#1
Posted: 12/8/04 at 1:29am
Quite unexpectedly I found myself at the first preview of Little Women tonight, thanks to, to quote him, "a really, really hot up and coming Australian composer whom everyone should check out" (and to which I agree, wholeheartedly)! 
Onto the business at hand. I actually had about as much interest in seeing Little Women as I did in, oh say, sitting through Brooklyn again in my lifetime. IOW, not much at all. After seeing Sutton Foster perform "Astonishing" on the broadcast of Broadway on Broadway I thought "great voice, but eh, still no interest".
Well, as a grown up I can admit when I'm wrong, and as cliche as it will no doubt become, Sutton Foster truly is "astonishing" in the role of Jo March. Ditto Maureen McGovern in the role of Marmee.
I think everyone knows the classic tale of Little Women which is a fairly strong suit of the book for the show. The source material is already rich with possibilities and I was quite impressed at how tightly written the show is. Despite the fact that it's a very long (nearly 3 hours) show, I honestly would have a hard time thinking of something that could be cut that wouldn't ruin the flow of the book.
The strongest points of the show, for me, are the performances of Sutton Foster, Maureen McGovern and actually most of the rest of the cast, save for Amy McAlexander whose Amy manages to be both annoying and ineffective all at once. Were it not for the fact that Amy is a central part of the story, I would gladly do without the character altogether. Strictly from the text Amy is meant to be childish and grating, but the tone of Amy McAlexander's portrayal falls somewhere more on the side of petty and a ridiculous caricature than one with heart or dimensions.
The ever shifting sets are also interesting. There are simple pieces of furniture that adorn the sets that make up the majority of "rooms" we get to see into, but they're all used very effectively and add a lot of visual depth. Though I'm still trying to work out the purpose of the big blue hanging curtain that sort of looks like a rug that surrounds the stage. I find it to be a bit of an eyesore and unnecessary.
The costumes are also quite beautiful time period pieces. Whether by design or accident Sutton Foster never quite fits any of Jo's costumes until her final dress. Something always seems to be hanging off the side or just a bit big on her.
The weakest aspect of the show is the score and not because it's a bad score, it's just very simplistic and aside from Astonishing, there are perhaps 2-3 other songs themselves that will stick out in people's minds. The rest of the songs are serviceable to the show, but this is definitely not a score that will leave you humming going out of the theater, it won't leave you with a headache like, oh say, Brooklyn, but it just won't be captivating either.
There's a lot of heart in the book, perhaps a little too much heart wearing on the sleeve, because if I had to describe the entire show in one word, it would be quaint. The music is quaint, the relationships are quaint, the dialogue can be very namsy pampsy "I love you, no I love you more, you're the bestest" type, said in that certain upspeak. Yet there are moments of real, honest to goodness jokes thrown in there as well which was a delightful surprise. I think the direction needs a bit of work in the scenes shared between the sisters where there's always a bit more of that mushy March sisters through and through, now hug type direction. More quiet, honest moments like the song between Jo and Marmee in the attic and less showy would work for those moments.
There aren't terribly elaborate choreographed scenes, but enough so that there's a taste of what Sutton is capable of (and actually all of them are, as there's a great sequence between the five March sisters and Laurie). The only other suggestion I would make is to make the passage of time more clearer. The last we see of Amy in the first act she comes across as being either a very young child (again it's hard to tell by the way she's portrayed) or at most a very young teenager. By the end of the second act we need to believe she's old enough to be a bride, that transition gets lost. Perhaps a better explanation for where Farther March winds up other than a couple of throwaway sentences at the end.
The one big thing I think that needs tinkering is the opening sequence which is fairly deadly dull at this point. It's used to much better effect in the opening of Act II. In Act I it's just confusing and doesn't really grab you.
Though it might seem more critical than I meant it to be, I actually really enjoyed this show and it has a lot of strong things going for it. Tonight I understood why people are fanatical about Sutton Foster, she became Jo March on that stage, in every movement and I understood why Astonishing is the Act I closer, because it's truly a breakthrough moment for the character. I predict a second Tony on her mantle for this show and deservedly so.
All in all, I would really hope this show does decent business (though the crowd was about 75% women and near capacity it seemed to me). I don't think it'll become a huge mega hit along the lines of Wicked or anything, but it's definitely got the family appeal going for it and with decent sized crowds and tourists I can see it hanging in for a decent run and I think it deserves it. I'll be interested to see what, if any changes are made between now and the official opening night.
