MISS SAIGON Reviews- Page 4

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 4:25pm

LizzieCurry said: "Dave just sent me a PM with the subject line "Miss Saigon Broadway." Nice try, Dave! Into the trash it went! "

Your personality is already in there. Run, flee for everything you don't like. Classy.

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 4:37pm

Babe_Williams said: "
You are posting as if Miss Saigon was based on a biography and that Kim, Chris and others were real people. It wasn't. It glosses over the horrors of war by using caraciatures of Asian men and Asian women. Chris directly tells Kim that her life, and ergo, the lives of all Vietnamese, have no value in Vietnam. This isn't about "political correctness" or whatever buzzword you are throwing around. There are many ways the writers of this show still could have made this show beautiful and impactful without buying into stereotypes. Put it this way, why did Kim have to be 17 years old? Why did she have to be a prostitute? Why did the comic relief of the show have to be a vile person who uses Kim? None of these plot points made the love story of Kim and Chris any stronger. Anyway, I don't hate Miss Saigon. I just accept that it is problematic. 

"

Why? Because there were tons of this bars during the war and US soldiers went to them and babies were born out of that with all the consequences. Because that happens to be what the show is about.

Why not? I think it's intriguing.

Also, I see Asians in this show portrayed as wonderful mothers, dreamers, fighters, army officers. Are those all stereotypes? I see them as people. Especially the way the character of Kim evolves, it's wonderful. A gorgeous role to be proud of.

[EvanK]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 5:01pm

This is the strangest review thread I've ever seen. 

[Margo319]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 5:06pm

"The worst thing we can do is to treat this show with today's political awareness.   It would be very rude to make people believe the girls in that bar were treated decently. They were not."

Thank you for this!!!!

This show should not have been revived, but I guess they just want more and more money.  Gross.  

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 5:16pm

Babe_Williams said: "Dave28282 said: "Newintown, So you like to hide atrocities that happened? Why is that?

Telling a story about it is not taking a moral stance. It's showing it.

Faulting the show because you are confronted to realities is inappropriate.

What did you have in mind? The marines worshipping the girls and massaging their feet and pouring them champaigne and in the end Kim winning and waving the banner of victory? Like a good old Cinderella story. That might feel more "correct" to you, but I love seeing the political incorrectness of that time.

 

"

You are posting as if Miss Saigon was based on a biography and that Kim, Chris and others were real people. It wasn't. It glosses over the horrors of war by using caraciatures of Asian men and Asian women. Chris directly tells Kim that her life, and ergo, the lives of all Vietnamese, have no value in Vietnam. This isn't about "political correctness" or whatever buzzword you are throwing around. There are many ways the writers of this show still could have made this show beautiful and impactful without buying into stereotypes. Put it this way, why did Kim have to be 17 years old? Why did she have to be a prostitute? Why did the comic relief of the show have to be a vile person who uses Kim? None of these plot points made the love story of Kim and Chris any stronger. Anyway, I don't hate Miss Saigon. I just accept that it is problematic. 

 

"

Aren't you aware that this is an adaptation of Madame Butterfly, where Cio Cio San is a very young geisha, namely legal prostitute. This is not barely a love story, although the cleverly deceptive ad campaign makes it look like. This production makes it really clear that the show is about everyone being the victim of war, which is why I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that "it glosses over the horrors of war by using caraciatures of Asian men and Asian women." It by no means glosses over the horrors of war but instead magnifies it in the pains and suffering of everyone involved.

"Chris directly tells Kim that her life, and ergo, the lives of all Vietnamese, have no value in Vietnam." I don't know where this is coming from, but it sounds ridiculous to someone who knows the lyrics by heart in both English and Japanese. I would love it if you can provide the specific lines that lead to this conclusion.

I really hate it when people, critics or not, review a revival they focus on the material instead of what the new production has added to it. Although the original production had the touch of a colonial worldview, this new production does an amazing job stripping it down and presenting how in fact the capitalism bubble is not really different from the viet cong.

