"Luck Be A Lady Tonight" with the official GUYS & DOLLS revival love thread- Page 5

[gypsy4]

Posted: 2/6/09 at 8:02pm

Glad to hear that Lauren is doing well in the role. I sort of had doubts about her I can't see her as a blonde.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/6/09 at 9:13pm

Am I reading a different thread or most indicated she wasn't very good at all?

[Eris0303]

Posted: 2/6/09 at 11:05pm

"Am I reading a different thread or most indicated she wasn't very good at all?"

As of right now it seems like a mixed bag to me. Some liked her and some didn't

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 2/6/09 at 11:33pm

OK, tell me if I'm crazy, but am I the only one that kind of hoped Mary Testa was understudying Lauren? I know, she's too old for Adelaide and has enough theater cred to not understudy, but I think she could take Adelaide to the next level. I've always read it as a role for a real comedienne, and she is one if she's anything.

[bwayguy22089]

Posted: 2/6/09 at 11:41pm

Ok, so I just got back from the second preview performance. Des came out on stage before the show to welcome the audience and to explain what a "preview" is.

I have to say that I loved the show. The overall design concept is wonderful. It's very different from the famous '92 revival. It seems to be very dark and more "old fashioned" and less cartoon like (not that there was anything wrong with the cartoon theme). Also, I have to mention that Act 2 was entirely different from Act 1. The show is almost rock solid in Act 2. The characters and the vocals are wonderful.

Mr. Platt grew into the role and by Act 2 he was good. Not great, but good. I don't think he understands the role right now, or the way he wants to play it. I think Lauren would be amazing if Oliver knew what he was doing. She is strong in her solo scenes or scenes with others. I actually liked their "Sue Me" a lot. I don't know who said Oliver has a bad voice. For someone playing Nathan, he has one of the better voices. On that note, Lauren's singing voice is much better than I expected. I also like how her characterization is COMPLETELY different from Faith's. Faith was amazing in her own right, but I think a lot of people are going into this current revival expecting her. Lauren is not Faith, but she still is wonderful.

I also really liked "Take Back Your Mink". Lauren was so cute up there. I love how that whole scene (along with "Bushel and a Peck") is designed. It's very dark and almost sleazy. I liked it lol. I also liked the scene right before "Marry the Man Today". Lauren and Kate had great chemistry and comedic timing.

My favorite one up there tonight (next to the obvious Mary Testa) was Kate Jennings Grant. She went full circle. I love the journey her character takes. She has a lovely voice as well. Her and Craig have wonderful chemistry. I totally believe that they fall in love. As for Craig, he is very very good. Still not great, but close. They will all grow in time. I expect that in a more weeks, maybe even days, this show will be great! I'm looking forward to going back.

Also, the orchestrations are completely different. It's a nice combo between the '92 orchestrations and the original. I liked 'em

The sight lines in the theatre are awful, especially in the orchestra. It is barely raked at all. If you have someone tall in front of you, good luck. Also, avoid the side orchestra. You can see most of the stage, but you miss the entire backdrop (where the most action is, in terms of scenic changes.)

Updated On: 2/6/09 at 11:41 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 12:23am

Do any of you who have seen this think that performers like Anne Hathaway, Patrick Wilson, Debra Messing, John C. Reilly would have made it a great revival or would the production values and directing upstage any performer?

[bwayguy22089]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 12:26am

Hmmm... I think that if Oliver Platt can do it, John C. Reilly could too. I don't know if one would have been better than the other. I also don't know how well Debra Messing can sing. I happen to like Lauren's voice, so I'm not too sure. She'd be equally as "cute". I don't think Patrick Wilson looks suave or "bad boy" enough to play Sky though. I do like him as a performer, but I really liked how Craig was charming yet sly at the same time, very similar to how Peter Gallagher played the part. As for Anne, I have absolutely no idea lol. She could definitely act the part.
Updated On: 2/7/09 at 12:26 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 12:30am

I think a cast like that would have really made it sparkle. I saw it tonight and enjoyed it, but it feels heavy and like it's a bit lifeless and times. There's less wrong with it than the feeling that it's just missing something. It's very well done, but doesn't fully take off. This cast is really talented, and they're good, but they aren't great. Kate Jennings Grant was my favorite of the leads, I thought Lauren Graham was very cute, and thought Craig Bierko was well-cast (though I couldn't help imagining Cheyenne as Sky). Oliver Platt was kind of all over the place, but I've never liked him.

