MY FAIR LADY (2018) Previews — Page 31

Broadway concierge: maybe I saw an off night, but Mr. Donica ear-gratingly sang under pitch every time he went above middle C. His lower register is fine, but come on, you can’t find someone who consistently sings on key?

My biggest problem the whole evening was that it felt so lifeless and lacking energy or forward thrust. Just watch Julie Andrews singing this. The tempo last night felt like a dirge.

https://youtu.be/-R_lv6_5Mvg

Everyone here is right. Lauren Ambrose has a *nice* voice, but that’s not what I want to hear as Eliza on broadway I guess. I don’t think she’s getting tired at all. I just don’t think she has the agility in her voice to do the score justice. The spin in her voice is often delayed (which caused her to be behind the beat so often), which to me was a sign of struggling. She still is sympathetic in the role and likable enough.

---

Donica is flat every time on the high notes in On the Street. Also, I agree the show is ridiculously low energy and Lauren Ambrose has 0 stage presence. The Beaumont absolutely swallows her up. Also her Eliza has no fire, drive, or passion, which makes her just seem weak and pitiful. Higgins decribes her as a squashed cabbage leaf and that's exactly how she plays her.... for the whole show. The humor doesn't land and none of her choices are completely followed through. She's giving a very half baked performance. I was expected to be blown away and instead left really disappointed that Sher didn't cast someone like Laura Benanti or Betsy Wolfe or Lisa O'Hare or Ashley Park or literally any other classically trained musical theatre actress. I would have rather he had cast a complete unknown like Hailey Kilgore in Once on this Island did. I can't understand why he would cast an actress, twenty years too old for the part who can't sing it and can't act it. It baffles me.

I'm excited to see if the reviews agree with you or if they agree with those who thought Ambrose was a revelation. I have a feeling we'll be getting both sorts of reviews tonight. It seems like it's a performance one gets or doesn't. Even though you sort of had it out for Ambrose ever since the announcement because you seriously wanted Benanti in the role after dream casting her in it since She Loves Me, I don't think your opinion is too unfair once you take out the more colorful tone and sentences of your post because it's ultimately not too different from what those who didn't find Ambrose compelling to watch have said.

Updated On: 4/19/18 at 04:47 PM

I haven't seen the production but it seems a little extreme to call someone a hateful shrew if they didnt like it and didnt like the casting. Especially since I've seen more then one person have a similar review

GeorgeandDot's review is not hateful. Just because it doesn't align with your opinion of the show, there's no need for name calling.

Updated On: 4/19/18 at 05:56 PM

GeorgeandDot has a good point, just because they personally found Ambrose miscast as Eliza doesn't make it invalid. In fact I remember when The King and I was in previews back in 2015 and some found Kelli O'Hara's performance "bland" and "boring" as Anna; where I personally thought she was freaking great when I saw the show in person.

BTW I did hear some audio (long since gone) of Lauren Ambrose as Eliza, and so far I am freaking blown away with both her acting and singing. If some didn't like her then that's fine, it's not the end of the world; I for one cannot wait to finally see the show in person come May 30th.

I totally think in some situations casting someone who's a stronger actor then singer is appropriate for certain roles, but Eliza is not one of those. I haven't listened the audio because I was hoping to see the show in person when I was in NYC last week but alas it was sold out and I didnt win the lottery. Still hoping I can make it back this summer to see it so I can make a judgment after seeing it.

Someone in a Tree2 said: "I'd be curious to learn how many ofthose with a negative reviewof this show were seated fartheraway from the stage whenthey saw it.I think particularly regarding Lauren Ambrose's Eliza, being up close and personal was the ticket to catching the greatness in her performance. I myself was in the loge 3rd row center, and watched the show throughbinoculars the whole night long to not miss a nuance or subtle look.

Isn'tit the actor's job to convey those subtleties to the back row regardless? Sure, and in this perhaps the show fell short. My binoculars made all the difference in totally enjoying what I saw.