Onto the business at hand. I actually had about as much interest in seeing Little Women as I did in, oh say, sitting through Brooklyn again in my lifetime. IOW, not much at all. After seeing Sutton Foster perform "Astonishing" on the broadcast of Broadway on Broadway I thought "great voice, but eh, still no interest".
Well, as a grown up I can admit when I'm wrong, and as cliche as it will no doubt become, Sutton Foster truly is "astonishing" in the role of Jo March. Ditto Maureen McGovern in the role of Marmee.
I think everyone knows the classic tale of Little Women which is a fairly strong suit of the book for the show. The source material is already rich with possibilities and I was quite impressed at how tightly written the show is. Despite the fact that it's a very long (nearly 3 hours) show, I honestly would have a hard time thinking of something that could be cut that wouldn't ruin the flow of the book.
The strongest points of the show, for me, are the performances of Sutton Foster, Maureen McGovern and actually most of the rest of the cast, save for Amy McAlexander whose Amy manages to be both annoying and ineffective all at once. Were it not for the fact that Amy is a central part of the story, I would gladly do without the character altogether. Strictly from the text Amy is meant to be childish and grating, but the tone of Amy McAlexander's portrayal falls somewhere more on the side of petty and a ridiculous caricature than one with heart or dimensions.
The ever shifting sets are also interesting. There are simple pieces of furniture that adorn the sets that make up the majority of "rooms" we get to see into, but they're all used very effectively and add a lot of visual depth. Though I'm still trying to work out the purpose of the big blue hanging curtain that sort of looks like a rug that surrounds the stage. I find it to be a bit of an eyesore and unnecessary.
The costumes are also quite beautiful time period pieces. Whether by design or accident Sutton Foster never quite fits any of Jo's costumes until her final dress. Something always seems to be hanging off the side or just a bit big on her.
The weakest aspect of the show is the score and not because it's a bad score, it's just very simplistic and aside from Astonishing, there are perhaps 2-3 other songs themselves that will stick out in people's minds. The rest of the songs are serviceable to the show, but this is definitely not a score that will leave you humming going out of the theater, it won't leave you with a headache like, oh say, Brooklyn, but it just won't be captivating either.
There's a lot of heart in the book, perhaps a little too much heart wearing on the sleeve, because if I had to describe the entire show in one word, it would be quaint. The music is quaint, the relationships are quaint, the dialogue can be very namsy pampsy "I love you, no I love you more, you're the bestest" type, said in that certain upspeak. Yet there are moments of real, honest to goodness jokes thrown in there as well which was a delightful surprise. I think the direction needs a bit of work in the scenes shared between the sisters where there's always a bit more of that mushy March sisters through and through, now hug type direction. More quiet, honest moments like the song between Jo and Marmee in the attic and less showy would work for those moments.
There aren't terribly elaborate choreographed scenes, but enough so that there's a taste of what Sutton is capable of (and actually all of them are, as there's a great sequence between the five March sisters and Laurie). The only other suggestion I would make is to make the passage of time more clearer. The last we see of Amy in the first act she comes across as being either a very young child (again it's hard to tell by the way she's portrayed) or at most a very young teenager. By the end of the second act we need to believe she's old enough to be a bride, that transition gets lost. Perhaps a better explanation for where Farther March winds up other than a couple of throwaway sentences at the end.
The one big thing I think that needs tinkering is the opening sequence which is fairly deadly dull at this point. It's used to much better effect in the opening of Act II. In Act I it's just confusing and doesn't really grab you.
Though it might seem more critical than I meant it to be, I actually really enjoyed this show and it has a lot of strong things going for it. Tonight I understood why people are fanatical about Sutton Foster, she became Jo March on that stage, in every movement and I understood why Astonishing is the Act I closer, because it's truly a breakthrough moment for the character. I predict a second Tony on her mantle for this show and deservedly so.
All in all, I would really hope this show does decent business (though the crowd was about 75% women and near capacity it seemed to me). I don't think it'll become a huge mega hit along the lines of Wicked or anything, but it's definitely got the family appeal going for it and with decent sized crowds and tourists I can see it hanging in for a decent run and I think it deserves it. I'll be interested to see what, if any changes are made between now and the official opening night.
"Too young to hold on and too old to just break free and run" - Jeff Buckley
Updated On: 12/8/04 at 01:29 AM
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
