ColorTheHours048 said: "I find telling the story in reverse without any “reason” kind of renders it dramatically inert. It’s a lot of filling us in on who’s who and how they relate to the main trio and it comes off as clunky exposition. In a concert staging put up in two weeks and running for a weekend, there’s not much that can be done other than presenting it straightforward. But also, yes, I find Jonathan Groff’s Frank infinitely more charming and likable than I found Colin Donnell’s.
The Encores recording is perhaps the best pure “recording” of the Merrily score, but it’s also not one of my faves as far as Sondheim goes, so it doesn’t mean much to me in that respect. And the acting is… fine, if uninspired. But this revival’s recording captures a lot of the energy of the performances, which is really what makes this revival work so well: the acting.
There’s also a lot to be said for the way Maria Friedman has directed it, and how crystal clear the storytelling is. Her care for telling the story and nailing the heart of it is everywhere. The visual thread of the red manuscript and the initially cheesy “Don’t write what you know; write what youknow” have a satisfying payoff because of the subtle ways her direction draws attention to them. You could hear every piece that fell into place in the audience, and it really feels like such a rare thing to have an audience like that acknowledge such small details. It’s something a concert mounting - no matter how successful - could likely never achieve."
I agree with everything you said, except your first sentence. I think it would be much less impactful in telling the story in chronological order. By the end of the actual show, I felt terrible thinking about what was going to happen to these innocent, hopeful, talented people. Even with that, because it ended with such a beautiful, hopeful song, you didn't leave the theatre depressed.
Told in chronological order, I think the show would become dreary and hopeless, as their relationship falls apart and possibly becomes irreparable. The audience would leave the theatre burned out and desperately wanting a drink. By ending when they are young, the irony of knowing what becomes of them makes it both heartbreaking and hopeful at the same time, which is quite an achievement.
I have to admit that I like the fact that the Josie character is not in the final scenes. While excellently played, her character is just so awful that it is good to be rid of her.
The other thing I like is that it keeps you on your toes more, making you think a lot more than if it was told in a very conventional chronology.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