Updated On: 3/24/17 at 05:16 PM

[Princeton2]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 5:43pm

I find Miss Saigon such overblown melodrama that it loses any emotional impact (probably would be better without madam butterfly influences) but am i reading it right that people here think because the story (much of which is based in fact) is uncomfortable to todays ideals that it shouldnt be revived? thats worrying on a massive level, and its not the first time ive seen the twitter brigade trying to erase history to match pc society. History should be studied and learnt from, if we just ignore it the same mistakes will happen again. There are many uncomfortable truths in world history and they absolutely should be the focus of storytelling. And do you really think it the aspects of the vietnam war covered in miss saigon arent still happening in other wars around the world now? especially caused by American overseas policy for decades

[Lot666]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 5:50pm

helvizz said: "I know what Brantley means. I only knew one thing about the show before seeing it/listening to it: i knew it had a helicopter. It's so unique and grand that it amazes the audience and people remember that years after watching the show. So it's only natural that they comment about the chopper when talking about the show with their friends (specially tourists). Thats how I heard of the show."

I understand that members of the public who see a show will naturally chatter about any aspects that wowed them, but purportedly credible critics shouldn't lead with these things and make them the focus of their review - but they do, as evinced here by Brantley. They intentionally, and without the slightest subtlety, create tag lines like "the Little Copter That Wowed" and use them as headlines or in introductory remarks. When David Richards reviewed the original production of Sunset Boulevard for the NY Times, his first sentence was "THE mansion has landed". By doing so, he went a long way in helping to permanently attach that connotation to the show in the public consciousness.

Certain critics seem to think that authoring these "...forever known as" associations makes them clever, and they intentionally reinforce those associations to the public - almost as if they were bona fide sub-titles of shows - so they can later trot them out again in ostensibly wry references.

Perhaps the most irksome aspect of this phenomenon is how it is used to create negative publicity around shows by artists who are not critics' darlings. Imagine the reaction that Brantley would've engendered if he'd entitled his recent review of Sunday in the Park with George, "Return of the Little Chromolume that Could"! Instead, we get, "a Living Painting to Make You See" and his opening remarks addressed the nature of the man who was Georges Seurat.

Updated On: 3/25/17 at 05:50 PM

[devonian.t]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 6:06pm

Princeton2 I think you may have misconstrued the argument, since Dave28282 tried to misrepresent what others had said.

The main criticism in recent posts has not been that 'Miss Saigon' is uncomfortable viewing because of the subject.  Instead the criticism is that it does not show enough TRUTHS about the subject.  The microcosm of the Kim/Chris love affair is, whatever some believe, very simplistic- "how in the light of one night did we come so far indeed".  The writers leaped on the concept of an updated 'Madame Butterfly' without ever recognizing that the characters, dilemmas and solutions were simply not transferable.  In so doing, they created a character who is built not from a truthful awareness of the options open to such real women at the time, but to fulfill the needs of a Western fantasy musical tear-jerker.  Musicals don't have to be documentaries, but when they claim to be gritty and realistic, they have a duty to not treat such women like pliable dolls who absolutely must fit a plot created in 1903!

Perhaps the reason critics dwell on the helicopter is because it is utterly symbolic of a show that is all about surface, but which on the inside is a hollow shell.  

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 6:38pm

I have never seen Miss Saigon live, but I adore the score and plan on seeing this production.

However, the discussion of the musical in this thread is so at odds with what Frank Rich wrote (and my own personal opinions), I wonder what show others saw.

"So take your rage with you to the Broadway Theater, where "Miss Saigon" opened last night, and hold on tight. Then see just how long you can cling to the anger when confronted by the work itself. For all that seems galling about "Miss Saigon" -- and for all that is indeed simplistic, derivative and, at odd instances, laughable about it -- this musical is a gripping entertainment of the old school (specifically, the Rodgers and Hammerstein East-meets-West school of "South Pacific" and "The King and I". Among other pleasures, it offers lush melodies, spectacular performances by Mr. Pryce, Miss Salonga and the American actor Hinton Battle, and a good cry. Nor are its achievements divorced from its traumatic subject, as cynics might suspect. Without imparting one fresh or daring thought about the Vietnam War, the show still manages to plunge the audience back into the quagmire of a generation ago, stirring up feelings of anguish and rage that run even deeper than the controversies that attended "Miss Saigon" before its curtain went up."

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 9:22pm

Devonian, Princeton understands it perfectly. 

"people here think because the story (much of which is based in fact) is uncomfortable to todays ideals that it shouldnt be revived? thats worrying on a massive level, and its not the first time ive seen the twitter brigade trying to erase history to match pc society. History should be studied and learnt from"

Because that's exactly what is happening. I have read complaints about sexism, racism, the ending, various subjects. People just can't handle seeing things they have personal uncomfortable associations with.

You may call it "not showing enough truths" to your liking, but that says more about you than about the show. Letting Kim work in a grocery store because she probably had that choice does not make the show more "true" whatsoever. The arcs and rationales of the characters are one of the best things in this show.

