My review of Little Shop- Page 3

[Menken Fan]

Posted: 9/8/03 at 6:59pm

I LOVE Alice. Don't get me wrong. I guess what I meant is that she has more maturity and emotion in her portrayal. I have a tape of the show in Florida, and I'll be listening to that tonight again to get over my depression...

[sheekala]

Posted: 9/8/03 at 7:10pm

Alice was my favorite thing about the Coral Gables version, please Mr. Producer, where and whoever you are, hire the Atlantic City leads whoever they were, I felt so much for their Seymour and Audrey, they had the most amazing chemistry...really the best I've seen, since, well Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in The Producers. I'm sick, sick, SICK of Broadway being done wrong!!!

[sheekala]

Posted: 9/8/03 at 7:19pm

Little Shop of Horrors' provides bits of joy

Friday, May 23, 2003

By CHUCK DARROW
Courier-Post Staff


There was a time when mindless, breezy programs propelled by toe-tapping music constituted a large portion of the casino entertainment landscape. Most often, these were musical revues composed of a series of segments unrelated save for a show's basic theme.

Those days are over - at least for the moment: The cyclical nature of show business suggests there's always a chance their time might come again. In the meantime, the Tropicana's presentation of Little Shop of Horrors is a fine reminder of such vehicles.

A truncated version of the hit 1980s off-Broadway musical, this production of Little Shop is hardly a theatrical milestone. But it serves up enough check-your-brain-at-the-door fun and nonsense to make it worth seeing.

Little Shop, which runs through June 27, is based on the 1960 Roger Corman horror-flick-cum-comedy that is legendary for its two-day production schedule and the indelible scene starring a young Jack Nicholson as a pain-loving dental patient. The movie's preposterous but hilarious plot centers on a serial-killing plant developed by Seymour Krelboyne, a sweet, simple-minded clerk at a Skid Row flower shop.

The Alan Menken-Howard Ashman musical retains the core plot but its translation from screen to stage has cost it much of the Mel Brooks-like humor that makes the original Little Shop one of the funniest films ever. In its place is a shoop-shoop/do-wop score that's quite engaging as you're hearing it but which has virtually no staying power.

None of the songs could survive away from the show; all are too tied into the story. But this doesn't hamper the fun they provide.

Unlike other musicals (Rent, Cats) that have played there, the Trop's Little Shop is not a touring production but a locally produced affair staged by Jersey Shore impresario D. Benjamin Brown. The cast is headed up by the superb Eddie Varley, whom you might have seen as Scrooge in Brown's An All-Star Christmas Carol the last two holiday seasons.

Varley is a gifted musical comedy performer with a fine, supple voice and a stage presence perfectly suited to the kind of broad and goofy roles he has handled at the Trop. It's always a joy watching him perform.

Elizabeth Maurer does a facile job as Audrey, Seymour's buxom muse (and victim of domestic violence at the hands of her lover, a malevolent dentist). She deftly portrays the erstwhile hooker as a bimbo but one almost devoid of trashiness; there is nothing vulgar about the character, despite her voluptuousness and sexy wardrobe.

Rick Clark, as Orin, the sadistic dentist, pretty much steals his scenes, thanks to his over-the-top character and a human-cartoon acting style that works perfectly in this instance.


The real star of any production of Little Shop of Horrors is Audrey II, the killer plant who is first seen as a cute little sprout but, thanks to a steady diet of fresh human blood, grows big enough to swallow a human being in one gulp.

The puppetry here is excellent. Audrey II seems to be a living entity thanks, in no small part, to the unseen Rick McIver, who hilariously voices the character.

The show is also helped by strong staging, and the nifty musical accompaniment of a four-piece band led by Michael Sansonia, who was the musical director for the original New York production.

This was a review I found regarding the Atlantic City production, let's see if the Broadway company fares as well!

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 10:34am

I saw the show last Friday night, and for the most part, I agree with some people in this thread's assessment of the show.

First off, I will say that reguardless, I enjoyed the production immensely - I thought that the three urichins were the highlight of the production. They were sexy, talented, and genuinely seemed hip, and acted like the teenagers they were supposed to be playing. It didn't seem as if they were trying hard to be cool and sassy, they just knew how to be.

