#26
Posted: 6/30/05 at 11:53pm
I really wanna see Billy Elliot, but I couldnt see anyone as Mary Poppins except Julie Andrews.
Mary Poppins- WILL be re-tooled for Broadway — Page 2
#27
Posted: 6/30/05 at 11:59pm
This is ridiculous. I advise every one of you to see the show before you blindly accept the absurd notions of Brantley and his evil critic brethren. Billington is renowned for being a nonsensical critic, so far as to suggest that his reviews are extremist and useless, aside from entertainment value. I have little respect for Brantley either. He who write for a popular newspaper should have his finger on the pulse of populist entertainment. If the NYT were some esoteric theatre journal, his reviews - which are skewed to flimsy notions of 'art' - do not reflect what the typical Broadway audience can expect, or whether their desires of theatre will be fulfilled. Fortunately, shows often triumph regardless of his histrionic slamming (a la Wicked).
If you have seen Mary Poppins, you will know and fondly remember moments of sheer "ecstacy" (I shan't spoil them, but recall 'that' moment in Step In Time, the statues in 'Jolly Holiday', the first time you see the set of the house and when Mary leaves, returns and leaves again. Rarely have I seen shows that I could describe as magical, but this show does it's base material true justice (e.g. when Mary first arrives at the children's room). The show has darkER moments but none of these are 'dark' when compared to other children's musical theatre fair. In comparison to 'the Childcatcher' in Chitty, the 'Temper, Temper' scene and the 'Brimstone and Treacle' scenes are slightly scary but nothing hideous. I love the Brimstone and Treacle Part 2 scene, and love what it represents (the interplay between Mary, the other nanny - I forget her name - and how Mr Banks changes his relationship with the children) which is essentially the core of the story.
It is sad that the producers don't give the American audience more credit. The audiences are different (I'm not sure exactly how, or why, but you only need examine shows which are hits one side of the Atlantic are not on the other) but neither is more cerebral or fluffy. Obviously the blatant Britishcisms of the book need modification but that is a given assumption. I assume most British audience members went into the show expecting the film (or in the case of younger children, not expecting anything) and the box office shows us that no one has been too disappointed. Britons are no more familiar with the book than American audiences so their expectations shouldn't be too different.
If you have seen the show you will agree that the production is practically perfect and represents one of the 'tightest' pieces of theatre that the world has seen in the past 10 or 20 years. I personally wonder whether BroadwayBaby6 has seen the show, since his comments appear based on second-hand, recycled opinions, rather than a first-hand evaluation of the show.
Update: As for comments like 'I can't imagine anyone as Mary Poppins besides Julie Andrews', wait and see the show. Many people I know who have seen the show suggest that Laura Michelle Kelly is maybe a better Mary. Her portrayal is certainly closer to the book's original concept of Mary, the nanny being less saccharin than the movie version. Perhaps this represents the material they work with more than the actress but you should enter the show with an open mind and be pleasantly surprised. I hope the show transfers with a minimum of LMK and Linzi Hateley because the truly make the show. Ms Hateley is tremendous and her performance is touching and ultimately, the second most moving chara cter in the show.
If you have seen Mary Poppins, you will know and fondly remember moments of sheer "ecstacy" (I shan't spoil them, but recall 'that' moment in Step In Time, the statues in 'Jolly Holiday', the first time you see the set of the house and when Mary leaves, returns and leaves again. Rarely have I seen shows that I could describe as magical, but this show does it's base material true justice (e.g. when Mary first arrives at the children's room). The show has darkER moments but none of these are 'dark' when compared to other children's musical theatre fair. In comparison to 'the Childcatcher' in Chitty, the 'Temper, Temper' scene and the 'Brimstone and Treacle' scenes are slightly scary but nothing hideous. I love the Brimstone and Treacle Part 2 scene, and love what it represents (the interplay between Mary, the other nanny - I forget her name - and how Mr Banks changes his relationship with the children) which is essentially the core of the story.
It is sad that the producers don't give the American audience more credit. The audiences are different (I'm not sure exactly how, or why, but you only need examine shows which are hits one side of the Atlantic are not on the other) but neither is more cerebral or fluffy. Obviously the blatant Britishcisms of the book need modification but that is a given assumption. I assume most British audience members went into the show expecting the film (or in the case of younger children, not expecting anything) and the box office shows us that no one has been too disappointed. Britons are no more familiar with the book than American audiences so their expectations shouldn't be too different.
