MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG First Performance... — Page 5

Somethingwicked--Mary's early scenes seem hard to get right for many actresses--or maybe many audiences (or both). I remember one performance we did of our (I'd like to think) decent production and you could physically sense people negatively cringe and horrified at her boozy one liners early on.

I have to admit, flaws and all, I do find Merrily--its book and score--is a show I find tremendously moving. But in my experience, many audiences simply *don't*. I remember when I saw the very well done (I thought) Shaw Festival production, in the washroom at intermission I heard some sorta typical bitchy theatre queens discussing about why anyone would do the show anyway since it was a flop (the production probably shouldn't have had such indepth notes in its program about the history of the show), how nobody was even slightly unlikeable so why would they care to discover how they got that way, and most amusing that "There's not a tune you can hum". I was an obnoxious teenager and I think I then started whistling Not a Day Goes By as I left the urinal to wash my hands while they were still gossiping (I'm sure there's a more interesting story in here), but I hoped the irony of that last comment wasn't lost when they saw Act II.

But that aspect does surprise me a little. Then again I seem to find interesting, and even identify with, characters who many critics and audiences feel are too unlikeable to care about (my favorite current author is Alan Hollinghurst and his critics always complain that his characters are unlikeable, which makes me wonder about my taste some).

"For the record, I think the part of Gussie was actually expanded for the 1985 production in La Jolla when Mary Gordon Murray played the part. That was the real major rewrite from the original. The part of Beth has always been smaller, even when Marin Mazzie played it (in the same production). But she comes on and has that powerful scene in front of the courthouse, leading up to "Not a Day Goes By," which, if done as well as Mazzie did it, stops the show completely. It may be a small role in stage time, but it's a powerful and memorable one. "

Best, you're right, that's one of the changes that has stuck from the first revision. I haven't heard much about Betsy Wolfe's performance as Beth, but I'm sure she sang it well. It is a slightly thankless role despite having some of the best numbers (Bobby and Jackie and Jack", "Not a Day Goes By")... When I saw her as Mary Ann in Tales of the City she sang two of the best songs phenomenally but as a character got kinda lost in the shuffle compared to everyone else after the opening 20 minutes--which was at least partially a flaw in the writing.

I guess maybe some audiences (most audiences?) will never get past their initial reaction of why they should care how these unpleasant people got unpleasant and unhappy. Maybe the show can never get past that. Even in something like Sweeney you basically learn Sweeney's whole background and motivation before he goes on his killing spree. Or maybe some dislike how Furth portrays them--while the criticism is much more minor now, many initially complained that Company was filled with unpleasant people--particularly the women, a criticism I find odd. I'd love to hear more about the small revisions that were further added to this production but to quote a much earlier musical, it sounds like "they've gone about as 'fur as they can go" and I assume Sondheim and everyone else still around that are involved are pleased with it.

Did the Encores feature any dance? The original had a few big moments--and of course famously changed choreographers between Ron Field and Larry Fuller (Field IMHO does more spectacular choreography, and was denied the fame he deserved-his original Cabaret numbers, while overshadowed now in memory by Fosse, are pretty *wow*--but maybe Fuller did fit the show better though it seems an unecessary change. In the preview bootleg floating around Fuller re-uses almost exactly his Evita "posh people" movements from Evita's "PEron's Latest flame" for the later cut "Blob" setion of merrily, where it works equally well). But full on dance probably fits the original "hey gang let's put on a show" mis-concept of Prince's better than the more "realistic" modern one.

I just saw the show as well and I loved it. I honestly didn't notice any sumbles or flubs. Where did that happen?

Quick question, this productions starts with "that frank" right after the overture, right? wasn't there a scene before at the reunion where he gives a speech first?

I'm almost positive that that scene was in other versions of the show beside the original staging, no?

NYT review -- ouch!!! I'm seeing it this Saturday and I'm glad I didn't wait for a Broadway transfer. Post was better, however.

---

I've always seen Mary as a slightly overweight Dorothy Parker, clever and quippy but with a throbbing, vulnerable heart of gold.

New York City has always been crowded with them. They come off of the train or the plane or the bus every day. They fall in love with unavailable guys and learn how not to show it. The days go by and the months and the years and they harden and sometimes they get bitter. Sometimes they become very successful. Sometimes they drink too much or get a little too loud at parties. Sometimes they're consumed by regret. But, always, they're fiercely devoted to those they love. A heart of gold never tarnishes, even when its patina is tattered.

Mary is one of my favorite characters in all of Sondheim-dom. Ann Morrison was all that--and more--in the original production.

---

To elaborate a bit, while I think this is a fine production of the show, there are problems with the piece you just can't solve. The biggest is that, for those who already know the material, there is an immediate investment in the story, but for those who don't, there's literally no pay off until the second act. I brought a friend who had zero familiarity with the material, and she pointed out many of the flaws that I think any average audience member would have a hard time with. When Mary sings "Like It Was," how do you know what she's talking about? What context do you have to have any emotional connection to her when you as an audience member have no idea what "it" was like? Similarly, "Old Friends" tells you that these three are indeed old friends, but it doesn't go beyond that, and "Franklin Shepherd Inc." indicates a massive change in Frank, but you know nothing about his previous self yet to substantiate that being true. Some (myself included) would argue that the second act provides a rich enough emotional pay off to make getting there worth it, but I totally see why others feel the complete opposite. The stuff in the first act that is rich enough to stand alone works, like "Not a Day Goes By," but much of it is incredibly wobbly.

