Posted: 11/11/23 at 5:11pm
Can someone tell me--is the set as ugly and bland as it looks in photos? I realize this is a pretty shallow question, but every time I see pictures from the production, I just think it looks awful. I'll never get to see the show myself, so I'm curious what people think.
Posted: 11/11/23 at 5:26pm
joevitus said: "Can someone tell me--is the set as ugly and bland as it looks in photos? I realize this is a pretty shallow question, but every time I see pictures from the production, I just think it looks awful. I'll never get to see the show myself, so I'm curious what people think."
Oh it is beyond ugly. I just can't believe the design is by Soutra Gilmour. I get that that is somewhat the intention, but it looks low-grade fake a bit too obviously.
Posted: 11/11/23 at 5:31pm
I guess it's a matter of opinion. I think it serves the piece very well. It needs to be able to be seen through all the decades it represents, but it gives off very 60s/early 70s vibes.
Do I think its an award winning set? Not at all. Did I find it ugly or even detracting? Also, not at all.
Posted: 11/11/23 at 6:55pm
And Gussie's number is completely ruined, without any dancers, an actress that is completely miscast, costume looks cheap, that number was full of glamour at Encores with the glorious Elizabeth Stanley.
Posted: 11/11/23 at 7:49pm
I appreciate the responses. Thanks!
Posted: 11/12/23 at 1:57am
joevitus said: "Can someone tell me--is the set as ugly and bland as it looks in photos? I realize this is a pretty shallow question, but every time I see pictures from the production, I just think it looks awful. I'll never get to see the show myself, so I'm curious what people think."
Yes the set is ugly-bland-cheap looking and you just stare at it on arrival but slowly you become so immersed with this beautiful production the ugliness of it just fades and it all seems to work some how.
Posted: 11/12/23 at 3:00am
The set isn’t the fascinating and flashy Here Lies Love or the impressive and imaginative Here We Are. But the drab set serves a purpose and adapts as necessary. You don’t leave the revival singing the set, but it doesn’t matter at all.
Posted: 11/12/23 at 10:53am
Haven't seen it in person yet, just watched the video of the London version. But it does capture the style/decor of the eras it is set in. We might see it as ugly now, but it was the height of fashion for the time. It is like watching old sitcoms through modern eyes & the fashion & decor is so tacky. For example, if you watch Friends and we see Jennifer Aniston's hairdo as so tacky now; yet at the time it was fresh & everyone's mother ran out to their salon to get that haircut.
Posted: 11/12/23 at 11:16am
While nothing memorable, never once did the set bother me or make me wish it was something more than it was.
Posted: 11/12/23 at 3:47pm
How is it shallow to ask about the set?
They are a crucial part of any theatrical production. Creative art, not just perfunctory wallpaper. Perhaps the set designer was aiming for what Jason describes. Unmemorable. Perhaps that is how the director wanted it. She wanted Sondheim's work front and center at all times, to the fore. No distractions.
Perhaps it really is just not great. Which is also worthy of comment. Especially with the astronomical ticket prices, I think audiences should be free to criticize any and every aspect of the show. From how many beads of sweat on Jonathan Groff's face to a tiny crack in Not a Day Goes By.
Posted: 11/12/23 at 4:28pm
Well, that's what free speech is all about, especially if you're a paying customer. I feel like if you are given a comp by the company, it's bad manners to trash a show. But once you're a paying customer, you can say whatever you want.
BTW, not only a "crack" on not a day goes by, but it's also literally not being able to finish the song well enough.
I thought the sets were just fine, just Gussie's number should have had dancers and be a bit more sophisticated. But this production missed the memo on how glamorous Gussie Carnegie is.
Posted: 11/12/23 at 5:16pm
If you didn't like Katie's portrayal, I would say the main culprit is Maria Friedman. She's the one whose stamp of approval is needed. She is the one who directed it. The way the cast tell it, Maria has a soul connection to Sondheim so deep that he may as well have been directing it himself. "Don't sing what I wrote," he told her, "sing what I meant..." so the story goes.
Posted: 11/12/23 at 9:50pm
Jay Lerner-Z said: "If you didn't like Katie's portrayal, I would say the main culprit is Maria Friedman. She's the one whose stamp of approval is needed. She is the one who directed it. The way the cast tell it, Maria has a soul connection to Sondheim so deep that he may as well have been directing it himself. "Don't sing what I wrote," he told her, "sing what I meant..." so the story goes."
You're saying exactly what I said earlier in the thread. Maria is an excellent singer who can hit any note, so I believe it was someone else casting her and the other actress I didn't like. But anyway, people are paying to see Harry Potter and the raising star of Groff in a Sondheim musical. That's just my annoying frequent jaded theater goer observation.
Posted: 11/13/23 at 11:03am
"Maria is an excellent singer who can hit any note, so I believe it was someone else casting her and the other actress I didn't like."
That is quite simply not how things work.
Maria Friedman chose and approved both Katie Rose Clarke and Krystal Joy Brown. She wasn't body snatched by some third party who chose them.
We get it, you don't like Katie and Krystal, you have mentioned it in every single post of yours in this thread.