Rob Bartlett as Mushnik was incredible. I have never laughed so hard at a Mushnik. I hope he maintains this wonderful performance and that he will get some recognition for it, somewhere down the line, maybe a Tony nomination or win.

Doug Sills was funny, although a lot of the people I saw the show with hated him in the role of the Dentist and others. I thought that he was very cartoony and over the top, which made his character more likeable, and he sang the role very well, which is always appreciated in my book.

Micheal-Leon Wooley was great in his singing and acting of the plant. I enjoyed his characterization of Audrey II. The plant and the puppeteers manipulating it was incredible as well...Wooley and the puppeteers really seemed to be in synch which created a great Audrey II all together. Just seeing that incredible plant was worth the ticket price alone, and the ending was fantastic. I especially loved the dripping blood effect. That got a lot of cheers from the audience, as well as Audrey II's attack at the end of the Finale.

Now on to the leads.....

I love Hunter Foster, and thought that he was great in Urinetown, but something about his performance as Seymour overall irked me...And I think it all boils down to his interpretation of Seymour being too confident and knowing, as someone else had mentioned, but I definitely noticed this in his interpretation, and therefore, it makes it harder for the audience to relate to him, and feel sorry for him in his situation. I always saw Seymour as a pitiable and pathetic person, with no self-esteem who finally gets a little break when the plant's publicity starts changing his life seemingly for the better. I don't think the audience sees enough of a pathetic Seymour. It was so bad for me, that when the plant eats Seymour at the end, I didn't even feel sorry for him. That's not good. Sure, Hunter is trying to show that he's a lowly character, but it still isn't working well enough. I think he might have been miscast. Not to say that the actor playing Seymour has to be overly nerdy, Hunter just doesn't seem like an outcast of society, that no one wants to be associated with. If anything, he comes across more as some guy being bullied by Mr. Mushnik at best. However, despite all this, Hunter does give a good performance, has excellent comedic timing, and sings the role extremely well.

As for Kerry Butler, here's where I disagree with most people - I think that she fits her role better than Hunter actually. People are giving her a lot of crap for not hardly doing anything with her role, but I think she is. She just needs to make it more obvious, somehow. Anyone who is watching her closely and has gotten over the fact that she is not Ellen Greene, will see that she is doing something different with the role, making different acting choices, being committed to them, and making them work. And I appreciate that. If I wanted to see an Ellen Greene impersonation, I would go see any summer-stock, or community theatre production of this show and watch their Audrey.

You see, the thing about Ellen Greene is that she created this character so well, that it's hard to get out of her shadow. If you look at the script, it says NOTHING about Audrey having to have a squeaky, lispy, voice, which Ellen chose to give her Audrey.

So I got over that, after Kerry's first scene. However, I do feel that Kerry and Hunter BOTH need to make the characters more "real". There were plenty of times while watching their performances that it almost seemed as if they played a certain line a certain way, because they knew it's a line that usually gets a laugh. That shouldn't be. What makes certain lines funny is how the characters relate to them in their own world. For example, During the scene that preceeds "Somewhere That's Green" the lines about Audrey being "tied up", followed by her oblivious response, "No, just handcuffed a little" was too schticky....Audrey should not be aware of the irony in that line - yet Kerry borderline interpreted it in a fecicious/sarcastic way. Also, lyrics in the songs should be played out more and taken more for what they are worth...they are very clever lyrics...the audience should realize that. There were a few lyric interpretations in "Somewhere That's Green" that was totally missed, too. Again, both of the leads need to not be so aware of their situations - Audrey should not be THAT aware that she has low self-esteem and that is the reason why she is with Orin. At least, not in the very beginning of Act I. It should sort of be a revelation somewhere down the line, during the evolution of her character. Seymour needs to have more self-esteem issues -and what I mean by that is, Hunter needs to incorporate that more into his character/body inflictions and some of his line interpretations.