In terms of this production specifically, the show lives and dies by the three leads, and I think this central trio is a mixed bag. Their chemistry together is absolutely remarkable, especially given the short rehearsal period, but their individual portrayals are problematic. Colin Donnell fairs the best, but Frank is still one of the most oddly sketched leading men in the history of musical theater (how has giving him an "I want" song still not been one of the changes made in the revisions over the years?) Lin-Manuel Miranda does a fine job of making Charley his own, but he's way out of his depth vocally, and it forces him to resort to pushing that tends to feel desperate. Similarly, Celia Keenan-Bolger struggles the entire night to sing the score, but she actually has managed to find incredibly interesting line readings for Mary that gave her dimensions I've never seen before. That being said, she stumbles in a big way with her characterization at the top of the show, and I contend that a Mary who starts off hardened and reveals vulnerability as she ages backward is much more affecting than the open wound Keenan-Bolger appears to be right out of the gate. The supporting cast, though, is near perfect, with Betsy Wolfe hammering home "Not a Day Goes By" and Elizabeth Stanley (the night I attended) stopping the show with her second act opening sequence. I think the reason these two work so well is because they provide specific and vivid enough choices to compensate for the lack of weight provided by their material, and I wish I saw more of that in their principal counterparts. A special mention also goes the marvelous orchestra and the incredible ensemble, who I felt handled the transitions as good as I've ever seen them done.

I can't help but agree with Ben Brantley that it feels as if James Lapine is compensating for flaws in the show the whole night, but I also think that is exactly what he's (justifiably) doing, and he manages to do it rather successfully in terms of a lot of his own personal touches, like the projections and the imagery used to fill in the gaps not necessarily accommodated by the rapidly changing narrative device. I also liked most of his changes to the book, though I think the liberty he takes altering the ending provides a big problem that threatens to derail "Our Time," which is otherwise the show's most bittersweet and impactful moment.

Ultimately, is this a strong MERRILY...? Without a doubt, yes. Is it as good as it could have been? Unfortunately, no. But should we relish in the show finally getting its due in New York after all these years on a major scale? Absolutely.

---

Updated On: 2/11/12 at 03:58 AM

somethingwicked---great analysis of the show as seen from "fresh eyes," something most of us wouldn't have here---particularly about all the setups and payoffs in reverse (in other words, not existing when they're needed).

As far as Frank's "I Want" song, I think he had one and they cut it. I have always seen "Rich and Happy" filling that slot. But the song's irony is tricky to convey. It should be clear that Frank is not rich and happy. Well, rich yes, happy---clearly no. Although rich and successful, he is empty emotionally, lost on his path, and lacking everything stable that at one time he wanted. He wishes he were happy now with what he's accomplished and the "successful" person he has become, but he's not. It's only by the end of this whole long scene that we really understand that's the case. During the song (which starts off the scene), it's not clear at all, so it wasn't really working.

I think they wrestled with the irony (from an acting POV) and the staging of this number so much, they finally decided the best thing they could do for the 1985 La Jolla production was cut it and retool it into "That Frank," which is sung mostly by everyone else commenting on Frank and his life from an outside POV. It robs him of his "I want" moment. And he definitely still "wants" then.

EDIT: It worked better when they started with The Hills of Tomorrow and the commencement speech at Frank's old high school, where he starts to deviate a bit and tells the class how hard life is, and we see how disillusioned he's become. Then launching into "Rich and Happy," the irony of his feelings was a little more clear. A little, but not enough.

---

Updated On: 2/11/12 at 06:41 AM

"Rich and Happy" in the original production sucks. Walton wasn't old enough to convey the irony that he really WASN'T happy being rich and successful, so Frank just comes across as a superficial asshole. There's no wit or self-deprecating humor about it.

"That Frank" didn't help much. It only serves him up as a third-person SOB. It was an improvement by degrees of separation, softening the blow. The picture his friends paint of him is still crap. Only with the revision, he's just a "distant" crappy person. The problem is still the character, even if Rubenstein (in the La Jolla production) was able to get some of the irony and humor into it.

Start out with three "ugly" people and work back to when they weren't. You can write songs until you're blue in the face, it won't help until that changes. People aren't interested (or only mildly at best), and when they do see how they have "devolved" in reverse, it only makes them uncomfortable about it, especially when they aren't familiar with the story and don't know what's coming next.

---

Updated On: 2/11/12 at 10:56 AM

Seriously, does this production open with "That Frank" or was that comment about the prologue being cut just in reference to "The Hills of Tomorrow" being cut after the original production?

^ Just as it did in La Jolla in 1985.

---

An Anyone Could Whistle cast recording would have been great. I have never liked Foster as much as in that production.

I was very excited about Miranda's casting as Kringas but he looks lost and uncomfortable in the scenes that have been released - hoping this is just the way it appears in out of context fragments.

Miranda was fine as he got younger because he has such a naive, slightly lost and awkward look about him. But he does not, unfortunately, have either the acting chops or the singing voice to make this role interesting. I loved the music, but thought the production failed to come together either dramatically or musically. (Saw it Friday night.)

Updated On: 2/12/12 at 05:37 PM