[LimelightMike]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 12:35am

SO HAPPY FOR THESE REVIEWS!

It's a mixed bag right now, sure, but things'll improve.

Previews *are* previews, after all.

Let the company get a feel for the roles.

[bwayguy22089]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 1:12am

Hmmm, Cheyenne would make a very good Sky. I don't know how he'd pair up with Kate though. She is beautiful, and I don't mean to offend her, but isn't she older than him? I think it would be noticeable too. Maybe not though. I'm not sure. All I know is that Kate and Craig had wonderful chemistry on stage tonight.

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 1:20am

Kate and Craig did have great chemistry. I wasn't sure how I would like them (I wanted Lauren Ambrose and Patrick Wilson in those roles), but they really impressed me. And add me to the camp who enjoyed Lauren's performance; I thought she was a natural Adelaide.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 1:32am

Just got back.

Painful, awful, horrendous. That's all I can say. And I am possibly the biggest GILMORE GIRLS fan in the world. But yet... that was like watching Lorelai Gilmore in the Stars Hollow Community Theater production of GUYS AND DOLLS. Ouch.

[goldenstate5]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 2:22am

"Also, the orchestrations are completely different. It's a nice combo between the '92 orchestrations and the original. I liked 'em"

How are they during Runyonland? Is it over-the-top wackiness like '92, or more contained as the usuals?

[Smaxie]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 2:41am

Haven't seen this one, but Michael Kidd's original staging for "Runyonland," some of which is on view in the movie version, is not exactly sedate.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 2:53am

I just got back as well, and I have to say: Why isn't Mary Testa in every scene! Even in her very small scene in Act 1, I was in stitches. Sadly, she probably has the most solid characterization out of the bunch.

I didn't care much for the show, but that might be the show overall and not this production. I just don't think it's a good show. The plot is slow moving, and I really just don't care about any of the characters. Most of the music is decent, if not good, and sung by this cast, it at least sounds great. But the acting left much to be desired.

Oliver Platt is just strange as Nathan Detroit. I felt like the whole time he had that look in his eyes like "Is this funny? Is this funny yet?" Maybe he'll grow into the role, but he just look uncomfortable. Graham wasn't bad at all. Her singing was quite good, but I didn't care for her take on the role. She needs to be broader. Her characterization might be okay for a TV screen, but it needs to be able to reach the back of the house. A lot of her line deliveries were the same note and the same rhythm. I think she'll def. grow into the role. I can see where she's headed, and with more performances under her belt, she'll be just fine.

As for the other two leads, I thought they were okay. Not great, but okay. Like stated above, I thought Kate Jennings Grant was the best of the bunch - besides Testa. Her voice was beautiful and her acting strong. I think my problem with the show is everyone just seems so bland. There aren't really any stand-out songs for the leads, or any great big acting scenes (like in Gypsy). It all just sort of unfolds and it's quaint and nice, but nothing stellar.

The production as a whole was pretty good. I mean, the production values are high, and the set is pretty massive. The two huge marquees on either side of the stage def. dwarf the stage, but are still pretty interesting. The projections are pretty stupid, but I can see how they could be cool and interesting. The problem is most of them seem fuzzy and out of focus so it doesn't really look that great. Also, when they shine the spotlight on a performer and it hits the screen, it leaves this big white spot, which is just distracting. But a lot of the set pieces are pretty cool, although I didn't understand the "massiveness" of the sewer scene. Did they even use the bridge? I was in "partial view" (which was fine, I was in row H, I think?) and so I don't know if they used it for a split second or something. Some of the set pieces just seemed excessive, but it's their money, not mine.

As for the direction....it was okay. I didn't understand the whole point of the writer walking through the show? In my partial view seat, I couldn't see what he wrote at the beginning; therefore, his whole entire point in the show was lost to me, and I kept wondering why he would randomly enter and exit a scene. There were lots of random crosses and moving about without much motivation, but again, I'm sure that will be fine tuned.

The dancing was okay. I'm still partial to the London revival's Havana scene (you tube it!). I mean, it had such electricity and it was so sensual, and brilliantly staged. I was so anticipating that scene, but it was all over so quickly. It seemed kind of pointless. I really liked the dance before "Luck Be A Lady", although all the fake dice throwing got old after a while, and I thought it would have been more interesting to incorporate a more "'gangster" type attitude throughout the piece, since they are suppose to be "sinners."