If you have seen the show you will agree that the production is practically perfect and represents one of the 'tightest' pieces of theatre that the world has seen in the past 10 or 20 years. I personally wonder whether BroadwayBaby6 has seen the show, since his comments appear based on second-hand, recycled opinions, rather than a first-hand evaluation of the show.
Update: As for comments like 'I can't imagine anyone as Mary Poppins besides Julie Andrews', wait and see the show. Many people I know who have seen the show suggest that Laura Michelle Kelly is maybe a better Mary. Her portrayal is certainly closer to the book's original concept of Mary, the nanny being less saccharin than the movie version. Perhaps this represents the material they work with more than the actress but you should enter the show with an open mind and be pleasantly surprised. I hope the show transfers with a minimum of LMK and Linzi Hateley because the truly make the show. Ms Hateley is tremendous and her performance is touching and ultimately, the second most moving chara cter in the show.
"Jane, I've been dealt a blow - I've been dealt a blow, Jane."
Updated On: 7/1/05 at 11:59 PM
#28
Posted: 7/1/05 at 12:05am
Here! Here! Well said jczelyph.
#29
Posted: 7/1/05 at 12:12am
Actually BroadwayBaby6 "Chitty" was retooled for Broadway...
#30
Posted: 7/1/05 at 12:14am
Heh heh, I love this show, parts of it move me to tears every time I see it, so i feel compelled to stick up for it.
"Jane, I've been dealt a blow - I've been dealt a blow, Jane."
#31
Posted: 7/1/05 at 12:59am
Great post, jczelyph! I agreed with all your moments of ecstasy . . . I was totally enraptured by them when I saw the show in London. (Though as an aside, I do think that the British public is more familiar with the books. Not that it should matter!) And I also second your sentiments about Brantley and Billington. Moreover, Billington was completely the exception among London theater critics; all the other ones loved the show, and rightly so!
Being a big Julie Andrews fan, I should point out that I think Julie Andrews actually did try her best to let some of Travers's conception of Poppins come through within the confines of the saccharine Disney script. In fact, Julie Andrews was the only aspect of the movie that Travers liked. However, Laura Michelle Kelly is fantastic, and all preconceptions you have of Julie Andrews being the only possible Mary Poppins melt away the moment you see her! And Linzi Hateley is indeed terrific as Mrs. Banks. The movie's comic take on the character with Glynis Johns was hilarious, but I do like the emotionally moving aspects of the character as presented in the stage version.
Being a big Julie Andrews fan, I should point out that I think Julie Andrews actually did try her best to let some of Travers's conception of Poppins come through within the confines of the saccharine Disney script. In fact, Julie Andrews was the only aspect of the movie that Travers liked. However, Laura Michelle Kelly is fantastic, and all preconceptions you have of Julie Andrews being the only possible Mary Poppins melt away the moment you see her! And Linzi Hateley is indeed terrific as Mrs. Banks. The movie's comic take on the character with Glynis Johns was hilarious, but I do like the emotionally moving aspects of the character as presented in the stage version.
#32
Posted: 7/1/05 at 4:40am
"The first track on the cast recording, with the current nanny leaving and the Banks family stressing over finding a new one is certainly not dark, so I am guessing the show begins with a scene of some sort before this event? Could someone who's seen the show please explain how the show begins? Thanks for any help! =) "
The musical opens with Bert sitting on a London rooftop singing Chim Chim Cheree. If you remember the film, Bert is the first character we see, he's in the park doing his one-man band thing. Suddenly his mood changes, as he feels a change in the wind. The words the film Bert sings are similar to what the stage Bert sings.
I'm an American. I agree with Dame, Jilani and jczelyph. The show is fine as it is. I have vague memories of reading the first Mary Poppins book as a child, but that's it. Like Dame, I'm much more familiar with the film. The "darker" parts -- the toys coming to life and putting the children on trial, and Miss Andrew and her style of nanny duties (Brimstone and Treacle)are not that bad that they have to be "lightened." I found the show to be delightful, and, like jczelyph, it moved me to tears of nostalgia here and there.
As for not seeing anyone but Julie Andrews in it -- if you can't do that, then you're going to miss out on a wonderful show. I though Laura Michelle Kelly did an outstanding job with the role.
The saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," most certainly applies here.
The musical opens with Bert sitting on a London rooftop singing Chim Chim Cheree. If you remember the film, Bert is the first character we see, he's in the park doing his one-man band thing. Suddenly his mood changes, as he feels a change in the wind. The words the film Bert sings are similar to what the stage Bert sings.
I'm an American. I agree with Dame, Jilani and jczelyph. The show is fine as it is. I have vague memories of reading the first Mary Poppins book as a child, but that's it. Like Dame, I'm much more familiar with the film. The "darker" parts -- the toys coming to life and putting the children on trial, and Miss Andrew and her style of nanny duties (Brimstone and Treacle)are not that bad that they have to be "lightened." I found the show to be delightful, and, like jczelyph, it moved me to tears of nostalgia here and there.
As for not seeing anyone but Julie Andrews in it -- if you can't do that, then you're going to miss out on a wonderful show. I though Laura Michelle Kelly did an outstanding job with the role.
The saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," most certainly applies here.
#33
Posted: 7/1/05 at 5:57am
I LOVED the show !!! It was magical, emotional, spectacular and I enjoyed it more than the film ! I hope they don't change anything for Broadway !
Updated On: 7/1/05 at 05:57 AM
#34
Posted: 7/1/05 at 6:46am
Wait, wasn't Bombay Dreams 'retooled' for Broadway
And Dance of the Vampires?
And Taboo?
Why this incessant need for producers to tinker with hit shows before they arrive on Broadway?
And Dance of the Vampires?
And Taboo?
Why this incessant need for producers to tinker with hit shows before they arrive on Broadway?
#35
Posted: 7/1/05 at 9:51am
Here's a rave review from an American critic at NY1
NY1 Reviews Mary Poppins
NY1 Reviews Mary Poppins
#36
Posted: 7/1/05 at 10:03am
I really really hope this doesn't turn out to be a carbon copy of the film.
#37
Posted: 7/3/05 at 12:39pm
I HAVE seen the show 2 weeks ago and I don't think it's practically perfect.
Before you think I'm a philistine American, I absolutely loved Billy Eliott and don't want that show to be re-tooled, even though American audience will not understand many of the references.
Before you think I'm a philistine American, I absolutely loved Billy Eliott and don't want that show to be re-tooled, even though American audience will not understand many of the references.
"It does what a musical is supposed to do; it takes you to another world. And it gives you a little tune to carry in your head. Something to take you away from the dreary horrors of the real world. A little something for when you're feeling blue. You know?"
#38
Posted: 7/3/05 at 12:44pm
jczelyph,
THANK YOU. You expressed what I was not able too.
THANK YOU. You expressed what I was not able too.
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#39
Posted: 7/6/05 at 11:52am
Beware of Ben Brantley...
Having just come back from seeing both "Mary Poppins" and "Billy Elliot" in London, I completely concur with Jczelyph--not only about the merits of "Mary Poppins" but also about the wrong-headed pretensions of Ben Brantley.
As it happened, I read Brantley's love letter to "Billy Elliot" in the NY Times on the plane to London, and thought I couldn't possibly go home without seeing "the concentrated dose of ecstasy called 'Billy Elliot: The Musical.'" It was nearly impossible to get tickets at short notice, but I was so determined to see it that I paid indecent prices to a scalper. Unfortunately, except for a couple of imaginatively staged numbers, the show was ghastly, with cheap sentimentality that Brantley wrongly characterized as a virtue. I saw no evidence of the "sharp and fertile mind" he praised. Rather, I suffered through mediocre dancing--admittedly with a different Billy from the one Brantley saw, but one expects a higher standard than this from any cast that appears in the West End--and lugubrious Elton John ballads, including one in which Billy's father solemnly intones, "He could be a star...he could be a star," until he sees the light about his son's dancing. Then of course there was the sweetly inspirational song by Billy's dead mother.... It was absolute tripe.
Fortunately, I'd had the foresight to buy tickets to "Mary Poppins" in advance, and that--even with an understudy playing Mary--was superb: brilliantly staged, with glorious songs and magnificent dancing. It also, unlike "Billy Elliot," had moments of genuine emotion. If it is true that "Mary Poppins" will be re-tooled for Broadway, I fear that the real reason is to placate Ben Brantley in the hopes of a good NY Times review. It's a shame, because Brantley seems to have entered a premature dotage in which he values gooey sentiment above artistic genius.