This is the story of choice. You might like to see other things, then go watch another show.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 9:41pm

Dancingthrulife2 said: "This production makes it really clear that the show is about everyone being the victim of war, which is why I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that "it glosses over the horrors of war by using caraciatures of Asian men and Asian women." It by no means glosses over the horrors of war but instead magnifies it in the pains and suffering of everyone involved.

I really hate it when people, critics or not, review a revival they focus on the material instead of what the new production has added to it. Although the original production had the touch of a colonial worldview, this new production does an amazing job stripping it down and presenting how in fact the capitalism bubble is not really different from the viet cong."

Very well said. That "glossing over horrors" is one of the dumbest arguments I have read and like you explained, completely not true.

 

Updated On: 3/24/17 at 09:41 PM

[Babe_Williams]

Posted: 3/24/17 at 10:04pm

Dancingthrulife2 said: "Babe_Williams said: "Dave28282 said: "Newintown, So you like to hide atrocities that happened? Why is that?

Telling a story about it is not taking a moral stance. It's showing it.

Faulting the show because you are confronted to realities is inappropriate.

What did you have in mind? The marines worshipping the girls and massaging their feet and pouring them champaigne and in the end Kim winning and waving the banner of victory? Like a good old Cinderella story. That might feel more "correct" to you, but I love seeing the political incorrectness of that time.

 

"

You are posting as if Miss Saigon was based on a biography and that Kim, Chris and others were real people. It wasn't. It glosses over the horrors of war by using caraciatures of Asian men and Asian women. Chris directly tells Kim that her life, and ergo, the lives of all Vietnamese, have no value in Vietnam. This isn't about "political correctness" or whatever buzzword you are throwing around. There are many ways the writers of this show still could have made this show beautiful and impactful without buying into stereotypes. Put it this way, why did Kim have to be 17 years old? Why did she have to be a prostitute? Why did the comic relief of the show have to be a vile person who uses Kim? None of these plot points made the love story of Kim and Chris any stronger. Anyway, I don't hate Miss Saigon. I just accept that it is problematic. 

 

"

Aren't you aware that this is an adaptation of Madame Butterfly, where Cio Cio San is a very young geisha, namely legal prostitute. This is not barely a love story, although the cleverly deceptive ad campaign makes it look like. This production makes it really clear that the show is about everyone being the victim of war, which is why I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that "it glosses over the horrors of war by using caraciatures of Asian men and Asian women." It by no means glosses over the horrors of war but instead magnifies it in the pains and suffering of everyone involved.

"Chris directly tells Kim that her life, and ergo, the lives of all Vietnamese, have no value in Vietnam." I don't know where this is coming from, but it sounds ridiculous to someone who knows the lyrics by heart in both English and Japanese. I would love it if you can provide the specific lines that lead to this conclusion.

I really hate it when people, critics or not, review a revival they focus on the material instead of what the new production has added to it. Although the original production had the touch of a colonial worldview, this new production does an amazing job stripping it down and presenting how in fact the capitalism bubble is not really different from the viet cong.

 

"

"On the other side of the earth, there's a place your life will have worth." Not sure it's said that way in the  original London cast, but Alistair Brammer clearly says that lyric in recordings I have seen all over. 

 

I am am done responding since this thread has been derailed and I didn't see the show recently. It's so strange how so many are digging in on this and ignoring the problematic aspects of the show. 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 7:17am

So you don't agree with a thought of a troubled character in difficult times? Is every person 100% politically correct all the time? Get over yourself.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 12:49pm

Since the critics have tackled the topic of whether ''Miss Saigon'' is or isn't sexist and racist, It's a worthy debate. But I want to bring up another issue that Ben Brantley, Jesse Green and the other reviewers still don't fully understand and get wrong: the original ''yellowface'' casting controversy over Jonathan Pryce in 1990. It wasn't just a matter of whether a white actor could play an Asian/Eurasian character. The whole thing was predicated, in part, on a sham. As the reporter who broke this story in the N.Y. Daily News on July 11, 1990, I can tell you it was more complicated and misunderstood.

