Hey...people enjoyed MILLIE and I do not begrudge them that. But I will always say that it was one of the most disappointing, crappiest evenings of theatre I've ever had in my life.
Keeping an open mind and ignoring what I think is crap are two completely different things.
"I'm so looking forward to a time when all the Reagan Democrats are dead."
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but MusicMan, to say the show is "a show without a single idea" is proving to me you are misunderstanding the story of the show. You simply didn't get it if you think it's a show without a single idea, because it does have a concept or two behind it, believe it or not.
Yes MusicMan, as with any show, Millie's has to make money. Here's my take on it Amy. Take away the riculous jokes and the white slavery, you have the story about a girl leaving her life as she once knew it to come to New York City. Why to New York? Because she sees it as the engine of change and a symbol of hope for excitment in life, and she sees it as a place where she could live as she has always dreamed. And although her vision of the ideal life is rather silly, the other girls are ther to pursue their own dreams of being actresses. So essentially, the show is representing New York City as a place of hope for all kinds of people, no matter what that hope may be. This vision that Millie, Muzzy, and the hotel girls (among other characters) see of New York, is the vision that millions and millions see it as.
Also, it represents how in the end, love will win. Obviously this is seen when Millie takes Jimmy over Graydon, when she orginally wanted Graydon for material reasons. It's also seen when Jimmy falls for Millie.
Essentially, it's the story of a girl with the need for a new life and independence, and she'll do what needs to be done to get where she wants, no matter how many times she falls, no matter how lost she is. I think Millie represents traits in all of us, especially her tenacity. It's about taking risks, and taking a giant leap for what you want out of life.
Call it mediocre and cheesy, but its no wonder so many people like it. Its something so many of us can relate to.
No offense, Bdwygrl, cause ya know I love ya, but you realize the show you just described is WONDERFUL TOWN, right?
I think that's the point some of us are trying to make. The show is derivative of other musicals (besides, of course, it's source material) only not written as well...in our opinion.
"I'm so looking forward to a time when all the Reagan Democrats are dead."
Haha, no I acutally did realize that. I realized that the concept is not exactly the most original thing in the world. I happen to love the way it was done though. The humor really got me, more than any other comedy I have seen in the movies or on the stage. I guess I just enjoy the stupidity of it combined with the real message. I happen to think many of the jokes were clever. Maybe it was just the endless talent of the wonderful leading lady that made me love it. But hey, if Wonderful Town is really that much better, I guess I'll have to see it.
The funny thing about the original MILLIE film is that in addition to being a ripoff of THE BOY FRIEND (Ross Hunter could not get the rights), it's a campy spoof of the roaring 20s and silent movie conventions which were just being re-discovered in the mid-1960s. And Julie Andrews is a riot as she turns from being Mary Pickford to Colleen Moore. Bea Lillie does a mean riff on BROKEN BLOSSOMS, And goofy, dizzy Carol Channing is the madcap jazz-age personified (she got an Oscar nomination for this).
The Broadway MILLIE could have been a hoot. In the right hands, it could have been snappy entertainment. But only Harriet Harris & Marc Kudisch nailed the giddy, silly zaniness of the original.
Which is why I thought, although Sutton is very talented, I actually thought she was a little miscast. Julie Andrews had an incredible ability to be both arch and sincere at the same time. Ms. Foster's performance was very sincere (and hard-sold). I'd kill to see her princess Winifred. But the quality needed for that show is both zany and delicate.
"I'm so looking forward to a time when all the Reagan Democrats are dead."
While I enjoyed the movie, I'm glad the decided to take a different direction with the Broadway show. I feel there are more laughs in the show than there were in the movie, and now I feel like there is something behind the story rather than it just being very funny stupidity.
Robbie, maybe I'm misunderstanding what exactly you mean by "zany and delicate" because I felt that Sutton played the role just that way. I think when Sutton plays Millie, she says every line in such a way that makes the character seem as if she is never joking. I think the fact that character is constantly so determined, makes this so funny. For example, whenever the character tries to seduce Graydon, she'll stand in this way that she THINKS looks sexy, without even realizing just how stupid she looks. The seduction scene (sometimes known as the "Tom Sawyer scene" haha) in the second act is so funny, because (at least when Sutton does it) it seems as if Millie has no idea she is REALLY making such a fool out of herself. The laugh she does after she falls out of her chair, and how she takes a lifetime and a half to get back up drives the audience wild. I think it's hilarious how after Graydon has left the scene, Millie gives herself a little smile of satisfaction as if she really was successful at winning over Graydon. Wouldn't you say that this is zany and sincere at the same time?
While I loved Julie Andrews in the role, I think Sutton mastered it.
Let me try to explain better. Julie Andrews had a lot of opposites going on that really worked in the style of the movie. She was both arch (slightly campy) and sincere. There were moments in the movie where you saw her having a ball with the role and knowing it was all a lark, but she never sacrificed the integrity of the character. It's actually a very difficult thing to do. She also approached the material with a light touch without missing any of the broad comedy.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with THE BOY FRIEND, but MILLIE, in my opinion, is truly mastered by Ms. Andrews because of the style requirements placed upon her. Ms. Foster's MILLIE is much more in the vein of Peggy Sawyer. But MILLIE, as originally conceived, is not 42nd Street. It is a spoof of 20's musicals, mores and movies. I felt the stage show captured none of this. It felt watered down. A spoof twice removed loses its bite.
At least for me.
xo
"I'm so looking forward to a time when all the Reagan Democrats are dead."
I don't think that they would have been able to change the location of Millie from New York to London. Think about all the book and lyric changes they would have had to made. WAY to many.
I see what you're saying. Of course, I still disagree in saying that Sutton was miscast (maybe you will believe she fit the role more than you thought when (if) you see someone else attempt Millie). And no, I'm not familiar with The Boyfriend.
Don't get me wrong. I think Sutton is actually quite talented...and I think she did the best she could with the material. I just thought that a lot got lost in the translation, including the original concept of who MILLIE is. When I say miscast, I mean in the sense of what was originally envisioned when the role was created.
"I'm so looking forward to a time when all the Reagan Democrats are dead."
I've always found the stage Millie a very cut and paste show. The deco sets are out of style for the actual period of the show and the costumes, as mentioned earlier are on the vulgar side. Sutton Foster lacks any sense vulnerability as the lead, she moves through the show like a bulldozer. I also miss Millie's english accent. I love the idea of a Gracie Allen style dizzy Millie. Oh, what this show could have been!
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
