#1
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.
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