Ok, now that I have had time to think about what I wanted to say, remember, this is just my opinion. And I am not bashing Hunter and Kerry, because I am a big fan of both, and I think they are doing a fantastic job so far, and I hope that they will get even better and find their "Seymour" and "Audrey" and go down in the record books for their revelationary turns as their respective characters. I think the show is definitely worth seeing, and I know I will be back to see them again real soon.

Cheers,
The Balladeer

Updated On: 9/9/03 at 10:34 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 12:44pm

I have not seen the production just yet. I agree very strongly with Balladeer's comments about how the characters should be played. I also hope that people do see the difference between "bashing" a performer and making a critical assessment. We need the latter in theatre in order to make better theatre. So, Balladeer, I think you did a great job of making a critical assessment. =) I can't wait to see the show myself!

[sheekala]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 2:37pm

What a wonderful post, Bala, and I agree with much of it..one of the reasons I speak so warmly about the production of LSOH I was lucky enough to see in Atlantic City was the amazing performances of the entire cast, most of all the Audrey and Seymour who were sublime.The path that Elizabeth Maurer took with the role was very different than the way Ellen Greene expertly portrayed her...Miss Maurer "Audrey" was a beautiful girl, trapped in a dismal life, who suddenly finds a way "out" or so she hopes, it was played very real, and heartbreakingly honest. The Seymour was by turns tragic, an outcast who gave up social contact long ago for the safety of his plants, and the secret love for his beloved Audrey. The two actors knew when to embrace both the horror and humor of the play(this was no communtiy theater production), I only wish the Broadway leads had the same instinct. I did however enjoy the Broadway production as a whole and found the Urchins to be every bit the street-wise diva's and wonderfully sung.....

[Al Dente]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 4:53pm

Why is it so hard to just state the obvious and accept it? Hunter and Kerry are grossly miscast as the leads of this show. The *truth*,should never be misconstrued as "bashing". There is no amount of time,work,"growing into", time, finding the character, time, that's going to make them good. It was a mistake, plain and simple and I think that those of us, who were anxiously awaiting this shows' Bway arrival for YEARS, are beyond disappointed. It's nothing personal against either of the two leads as "people", they're just not right for *this* show. And that is a really big shame.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 5:03pm

Al Dente--I wasn't referring to you when I said bashing. I was only referring to anyone's thinking that these criticisms were bashing--and I should have broadened my defense to more than just Balladeer.

=)

Updated On: 9/9/03 at 05:03 PM

[sheekala]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 5:19pm

jrb, shave off the facial hair and you'd make a fine Seymour!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 5:23pm

well ACTUALLY...LOLOLOLOL

I am DYING to play the role (again) on Broadway. I just need to be in the right place at the right time! Arghh!

I can't gripe though--Hunter and Jonathan Rayson (his understudy) are both very talented guys.

=)

[sheekala]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 5:51pm

When they were pulling names out of the air for this my two favorite were brad Oscar as Seymour and Felicia Finley as Audrey, now that would be an interesting pair....

[ShineOn]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 6:18pm

"Growing into the role" is SUCH bull**** and lacks complete professionalism. That's the crappiest excuse I've ever heard.

SETTLING into a role is one thing. You should have SOME understanding of the character before performing it in front of an audience or you're never going to get it.

Rebecca Luker's FIRST day as Claudia in Nine, she was a MILLION times better than Benanti, and I didn't dislike Benanti's Claudia at all. She lacked maturity and years Luker has to really grasp the part. She played it fine, but I say put her back in the part in ten years and it'll be a whole new character.

I think that's the bottom line between Ripley and Butler. I know Kerry's in her thirties and Alice isn't much older (40 in December... SO doesn't look it), but as a performer, Alice is far more versed and mature. Just look at Alice's string of roles in comparison to Kerry's. Alice plays the older, vulnerable, and on occasion, slightly ditzy (Janet) parts well. Violet, in my opinion, was definitely Alice's best role to date. She was obviously the more mature of the two twins, but she had this vulnerability and naivety and longed for a life that she knew deep down would never be possible. Yet she still dreamed and hoped and made your heart ache for her...

Displaying those characteristics in Violet leads me to believe she would have had a greater understanding of Audrey. Kerry plays the "stupid girl with a big heart" well, yes, but there's much more to Audrey than that. Audrey, though obviously not the brightest bulb in the box, has far more depth. She's been "through the mill" and has seen a lot more in her day than Penny Pingleton or Shelley Parker ever has.