''Miss Saigon'' misrepresented its casting search for the Engineer, from the start. They claimed they had conducted a worldwide search for any Asian actor with the credentials or skill level to play the Engineer, and concluded that none could be found. Only AFTER Equity reversed itself and allowed Pryce to come to Broadway, on Aug. 16, a Mackintosh spokesman admitted that no such search was held and ''it is unfortunate and regrettable if any misunderstanding has arisen.'' And now, Mackintosh acknowledges: ''I threw [Pryce's name] in the hopper. The entire audition process, we never saw anyone else.'' Which is what Equity argued: that Mackintosh cast Pryce all along and wasn't interested in seeing any Asian actors for the Engineer. Equity was taking a principled stand on behalf of its actors of color and the concept of equal opportunity.

Frank Rich, in the new Times piece (''The Battle of 'Miss Saigon': Yellowface, Art and Opportunity,'' March 17, 2017), claims to be ''completely sympathetic'' to the plight of minority actors who get a ''raw deal.'' But Rich insists: ''I still feel a director has the right to do what he wants to do.'' I agree, and said as much in a commentary that ran with the Daily News' review of ''Miss Saigon'' (April 11, 1991): ''If Mackintosh wanted to cast Pryce for purely artistic reasons, fine. It's his prerogative to cast whomever he likes. It's his money; it's his show. But that doesn't give his company the right to mislead the public or write off an entire group of actors BEFORE it has even auditioned them.'' Also equally pertinent: If our society considers ''blackface'' to be racist and offensive, ''yellowface'' should be no different. In principle and in practice, they're both heinous.

A couple of years ago, Mackintosh admitted to the Telegraph something that's missing in the new Times piece: that he vastly underestimated the controversy in America, and wrongly laughed it off (''I was actually being stupid'' ). Though I'm sure he still believes casting Pryce was the right move, he now concedes that those who argued for an Asian actor had a valid point. And now, 25 years later, ''Miss Saigon'' stars Jon Jon Briones, a Filipino-American actor from L.A. ... Yes, it's progress, but let's not forget how we got here.

 

Updated On: 3/25/17 at 12:49 PM

[ebontoyan]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 4:51pm

To be more accurate, after the first Engineer Jonathan Price, the role of Engineer has after that always been played by an actor with Asian roots.  So not just now 25 years after but when Mr Price left the show 1-2 years later from 1991

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 6:56pm

Yes, I'm well aware that the role of the Engineer was played by Asian-American actors AFTER Pryce left the show (during its 10-year run); it was a tacit acknowledgment that it IS important that the Engineer look Asian (because he tries to pass for Kim's brother). I saw some of those replacements, such as Francis Ruivivar. But Jon Jon Briones will be the first Asian-American to OPEN in a production of ''Miss Saigon'' on Broadway and thereby be eligible for a Tony.

Lea Salonga was unknown until the role of Kim turned her into a star, and she became a Tony winner. If the role of the Engineer had gone to, say, an unknown Asian-American leading man, it could've turned HIM into a star. Instead, it was a lost opportunity. Lead roles, especially for Asians, are rare on Broadway. Salonga remains the only Asian to win Best Actress in a Musical. No Asian man has ever won Best Actor in a Musical. And why is that important? Back in 1990, one of the reasons that ''Miss Saigon'' cited was that there were no Asian stars of magnitude to play the Engineer.

But how do Asian men become stars if they're not cast in the starring parts? It's a self-perpetuating Catch 22. And in the original ''Miss Saigon,'' the show slandered Asian actors worldwide as being incapable of playing the part and dismissed their talents before even giving them an audition. Yet somehow, ''Miss Saigon'' could find Asian actors who could play the Engineer only AFTER Pryce won the Tony and left the show? Give me a break.

Updated On: 3/25/17 at 06:56 PM

[ebontoyan]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 7:59pm

Sorry didn't realize you have issues on this.  My point is just not to select the facts to tell,  that's all

Updated On: 3/25/17 at 07:59 PM

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 8:26pm

Wayman, you are giving this board some great history and knowledge! Thank you for these posts. They've been making my day. I agree with all you're saying and most of this was previously unknown to me.

[chernjam]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 8:39pm

Lot666 said: "...I understand that members of the public who see a show will naturally chatter about any aspects that wowed them, but purportedly credible critics shouldn't lead with these things and make them the focus of their review - but they do, as evinced here by Brantley. They intentionally, and without the slightest subtlety, create tag lines like "the Little Copter That Wowed" and use them as headlines or in introductory remarks. When David Richards reviewed the original production of Sunset Boulevard for the NY Times, his first sentence was "THE mansion has landed". By doing so, he went a long way in helping to permanently attach that connotation to the show in the public consciousness.