Having just come back from seeing both "Mary Poppins" and "Billy Elliot" in London, I completely concur with Jczelyph--not only about the merits of "Mary Poppins" but also about the wrong-headed pretensions of Ben Brantley.
As it happened, I read Brantley's love letter to "Billy Elliot" in the NY Times on the plane to London, and thought I couldn't possibly go home without seeing "the concentrated dose of ecstasy called 'Billy Elliot: The Musical.'" It was nearly impossible to get tickets at short notice, but I was so determined to see it that I paid indecent prices to a scalper. Unfortunately, except for a couple of imaginatively staged numbers, the show was ghastly, with cheap sentimentality that Brantley wrongly characterized as a virtue. I saw no evidence of the "sharp and fertile mind" he praised. Rather, I suffered through mediocre dancing--admittedly with a different Billy from the one Brantley saw, but one expects a higher standard than this from any cast that appears in the West End--and lugubrious Elton John ballads, including one in which Billy's father solemnly intones, "He could be a star...he could be a star," until he sees the light about his son's dancing. Then of course there was the sweetly inspirational song by Billy's dead mother.... It was absolute tripe.
Fortunately, I'd had the foresight to buy tickets to "Mary Poppins" in advance, and that--even with an understudy playing Mary--was superb: brilliantly staged, with glorious songs and magnificent dancing. It also, unlike "Billy Elliot," had moments of genuine emotion. If it is true that "Mary Poppins" will be re-tooled for Broadway, I fear that the real reason is to placate Ben Brantley in the hopes of a good NY Times review. It's a shame, because Brantley seems to have entered a premature dotage in which he values gooey sentiment above artistic genius.
#40
Posted: 7/6/05 at 12:20pm
Toughcritic - excellent summary of your thoughts. I find myself agreeing, albeit against my better judgement.
Mary Poppins is sentimental and gooey but it works. The show is a Disney show, geared at families, and its mawkishness is most apt for this demographic, dealing as it does with the reunion of a disparate family.
What amuses me greatly about material written about Billy Elliot (both on this forum, and in other fora), is how often I read the show being described as "gritty", as if using a grainy Pathe newsreel at the beginning of the show somehow sets the tone for the rest of the show. The fact that during the last 30 minutes of the show, most of the audience is in tears - and the theatre is filled with the sound of sniffling men and women - is a testament to the utter schmaltziness of the production. This show is not gritty (unless being set in the north of England automatically labels a show 'gritty'). The book and score are indeed crammed with super-pathos, and though the show pushed every one of my highly-charged emotional buttons, even I was aware of the moments the show descended into bathos (the scenes featuring Billy's dead mother).
I was fortunate enough to see Liam in the lead role, so I can't comment on whether the other boys are a let-down. I should hope not, but I certainly don't agree that the choreography of the show is "mediocre". I thought it dynamic and vital, and, importantly, not like anything else on the stage in the West End at the moment.
Brantley is an idiot, and I have zero respect for his diatribes against theatre. I am truly glad that I do not live in a world as devoid of joy as his.
Mary Poppins is sentimental and gooey but it works. The show is a Disney show, geared at families, and its mawkishness is most apt for this demographic, dealing as it does with the reunion of a disparate family.
What amuses me greatly about material written about Billy Elliot (both on this forum, and in other fora), is how often I read the show being described as "gritty", as if using a grainy Pathe newsreel at the beginning of the show somehow sets the tone for the rest of the show. The fact that during the last 30 minutes of the show, most of the audience is in tears - and the theatre is filled with the sound of sniffling men and women - is a testament to the utter schmaltziness of the production. This show is not gritty (unless being set in the north of England automatically labels a show 'gritty'). The book and score are indeed crammed with super-pathos, and though the show pushed every one of my highly-charged emotional buttons, even I was aware of the moments the show descended into bathos (the scenes featuring Billy's dead mother).
I was fortunate enough to see Liam in the lead role, so I can't comment on whether the other boys are a let-down. I should hope not, but I certainly don't agree that the choreography of the show is "mediocre". I thought it dynamic and vital, and, importantly, not like anything else on the stage in the West End at the moment.
Brantley is an idiot, and I have zero respect for his diatribes against theatre. I am truly glad that I do not live in a world as devoid of joy as his.
