Mack and Mabel: review from Variety.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 12:42am

Doyle's idea is to rid the show of its top dressing of moviemaking and chorus girls to reveal its emotional core. Removal of Hal Prince's Grand Guignol staging to show the dramatic detail of Stephen Sondheim's score and Hugh Wheeler's book is, in part, is what makes Doyle's "Sweeney Todd" so exhilarating. Denuding "Mack and Mabel" in this way only reveals the schematic nature of the writing. There are times when you feel you're watching the treatment, not the script.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117930238?categoryid=1265&cs=1

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 1:40am

Can't the idea can't work for everything. I hope it gets recorded though. Are there any pictures of the production?

[sicetergo]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 4:38am

The show has got pretty mixed reviews - not so much the production, direction or cast but more often than not the piece itself. Having seen it a few times now and comparing it to bigger productions, I think that Doyle has done the best he could with a pretty ropey book.

The performances are fantastic - and I disagree with Variety's assessment of the two leads - the playing also is first class, exuberant and exciting - so for me the pros outweigh the cons.
Mack and Mabel Pictures

[Christopher Gough]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 5:34am

This is the only production of 'Mack and Mabel' I've seen. If producing a 'cut down' version with 11 rather than 45 performers is the only way we can get to hear the wonderful score - I'm all for it. The talented cast play the musical instruments as well as sing/act/dance. There are no flashy sets or ranks of chorus girls but I really enjoyed this show. David Soul's understated performance works well and Janie Dee delights. Jerry Herman described this production as "the definitive Mack and Mabel." Will it make it back to Broadway and survive more than 65 performances? Time will tell!
Whatsonstage.com review

[creasemouse]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 6:06am

The press have been really nasty but this show is fantatic. Really interesting when it opened last summer it got great reviews and then after a year of touring somehow the evil pres have now tunred on it - really doesn't make sense.

http://www.whatsonstage.com/dforum/list.php?site=whatsonstagecom&bn=whatsonstagecom_musicals

So many people on this webiste have really praised it. Read their reviews, so much better then the press!

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 7:10am

I fondly remember the original with Robert Preston & Bernadette Peters & the staging by Gower Champion & have no desire to see it this way.

It appears Doyle can or only will stage a musical in this manner. While great for others the idea leaves me cold

[Parsley]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 7:27am

I think the UK press have been absolutely fair in their reviews of it. It is certainly not a great musical to begin with and is not to everyone's taste. This version really did nothing for me, except the excellent performances of David Soul and Janie Dee, and was (with the exception of a few moments) little more than a snooze-fest.

While this treatment enhanced Sweeney Todd, when applied to the numbers here they were mostly underplayed to the point of trivialising them and sounded little more than good amateur (although Dee's "Time heals everything" was the only song in the score to actually benefit from the style of production).

The show itself lacked focus and ended up diluting a significant part of the relationship between the leads. Not a dreadful show at all, but most certainly nothing special.

[sicetergo]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 8:51am

"sounded little more than good amateur "

Utter nonsense - I'd like to hear and see a better ensemble on any stage. I'm no fan of the musical itself but this production and cast make it a great deal better than it has any right to expect.

"It appears Doyle can or only will stage a musical in this manner."

That is incorrect, Mr Doyle is quite precise about the pieces that he presents with actor-musicians. His West Side Story and Anyone Can Whistle were full-scale productions, if I remember properly.

[Parsley]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 8:53am

Utter nonsense? No - something called an opinion. Some of the singing was off, the dancing was sloppy in places. That being the case, it does not create a good impression.

[sicetergo]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 9:14am

"That being the case, it does not create a good impression."

Indeed an opinion - but opinions are like sacks that don't stand up without something in them. To suggest that something "sounded little more than amateur" then criticize the dancing and say that the singing was off in places doesn't really seem to stack up - apart from it being very far from my experience on the occasions that I saw it.

I also would suggest that the script rather than the direction of the show lacked the focus that you mention in terms of the relationship between the leads.

It's not that I object to your having an opinion, merely the sloppy way in which you express it.

[Parsley]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 9:23am

That may well be the case but it most certainly was the night I saw it, and that is on what I base my opinion. Agree about the script, though.

Sloppy? Well, we are not journalists and do not need to justify an opinion up to the hilt on a message board - an opinion, a reason (both of which I gave, however sloppy you might feel it is) are sufficient. And as for your "utter nonsense" comment, if that simply seems to sum up your style in one go and would indicate that anything further from you might lack credibility.

[Bruce Memblagh!]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 9:27am

Fair comments Parsley. Persoanlly I don't think your comments are 'sloppy', I just feel some people get defensive when a particular favorite of theirs is criticised.

[Pip-boy]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 9:35am

I saw it twice, once on tour and once when it arrived in London. Not a bad production but I know what Parsley means about the singing and some of the dancing. That didn't detract a lot from it, but certainly there were others in the audience as we left making comments to that effect. Maybe being live theatre they were off nights (which does happen) but being a professional production (and at those prices) I can quite see how, if noticing that as an audience member, a person comes to the conclusion that you did. It is not my conclusion, but I can accept yours.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 1:17pm

Which ending is used in this revival? The dark "I Love You, Mabel Normand" original or the "Keystone Kops Wedding" fantasy of the first re-working?