Little Women - First Preview- Page 2

[NightLaughs]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 5:03pm

Thank you very much for the review! I'm going next week and am more excited than ever. "Astonishing" better be as good as all of you say. :P

[grownupgroupie]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 8:44pm

That'a great point, ddtruitt.

I was there last night (but posted my comments on another thread before this one got going.)

Amy Alexander is practically a little person. Seriously--and I was at the show w/ someone who knew her, so she's like maybe 4'7" or 4'8" he thought. SHORT!!! So that works for the child thing, and then they put heels on her when she grows up.....BUT, I had totally forgotten that in the book she's supposed to be tall. Alexander also did these VERY odd speech pattern/enunciation things. All of the actors hit their "t's" very hard--obviously coached to do so to sound more 1860s and less lazy-mouthed 2004 Americans. But Alexander had just this weird quasi-accent thing that sounded like a pouty petualnt YOUNG child--not a 12 year old. Odd choice.

But now that you mention it, I think that Laura Bell Bundy would have been SUPERB in this role. I guess she was still w/ Wicked when this was getting going? There's a lot of Amber Von Tussel in Amy.....and I think Bundy might have been less caricature-ish?


(And yes, Most Amazing Thing is still in it.)

But even w/ an odd Amy, I LOVEDLOVED the show. Updated On: 12/8/04 at 08:44 PM

[MatureDignity]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 9:00pm

Amy stuck out in a bad way. I think it had a lot to do with the way the character was written (just not in line with the tone of the show, I thought), and I dunno how much direction has to do with Amy McAlexander's portrayal of her, but I was annoyed and distracted by the character.

After I saw it, I thought Jen Cody would make a good Amy. Updated On: 12/10/04 at 09:00 PM

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 9:02pm

Thanks for the detailed review, Trisky. I can't wait to see it!

[LiTtLeDaNcEr729]

Posted: 12/8/04 at 11:10pm

When I saw the show at Duke I thought Amy Alexander was Jen Cody for a second. Hah- but yes, Jen would be fantastic in that role I think!

[Trisky]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 12:29am

Hey folks, sorry to post and disappear. I hope more people got the chance to see the show today!

I havent seen little women but do you think they did a good job at appealing to a diverse audience?

I think this might actually be a slight problem. As I looked around the audience and saw the vast majority of women, it seemed clear to me that they're going to have a hard sell with the male half of the population (other than those with a deep appreciaton for the theater already, that is), simply because the core theme of the show is sisterhood and is clearly aiming at sentimentality above all else. It will appeal to a large age range of women, I'm sure (the women next to me was probably in her 70's and sighed quite loudly in appreciation - and I'm 28, so there's a bit of a taste of the age range possibilities). I can see men being dragged against their will and maybe enjoying it as a guilty pleasure, but not necessarily being their first choice for theater going.

And Tell Me Who is this Hot Young Australian Composer Boy you are with? What has he done?

He's an international man of mystery is what he is. LOL You'll more than likely start hearing a lot about him in the coming year and in an effort not to jinx his compositions/show(s) before they come to fruition, because I'm superstitious like that, we're keeping him under wraps for now! Though I can say he did compose for the Olympic ceremonies in Sydney (and tonight at the dinner table, but that's another story...).

As for crying, I did tear up a few times and depending on your instinctual level of emotional reaction, I'm sure there will be quite a few wet eyes in the house (no they don't show that part, btw).

I, however, very much enjoyed the score.

It's not so much that I disliked it, because I didn't, as much as it's not a score that sticks out, dramatically speaking, very clearly in my mind. But I think that's a good thing, because I also think it's a score that flows together much more coherently than a lot of shows on Broadway right now, which just seem to randomly throw songs with no tonal commonality between them between dialogue.

Oh- and a question- did they take out "Most Amazing Thing" (or something like that)- the song between Laurie and Amy?

It's still there and I agree it's a bit of an annoying song, but then again I think I find adult Amy even more annoying than child Amy, because she still speaks exactly the same and the audience is meant to believe she's become a woman while away. I think what also weakens "Most Amazing Thing" is "Take a Chance on Me". The Laurie/Jo scenes and songs are some of the strongest of the show and I think the Amy/Laurie scene/song become a hard sell because of it (along with the fact that we barely see them in the second act until the end).

PB ENT. unfortunately I didn't notice the musical director, as we were sort of off to the side, and all I could see was quick glimpses of his head every now and then.

I agree with you all on the casting of Amy. I noticed the diction they were all attempting, but Amy McAlexander's stood out in my mind as completely distracting. She actually reminded me of the character of Nelly from Little House on the Prairie, or like a really scary porcelain doll come to life.

Updated On: 12/9/04 at 12:29 AM

[Lorelai]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 11:38am

"And what you said about Sutton's clothes.......it is supposed to be big on her. She is a tomboy and hates wearing dresses. At the end she is a proper lady and wears clothes that fit."

That's exactly what I was thinking as well. On a related note, on moment that sticks out in my mind is when they were leaving to go to the ball, Meg comes down the stairs first all elegant and proper, then Jo comes down the stairs and she's pretty much everything but. I also saw the first preview on Tuesday but I actually had to leave at intermission (I assumed the show was at 7 and had a work thing at 10 that I couldn't change). Going to see it next week so I'll write more of a review then but I must say, hearing Sutton perform "Astonishing" on Broadway on Broadway (tv) and seeing her live - no comparisn. Brilliant.

[midtowngym]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 11:49am

You're SO right about Amy. My thread/review was positive, but Amy creeped me out. Within an hour she went from a bratty girl to an engaged woman. She wasn't in Europe THAT long, and it made the timeline confusing. Her annunciation was quite strange.

Updated On: 12/9/04 at 11:49 AM

[Lorelai]

Posted: 12/9/04 at 3:56pm

"No one who created this piece even thought for a second about the importance of Amy being a real foil to Jo..."

I think the creative team and/or producers could have done "better' when they chose to how to portray and cast the role Amy. Since the character IS a foil to Jo I think (just my opinion) they should have cast an actress who could make Amy a worthy
opponent to Jo. Sutton is such so much of a force in her role in general, so it makes the interaction between Jo and Amy feel unbalanced in a way and only Their interaction only emphasizes a lack of balance. so, with all due respect, they should have cast an actress who can perform and take the character to the next level. In my opinion, Sutton has raised the bar with this role and aren't many actressess who can equal that.

Posted: 12/12/04 at 12:55pm

Things are encouraging and engaging at the Virginia Theatre.

LITTLE WOMEN has the look, feel and sound of a Broadway musical.

I attended a preview this weekend, and I look forward to seeing it after it opens.