As for Alice's "look"... she DOES look very young and she's beautiful, yet at the same time, she has a very mature look to her, which I think is just the right look for Audrey. Kerry's got a big baby face and she looks too innocent for Audrey. Not that it would really matter if she had the character down, because that could be looked over. I just think its ironic that Alice even has the right look going on...

So frustrating. They're going to be begging Alice to come back somewhere down the line... (if the show lasts that long). I know lots of people want Alice back in the show, but she'd be crazy to do it. One would hope she has far more dignity than that.

[sheekala]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 6:24pm

Alice brought a haunted quality to her Audrey, with a loving zaniness to her scenes with Seymour. I am still in shock in how the casting changes went down, Ripley was hardly the problem in my view!

[Al Dente]

Posted: 9/9/03 at 9:31pm

Please refer to my earlier post on this thread about the producers of both Hairspray and LS being ONE in the same and perhaps being lazy and doing favors for actresses they deem "snubbed" by the Tony committee.(Let's not forget that there was much Tony "buzz" swirling around Alice's portrayal of Janet too, that never came to fruition).

After all, not to diminish Alice's talent, but she too, came from a Frankel production (Rocky Horror) straight into the role of Audrey. You can't get these old dogs to learn new tricks. Think outside the box Mr. producer! Updated On: 9/9/03 at 09:31 PM

Posted: 9/9/03 at 10:35pm

Wow there is some intense conversations about this show. Almost as much as that little dance with a certain michael last year. I still want to see the show and make my own decision.

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 9/10/03 at 7:31am

But let's hope that UNLIKE a certain "dance" woth michael that people actually SEE this show before forming harsh and insulting opinions. Remember, boards like these can close shows. Lets give it a chance first.

[Al Dente]

Posted: 9/10/03 at 7:35am

Here's the awful truth about THIS show, everyone's who's had criticisms so far really have, in fact, seen it. This time, it's not assumption and hearsay. People shouldn't plunk down 100 dollars for this mess, really!

[Jack42]

Posted: 9/10/03 at 7:46am

Boards like these do not close shows. (My apologies to Rob for this next statement) - At most there are a couple of thousand people on here and even if EVERY SINGLE ONE HERE decided to boycott the show, that would not even fill the theater twice. Conversely, boards like these aren't able to keep a show open either.

I saw the show, and while I would say it has its problems - it is a HUGE crowd pleaser. It's in previews and while people will argue that everything SHOULD be rock solid and a finished product, let me just say.. THAT is a load of crap (to use someone else's expression on a thread) THAT, my friends, is what the preview period is for. To see what is working and what is not working. Otherwise, shows would not have a preview period and THEN an opening date.

And you can argue it's an established show - you can argue that it already had an out of town tryout, etc - but the fact remains that except for hunter (and the plant/puppeteers) - the show is brand "new" to the rest of the cast and crew.

There are quite a few shows that have had intense critical cynicisms and have gone on for long and healthy runs. I wish the folks at LSoH the very best because at the very LEAST, it's providing work for hundreds of people - and right now - it's also giving audiences one extremely entertaining evening, minus the FEW (statistically) who have posted on this board.

[Al Dente]

Posted: 9/10/03 at 8:08am

Hmm, you just quoted me, (practically verbatim) from a post I made on the old board about how message boards will not and can not make or break a show. We were discussing DOTV, at the time. I'll agree with you(and myself) 100 % about how insignificant these boards can be, as far as the rest of the theater going public is concerned. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that the show and performances in LS are sorely lacking, in just about everything. Time(and NOT idle banter) will tell if I and a few others were right or not. Updated On: 9/10/03 at 08:08 AM

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 9/10/03 at 11:00am

Jack, I agree with you 100%. I seriously wonder if some of the people complaining or giving their opinion here knows what it is to try and create a new spin on a character or if they have performed a role in any capacity. A PREVIEW is a PREVIEW is a PREVIEW. And I wouldn't dare call this production a "mess". That is going too far. Every person that came out of that theatre the night I saw it enjoyed the production on some level. Yes, it is a crowd pleaser and a favorite....but people wouldn't be content with the show at any level if the actors were absolutely terrible and the vison was totally off. Which is definitely not the case. If I couldn't get to see the show myself, and form my opinion, listening to some of these abyssmal reports, I would want to steer clear from this production. Good thing I always find out information for myself, and am intelligent to form my own opinion. Anyway....

