are Meant to Be"...just checked the playbill). "The Weekly Volcano Press" was a cute scene, but I'm attributing that to Sutton's Jo and not really to the song at all. I mean, again, it was cute and all, but totally forgettable.

So...there you go. For $30 and getting to see Sutton Foster onstage again I can't complain. Maureen certainly didn't hurt either. The first act, I could have really done without; I liked the second act a LOT better. The fact that characters tend to disappear for entire acts was pretty annoying, but nothing's changing at this point.

I'd definitely say to SEE it, but - to get really semantic about the whole thing - RECOMMENDING it........

Oh! The backdrops: really pretty. I also liked the partions that moved in and out. The costumes were pretty. The attic looked good.

The end.

Updated On: 1/29/05 at 06:35 PM