"Jane, I've been dealt a blow - I've been dealt a blow, Jane."
#41
Posted: 7/6/05 at 12:47pm
Jczelyph--I don't mean to hijack this into a "Billy Elliot" thread, but yes, I absolutely agree about the nonsense of calling the show "gritty" just because it portrays impoverished miners in the north of England rather than a banker's family on a cozy London square (which turns out to be somewhat less cozy than expected in the West End version of "Mary Poppins"). I guess it's a kind of political correctness, as if the very notion of a doomed miners' strike is automatically supposed to confer authenticity and meaning on the flimsy characters and story. I suspect the use of bad lanugage is also seen as proof of fearless realism.
It was "Billy Elliot's" dancing, rather than the choreography, that I found medicore; James Lomas, as the title character, seemed exceptionally weak. (Even I thought a few of the numbers were spectacular, including the Thatcher routine and the miners' riot; I also liked the grandmother's song a great deal.) In "Mary Poppins," both the choreography and the dancing took my breath away throughout.
It was "Billy Elliot's" dancing, rather than the choreography, that I found medicore; James Lomas, as the title character, seemed exceptionally weak. (Even I thought a few of the numbers were spectacular, including the Thatcher routine and the miners' riot; I also liked the grandmother's song a great deal.) In "Mary Poppins," both the choreography and the dancing took my breath away throughout.
Updated On: 7/6/05 at 12:47 PM
#42
Posted: 7/6/05 at 2:28pm
When is the WEST END Tonys? (I know its not called the Tonys over there, but I can't remember the name of it, is it the Obies?) Did Mary Poppins win anything? Billy Elliot? Two big shows opened. Just wondering who took home best musical.
#43
Posted: 7/6/05 at 3:14pm
The 2005 Laurence Olivier Awards were given in February, before "Billy Elliot" opened, so presumably it will be up for nomination in 2006.
In 2005, "Mary Poppins" was passed over for Best New Musical in favor of "The Producers," but Laura Michelle Kelly won Best Actress in a Musical and Matthew Bourne and Stephen Mear won for Best Theatre Choreography.
In 2005, "Mary Poppins" was passed over for Best New Musical in favor of "The Producers," but Laura Michelle Kelly won Best Actress in a Musical and Matthew Bourne and Stephen Mear won for Best Theatre Choreography.
#44
Posted: 7/6/05 at 3:18pm
There are several theater awards given in England, two most prestigious being the Evening Standard and Olivier Awards.
Mary Poppins was eligable this year and Billy Elliott will be eligable next year for the Olivier awards and both will be eligable next year for the Evening Standard (not as many ES awards given, and very few to Musicals usually.)
Mary Poppins won for Best Actress (Kelly) and Best Choreography (Bourne) at the Oliviers...several other nominations, including Best New Musical which it lost to The Producers.
I believe it opened too late to be considered for the Evening Standard awards.
Mary Poppins was eligable this year and Billy Elliott will be eligable next year for the Olivier awards and both will be eligable next year for the Evening Standard (not as many ES awards given, and very few to Musicals usually.)
Mary Poppins won for Best Actress (Kelly) and Best Choreography (Bourne) at the Oliviers...several other nominations, including Best New Musical which it lost to The Producers.
I believe it opened too late to be considered for the Evening Standard awards.
"Carson has combined his passion for helping children with his love for one of Cincinnati's favorite past times - cornhole - to create a unique and exciting event perfect for a corporate outing, entertaining clients or family fun."
"In Oz, the verb is douchifizzation." PRS
"In Oz, the verb is douchifizzation." PRS
#45
Posted: 7/6/05 at 3:18pm
woops!
TC was too quick for me.
TC was too quick for me.
"Carson has combined his passion for helping children with his love for one of Cincinnati's favorite past times - cornhole - to create a unique and exciting event perfect for a corporate outing, entertaining clients or family fun."
"In Oz, the verb is douchifizzation." PRS
"In Oz, the verb is douchifizzation." PRS
#46
Posted: 7/6/05 at 5:44pm
I think they should cast Super Nanny in the show 
#47
Posted: 7/6/05 at 5:49pm
I am now in 100% agreement with you, toughcritic. You'll obviously be very pleased to know that. 
"Jane, I've been dealt a blow - I've been dealt a blow, Jane."
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $101
