Little Women is Dreadful

[Luke0827]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 12:33am

This has probably been covered extensively, but I just got around to seeing "Little Women" and was utterly astonished at how weak the production is. The book is the biggest problem, and to be sure, condensing such a large volume into a piece of musical theater is a formidable challenge -- one which Allan Knee was unable to overcome.

The story is well known: four sisters and their mother struggling through life during the Civil War in Massachusetts. The real struggle is in the telling of this story, which is done not without considerable confusion: the scenes progress from the year 1865 to 1863 to 1864, then back to 1865, on to 1866, and finally the proceedings conclude in 1867. Confusing? Yes. But even more remarkable is that though the show spans five years to the audience it might feel as though a century has passed until the curtain closes. We hear about the girls' father once in a while, but by the end of the show he's never mentioned. We are told how poor the March family is, yet everyone is dressed in lovely clothes, and two of the sisters even attend a ball in the midst of the family's financial woes. (Oddly enough, they leave for the ball on their own -- were their dates meeting them there?). It's alluded to that the March's home is messy, small, and disorganized, yet there is no evidence on stage to suggest it actually is.

These problems don't approach the appaling "Operatic Tragedy" scenes which manage to elongate the show while adding nothing to the plot. The score has the distinction of including not one song that is even remotely memorable. That isn't to say there aren't plenty of tunes; like the waiting room of a doctor's office, all evening long there is a continual din of vapid power ballads and trite torch songs, none of which texture the book or inform the characters. One is even called "Astonishing" -- it isn't.

The cast works hard but is faced with an impossible challenge since the material it must deliver is so weak. Sutton Foster plays Jo March as though she's reviving "The Carol Burnett Show." Gone are her irrestible charms from her delightful turn as the title character in "Thoroughly Modern Mille." Those portraying her sisters fare even worse. Particularly repellent is Amy McAlexander as Amy March -- a character so unlikeable that one actually wishes that when she leaves for Europe with her obnoxious Aunt (the under utilized Jane Carroll) and smarmy beau (the over utilized Danny Gurwin) she travels by way of the Titanic. Maureen McGovern as Marmee is the most commanding and authoritative actor on stage, but her role is poorly written and never allows for the development of the dynamic matriarch Marmee must be. McGovern is in terrific voice and one wishes she would make more appearaces on Broadway. Hopefully her next show will be worthy of her talent.
Updated On: 5/7/05 at 12:33 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 12:34am

You're right - the show is not very good.

It's VERY VERY weak...but I still managed to enjoy myself, and I was slightly moved.

But Dreadful? Not even close.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 12:37am

Sad to hear you didnt like this show. I liked it a lot although it was weak. I agree the book was the main problem in the show. Buy the CD though, it is shockingly phenomenal.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 12:38am

To the right of your keyboard you will find a button labeled "Enter." Push it twice after a few sentences if you are going to write so much.

Updated On: 5/7/05 at 12:38 AM

[TGIF]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 12:40am

I think Munk covered my opinion. Not a good show, yet still somehow moved by it. Its a mystery!

But you did cover alot of its problems. I am surprised there was no mention of the dreadful wigs (or maybe I missed it in your review). Could you perhaps make seperate paragraphs? Its really discouraging to read one LONG paragraph. Thanks!

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 12:46am

agreed. maybe not dreadful but pretty damn weak. i felt that the show relied, like Wicked in some ways on audience members being familiar with the source material. I was not, and as a result, was frequently lost.

[Mamie]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 12:55am

I believe that a lot of assumptions were made because the play is based on a very popular classic novel. I became very familiar with "Little Women" when I was a very young girl. Most of the things you mention as being confusing weren't the least bit confusing to me. (The 'ball' is held by the March's next door neighbor, Laurie. They didn't need escorts because they were only going next door. The beautiful gowns the older sisters wore were their one and only gowns. Joe's in fact had a large burn hole in the back and she had to spend her time at the ball with her back against the wall so no one would see it. She had no other dress to wear. I understood all these things and never questioned any of them.

This just points out the major mistake the writer's made in assuming that audience's today would be familiar with the story and wouldn't need to be told all these details. People my age know the details of "Little Women" intimately from reading the book - over and over again. The next generation has never read it and assuming they have has made the play the confusing mess you mention.

As I said - I did understand the story but I still thought the show was poorly written. The music was so forgettable that I couldn't recognize any of it now. I was really looking forward to this show and it's just proved to be a big disappointment.