Although I think for the most part, and especially on the technical aspects that this show is functioning very well, and seems ready - I can assure you that it is far from it, performance wise, and there is probably a lot going on backstage that we "the paying audience" are not aware of. Just yesterday reading an interview with Doug Sills, he said that the FIRST preview was the FIRST time they have performed in front of an audience. And that he and his dressers were still trying to figure out how to make his quick changes quicker - That to me, is quite shocking, and yet astonishing that they were able to do so such an incredible job overall, because I am sure other details such as the previous one still had to be worked out. Performing for your director, the company, producers and people already involved with a production is one thing - but when you perform for an actual audience, that is another.

I am not making excuses for anyone, but I find working out problems and tweaking performances to be reasonable during the preview period. After opening - I am not so sure. Most directors/composers/etc. still make changes during previews. Sondheim is notorious for making changes even up to right before the opening performance. So any comments criticizing performers for working on their roles, or trying different things during previews to me, is stupid.

However, I will agree with daisy hilton, that yes, they should have a damned good idea about their character already by this point. They shouldn't still be trying to figure out things like relationships to other characters, conflicts, etc...THAT is unprofessional, and they should be fired immediately if that was the case. However, all the actors have a strong sense of this already from what I have seen, and that is not even an issue. They just need to tweak. Speaking as an actor who has performed on amateur and as well as professional levels....I know that I would still get notes, and have to rehearse during or inbetween performances, and no one thought anything was wrong with that. There is always room for improvement no matter what stage of performance you are in.

And to whomever made the comment about Kerry getting this role as some kind of favor because she was snubbed a Tony nomination is ridiculous. That comment just really irked me. What if the girl got the role because she was what the producers were looking for, and Alice just wasn't it? From what I hear Alice was similar to Ellen Greene....Kerry is very distinguishable from Ellen. Maybe they wanted to get all of Ellen's inflictions out of people's minds and have the focus on the work itself? How about that for a thought?

JRB actor, thanks for your kind comments, about my post. However, you are going to have to fight ME for Seymour!

Cheers,
The Balladeer

Updated On: 9/10/03 at 11:00 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/10/03 at 12:24pm

oooh baby, BRING IT! LOL

I'm game for a Seymour sing off any day of the week! =)

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 9/10/03 at 12:30pm

LOL jrb! You kinda look like Hunter, anyway. Has anyone ever told you that? That is your headshot as an avatar, right? But I am game for a sing-off anytime!

Cheers,
The Balladeer

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/10/03 at 12:32pm

I have heard that actually--but I'm shorter than Hunter. Other than that, you'd think that Urinetown and Little Shop would be knocking down my door! LOL I just got to NYC--I've still got time. I hear that Hunter is a great guy--I wish him all the best.

=)

avatar--LOL. I prob need to get another headshot where I look sweet and happy and very musical comedy.

Updated On: 9/10/03 at 12:32 PM

[TheBalladeer]

Posted: 9/10/03 at 12:39pm

Yeah, your headshot looks like you're going to hurt somebody. Sometimes, your headshot comes out differently than you think, or people interpret it wrong. For instance, I had headshots redone recently, and picked a shot that I thought I looked pretty damned funny in, and my family thought it was funny too...But then, I showed it to a director friend of mine, and he said that I looked very mean....ah well. I was kinda taken aback. Damnit, it's hard to get an audition for Urinetown if you're not Equity. Believe me, I tried.

Cheers,
The Balladeer

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/10/03 at 12:41pm

well, I'm Equity--and it's hard to get into anything without an agent.

the ironic thing about my headshot is that is is more or less a blank expression. I guess I look tough--but I'm really really sweet--I promise!

Updated On: 9/10/03 at 12:41 PM