Certain critics seem to think that authoring these "...forever known as" associations makes them clever, and they intentionally reinforce those associations to the public - almost as if they were bona fide sub-titles of shows - so they can later trot them out again in ostensibly wry references.

Perhaps the most irksome aspect of this phenomenon is how it is used to create negative publicity around shows by artists who are not critics' darlings. Imagine the reaction that Brantley would've engendered if he'd entitled his recent review of Sunday in the Park with George, "Return of the Little Chromolume that Could"! Instead, we get, "a Living Painting to Make You See" and his opening remarks addressed the nature of the man who was Georges Seurat.

"

Return of Little Chromolume - thats phenomenal!!!  Laughed my head off at that!

I think in these instances Lot - the critics realized (and were ticked off) that their reviews were going to have little to know affect on these "Mega Musicals" as part of the "British Invasion" - that they arrogantly deemed unworthy of Broadway (despite the fact that were it not for the british invasion, Broadway would've been an empty, lifeless street - with more theatres following the Mark Hellinger and either being leased out to a Church or even sold and demolished, but I digress...)  So to soothe there egos, and to continue to bash the shows, they wanted to mock some unique, spectacular stage craft as being the only reason these shows had record advance ticket sales before they even opened (Particularly for Saigon and Sunset)

I've never been a big fan of Saigon.  And reading this thread has been fascinating.  I do remember the controversy regarding Pryce - which I almost wonder if it was done intentionally just to draw more attention.  (Any press is good press?)  They cancel it when Cameron can't get what he wants... People get more ticked and interestd.  Surprise surprise, it's back on board - and boom - there goes the ticket sales

[BwayinVan]

Posted: 3/25/17 at 8:58pm

Any word yet on the alternate Kim schedule?

[cam5y]

Posted: 3/26/17 at 4:22am

The line was actually worse in the original production/recording: "On the other side of the earth/there's a place where life still has worth." So believe it or not, this is an improvement. 

[sparepart973]

Posted: 3/26/17 at 4:49am

Sorry, I know this has been asked but I can't spot an answer. Is there a schedule for the alternate Kim that is "tracked" by anyone here? Though there was no official schedule announced in London, it was clear by the 2nd week that the alternate Kim would go on Thursday evenings and Saturday matinee.

I'm planning to see the show on Broadway in May (preferably on a Monday) and wanted to see the alternate, since I've seen Eva half a dozen times already in London. Thanks! 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/26/17 at 6:42am

cam5y said: "The line was actually worse in the original production/recording: "On the other side of the earth/there's a place where life still has worth." So believe it or not, this is an improvement. "

 

So every character in every show can only say politically correct things to pamper you?

Your problem with Chris is that he is not 100% portrayed as a perfect American?

I see Chris as a victim of war, a confused and struggling young man, not knowing how to handle the horrors he sees, having known the life from back home, it's his perspective and he is trying to convince himself. It's his mental frame, he sees Kim's tragedy, he knows the feeling of happiness and is looking for a way to drag Kim into that, out of amorousness/impulsiveness. This line is wonderfully written and shows his perspective. 100% desirable for you or not. If you can't handle that line it means that you have a certain vision of Americans being superior and should work on that, but characters can say and think and being troubled all they want. If you have that attitude watching shows or films you must hate Snow white too because the queen says confusing things too. It's all perspective.

At the end of movies there is always this line :"The views expressed in this work are those solely of the characters, and the times in which they live, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the authors and/or producers.". 

Which I always find baffling, because who on earth does not understand this? Clearly, that line is for people like you and babe-williams.

One more question, where does the urge to hear/see every character only say/express 100% politically correct things come from? You like to see the Engineer saying to the soldiers: Go away you dirty men..... Or Chris saying to Kim: Life in the USA is exactly the same as here, so let's just stay here. Why? That would make characters so boring and unsatisfying. I truly wonder where that urge comes from. Is it some kind of insecurity or control issue? How do you watch other shows, movies, or the world in general? This situation, this line is a "truth" of behaviour that should be applauded.

Devonian:"it does not show enough TRUTHS about the subject.  The microcosm of the Kim/Chris love affair is, whatever some believe, very simplistic-"

I think lines/lyrics/expressions like Chris' do very well show truths and strenghtens the fact of their indeed, simplistic romance and makes it more realistic and tragic.

Updated On: 3/26/17 at 06:42 AM

[Babe_Williams]

Posted: 3/26/17 at 9:39am

Seriously get a grip. Not everyone shares your sunny perspective. 

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 3/26/17 at 10:06am

This is the messiest thread I've ever seen.