(And no, nothing would have saved the horrific drag routine in Act II, save maybe leaving the lens caps on the lenses completely.)"

Actually this is interesting -- when I went to the first performance I was at first sitting in the last row of the Loge and then after intermission (as it was snow day and the auditorium was half-empty) I moved to the orchestra. I agree that Ambrose read better up close than up in the Loge.

A few weeks later I went back and Ambrose's performance was broader, more exaggerated, played for laughs. A bit of nuance was gone but the performance probably read much more to the entire auditorium and not just the first few rows.

Since I've started to favorite shows more than once, I've been surprised by the different audience reaction to what seems to me to be two equally performed shows. I saw Bandstand when Julia's climactic number received a reception of applause and cheering equal to any I had ever experienced. On some subsequent night the reaction was fine, but not record breaking by any means

I wonder if the person who sees the show once with an extraordinary audience comes away with a higher opinion of the production than the person who comes on a day when the audience is a little tepid.

The Wednesday matinee audience was pretty lukewarm through the "Rain in Spain," "Could Have Danced All Night" climax, but they turned it up beginning with Ascot.

I bring this up principally because I was recalling the February, 2017 one night production of Crazy for You at Geffen Hall. The audience that night, full or Susan Stroman well-wishers no doubt, put out the energy of a low yield tactical nuclear weapon. As I recalled the show from the one time long ago that I saw it, I remembered a show pretty corny with a lame plot. Rescued by some good song and dance number.

But I was swept away by the show that night like everyone else. Tony Yazbeck was one explanation for the enthusiasm. He fit that role perfectly and the audience loved him. I still am left wondering, though, if Crazy for You could regularly reproduce that huge audience response on a full run.

RippedMan said: "What I'm baffled by is Ambrose. I saw her performance on the Tonys and it she came off a little...Laura in the Glass Menagerie. Now seeing it in context, I get it a bit more, but she really has some baffling choices.

All that to say that I really enjoyed myself. I loved watching Higgins and Elize spare. And I really enjoyed the scene after the gala, I just don't know that Ambrose is a stage actress. She seemed to play baffled the whole time."

I thought she was excellent in the book scenes at the end. I don't think the problem is that she isn't a stage actress. While she wasn't struggling to sing, I think she was so focused on the technical aspects of singing that it didn't give her a lot of room for acting. I saw the special quality in her in the book scenes that I didn't quite see during the musical numbers. I do think she starts to hit her stride around The Rain in Spain but unfortunately that means a bunch of lackluster performances of excellent songs before that.

RippedMan said: ""Loverly" is like one of the easiest moments. Just be funny. And she wasn't. And she wasn't charming. I didn't get why Higgins would pick THIS girl out of the bunch. I just wanted more."

"Just be funny"? Seriously? It's the community song that shows the harsh condition of being a flower girl in London back then and the unembellished camaraderie among the have-nots.

Also, Higgins didn't "pick" Eliza. SHE went to Higgins's house asking for lessons. SHE is the enabler of HER journey, not Higgins.

Updated On: 6/15/18 at 02:20 AM

I stopped reading this thread after I was attacked for saying I didn’t like it... popped back in here and wow.

greenifyme2 said: "I stopped reading this thread after I was attacked for saying I didn’t like it... popped back in here and wow."

That's because Rippedman's criticisms and others are stemming from the production choices and acting choices (or perceived limitations while others see them as strengths) while you attacked the actual score and book. You didn't even understand that Higgins' songs were written that way purposefully which made people question your understanding, taste, and possibly age. Not to mention mentioning some anonymous unprofessional usher who you thought would give credence to your opinion, who I hope was reprimanded for his behavior.

I don't agree with some of what RippedMan says and I do think there is another reflection of some anti-Ambrose sentiments that started since her casting was announced, but I DO understand where they come from and I respect his opinion because he has a different idea of how My Fair Lady should be produced and what Eliza should sound like.

Updated On: 6/15/18 at 03:00 PM