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 1:02am

good points mamie. i just felt that overall, it was very amateurish. like something that would do great on tours, in childrens theatre, etc. But i just felt it was far below anything broadway quality (not that thats saying much today). So i actually expect it to fair far better on tour. we'll see. and i just hope that the whole american idol scream-song doesnt become the staple for any act one closer for female-led musicals. that astonishing number was anything but.

[Luke0827]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 1:28am

Mamie - I am actually considering reading the book because I feel as though there must be some interesting characters and compelling themes in this story which weren't covered in the show.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 1:36am

Well, I did really enjoy the show. And I have the CD. And it's as boring as hell.

[cserannie]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 2:30am

so is it worth buying the cast recording or not?

Updated On: 5/7/05 at 02:30 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 2:34am

The sound is great - and all the performers sound great - Amy McAlexander succeeds in making me not want to gas her, so I guess it's okay.

The music is just a little boring. If you're curious about it, get it.

[YeahRight]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 2:46am

It was a horrible theatrical experience. Not worth the time or money. Or Sutton.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 2:48am

I have to wait for the first stop of the national tour, but I do have the CD and I enjoy the performances very much. I especially like the opening song and "Better" as well as "Lay All Your Love on M - I mean "Take A Chance on Me" ... "Astonishing" is okay, but the lyrics are sort of bland and the song is anything but astonishing, but I still for whatever reason enjoy it. I adore the song at the end too... "Small Umbrella in the Rain". It reminded me of JANE EYRE which I LOVE. I do have to agree though that the whole thing could have been better.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 2:57am

I adore JANE EYRE, and the CD, but LITTLE WOMEN is terribly mediocre. "Astonishing" has good intentions...but it's just....bland.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 9:29am

I have seen better but have also seen much worse (that got better reviews)

On a scale of 10, a 7.5

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 9:38am

"Most of the things you mention as being confusing weren't the least bit confusing to me. (The 'ball' is held by the March's next door neighbor, Laurie. They didn't need escorts because they were only going next door."

I have read this book cover to cover at least 10 times, and I could have sworn the party was for Bell Gardner, who was Meg's friend...did the play change something? Or is this another party we're talking about? I know there were a few in the book so maybe i'm confused. I need to read this book again

Updated On: 5/7/05 at 09:38 AM

[Broadwaylady]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 9:57am

I thought it "cute" but not terrific. To me, Sutton was the whole show!!!!!!!

[jhershour]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 10:05am

You are right...the ball was held at Meg's friend's house not at Laurie's. The ball is where Jo first meets Laurie.

I agree that "Little Women" is not the best show on Broadway and not nearly as good for Sutton Foster as "Millie". That being said, the show did move me to tears and I felt that most of the performers were top-rate. They did the best with what they had. The songs were touching and entertaining.

I recommend this musical to anyone who is a fan of the book because they will be moved.

[Katecab99]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 10:46am

I definitley reccomend the musical to those who want to see really great vocal performances. Sutton Foster is amazing in her role, and I think just to have her voice on another cast album is a wonderful thing.

And, let me not forget Maureen McGovern, who doesn't have all that much to sing in the show, but what she does have is done exceptionally.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 11:04am

Having seen many, many truly dreadful musicals on Broadway and off over the course of my 18 years in NYC, I do believe that that word is far from applicable to the faulty - but certainly far from dreadful - LITTLE WOMEN.

[midtowngym]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 11:23am

I was surprised when Laurie and Jo took their surfboards to the lake and Amy fell through the ice and everyone sung 'Wouldn't it be nice.' Oh wait, that was Good Vibrations. Which was REALLY bad. Little Women was enjoyable, with a lot to offer--top notch cast, nice sets (the attic especially) and a couple of good songs. I liked 'Astonishing' and 'Umbrella in the Rain.'

Updated On: 5/7/05 at 11:23 AM

[Shoshana BeanieBaby]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 11:59am

I hate that any body could call this show dreadful. It was charming. Though it will never be anywhere near as wonderful as Jane Eyre (My favorite) I feel it tugs on the same heart strings as Jane did. Also it's getting the same bad rep that Jane did. I think Sutton was as great as ever and that little women has a lot of heart. and I hope it doesn't close a week after the tonys like jane eyre did.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 12:29pm

midtown's right. Im changin the name of this thread to Good Vibrations is dreadful. Now THERES a show to lament about for being crappy. Updated On: 5/7/05 at 12:29 PM

[Testing1232]

Posted: 5/7/05 at 2:22pm

Totally disagree with the OP as far as Sutton. Her performance, in my opinion, is amazing !!