Again, maybe I'm just not a fan of the show. I saw a horrible community theater production of it back in the day, so I thought I'd give it another chance. I found myself drifting in and out, and the first Act was like pulling teeth, but the last twenty-thirty minutes were a delight. "Sit Down Your Rocking The Boat" blew the roof off the place, and Mary Testa's scenes made it worthwhile.

And I agree that it just didn't sparkle. Everything felt stilted, like you could see the possibilities, but for some reason there was a cap on it all. I honestly don't see the production progressing too much throughout the progress. Des doesn't seem like the kind of director after an award-winning performance, but mostly over production values, etc.

Oh! And the theater was GORGEOUS. I loved how the set felt like it was just built into the theater, and all of the gold-leafing and stuff is beautiful. It really looks great. Def. try to get a seat in the Mezz if you can for this show. I think it will help give you the whole effect.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 2:57am

I just don't think it's a good show. The plot is slow moving, and I really just don't care about any of the characters. Most of the music is decent, if not good, and sung by this cast, it at least sounds great.

That is your (respected) opinion, but we're talking about one of the best musicals ever written. Arguably, after Gypsy, the best book of a musical. So, I doubt the problem is there.

[A Director]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 4:18am

RentBoy - I think you are selling Guys & Dolls short. Unlike Gypsy, it's a musical comedy. The book is one of the best ever. The score is also one of the best. Many people would include the show on their top ten list. Sit down and really listen to the original cast recording to understand why. If the plot is slow moving and the characters are bland, the fault is with the production not the show.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 7:14am

Yet another musical with the orchestra on stage! I don't get it. Does the Nederlander not have an orchestra pit? I have seen only dramas there: WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? WHOSE LIFE IS IT ANYWAY?, 13 CHARING CROSS ROAD, and BILLY being 4 of them.

And GUYS AND DOLLS has an excellent score by the great Frank Loesser, with standout songs for each of the leads.

If there are major problems with this show it is in the acting and production departments. GUYS AND DOLLS is one of a handful of classic Broadway shows, really a perfect show.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 8:18am

Billy was a musical. There is a pit at the Nederlander and there have been shows with large orchestras in there, like A Family Affair and Purlie.

[dg22894]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 9:40am

Anything about Glenn Fisher??

[karen24]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 12:12pm

RentBoy, I wondered about your comment about the "writer wandering in and out"? Can you elaborate? I don't remember this from any other production I've ever seen. Is this some new bit of business that's been added in for this production? It sounds strange to me.

This is one of my all-time favorite musicals and I agree with others who have said that if the plot seems slow or the music doesn't thrill, it pretty much has to be the fault of the production. I think this show has one of the best books and possibly the best music of any American musical. It is interesting to me to read that even given this material, a production can have problems.

My son's high school chorus is seeing this in March on their school trip--they were originally going to see "Billy Elliott," but it was changed to "Guys & Dolls." No idea if that was because they couldn't get enough tickets for BE or if the teacher decided G&D was an opportunity not to pass up. I wish I could go along but they are not having parent chaperones! We live upstate so I probably won't get down to see it until April or May. I never got to see the '92 revival (was having a baby at the time) so I really hope it is good.

Updated On: 2/7/09 at 12:12 PM

[B3TA07]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 12:36pm

" I can't see her as a blonde."

There's a photo that may help.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 12:59pm

Did Lauren Graham come out of the stage door to greet fans?

[James Sims]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 1:16pm

RentBoy is referring to the characterization of Damon Runyon throughout the show. It opens with him typing a story that unfolds as "Broadway Stories." He rips a piece of paper from his typewriter, lights a cigarette, and then appears throughout the evening as an observer. In a sense, he is watching over his creation. As the show closes, he reappears at the typewriter knocking out the final page of his story. In the playbill, his character is simply titled "Damon."
Updated On: 2/7/09 at 01:16 PM

[Actor 7]

Posted: 2/7/09 at 1:56pm

Wow! Just the variety of comments about G&D gives us a good idea about all of the great possibilities this show has. One question. When I saw RENT at this theatre, it was very easy to see the stage is not very deep. It seems to have a good high fly space above but very little room on the stage deck itself. Many of the reviews posted here have described "massive" set pieces. Where do they put all of these pieces when they aren't being used? Do they hoist them up to those two lofts on the sides of the stages?Is that the purpose of the lofts? I really wonder where they put all that scenery.