My thoughts on GUYS AND DOLLS (very, very long) — Page 2

I've seen many, many previews and it IS DURING THIS TIME that actors have audience reactions and GROW into their characters. It doesn't usually happen during the rehearsal period. Sometimes perhaps, but not usually until they have an audience and more performances under their belts. There are exceptions.

I saw DISTRACTED last night and it was only the second preview. Cynthia Nixon had her character down perfectly. Just saying.

Trace, the difference between Cynthia Nixon and Lauren Graham is that, while both are solid B-list TV stars, Nixon also has an accomplished stage career.

You can see the accomplished stage actors in this production - Testa, Rosen, Bierko, Grant, etc. You can also tell who doesn't have the background. Know what I mean?

Dose she or Platt have any theatre credits in their bios?

Platt was very good in SHINING CITY.

I still have very high hopes for the production. McAnuff is an incredible director, I have faith he can pull it through.

Wait... why does Lauren have no right being on a stage? Just because she doesn't have her character completely down yet? It's not even that she doesn't have her character down, I think it's more her trying some new things, like the way she delivers jokes and such. I'm NOT trying to be nasty or annoying towards WithoutATrace. I promise. I'm just wondering what you mean exactly by that comment Thanks!

Previews are most definitely not just for the technical aspect of a show. I have worked on numerous productions where something that works great in the rehearsal hall falls completely flat with an audience. Previews are a chance to work out the problems on the ENTIRE production, not just the physical.

"...You can see the accomplished stage actors in this production - Testa, Rosen, Bierko, Grant, etc. You can also tell who doesn't have the background. Know what I mean?" (YankeeFan007)

WITH YOU all the way.

I just GALLS me when this "gotta have a 'Star'" casting thing places Amateur-Night performers in wonderful roles that could have been so fulfillingly played by experienced Legit actors/singers.

You know, go get your stage experience in the LA regionals (and/or equivalents). -- This is Broadway: (you know, "The" Broadway...)

...or maybe you just thought it would be nice to "have that Broadway credit" there, like P. Diddy and Cedric.

Ick.

I saw the production last night. I agree with all of the accolades for Kate Jennings Grant, who was just perfection. Aside from Craig Bierko being a bit old for the role, he really blends with Grant and offers a solid portrayal of Sky, if not particularly revelatory.

Yes, Oliver Platt is still finding his footing. He seems to still be deciding between character choices, and hopefully he'll settle on something consistent by Opening Night. I think he could turn out to be great. I'm not worried.

I thought Lauren Graham was just terrible. Her Adelaide reminded me of Kerry Butler's Audrey in the LITTLE SHOP revival a few years ago. She plays Adelaide like she is mentally deficient. She reminded me of Juliette Lewis in the movie The Other Sister. Graham is skinny as a toothpick, not distinct in any way, and during her big numbers manages to disappear among the chorus girls, who I remained more focused on than Graham.

I don't think there's anything at all that can be done to salvage Graham as a worthwhile Adelaide by Opening Night. If it were only the fact that she couldn't sing, she might be able to get by, because she would have the opportunity to act the hell out of the role (think Tyne Daly in GYPSY), but Graham looks like a lost puppy up there and looks like she's just happy to make it through the end of the show alive.

Sergio Trujillo's choreography is his best to date. And the dancers carry it out to perfection. Nick Adams is an incredible dancer (I don't know why people give him such a hard time on here), and John Selya has some great solo moments to help remind the audience why he is one of New York's greatest dancing assets.

I loved the use of projections on the back wall during scene changes.

One complaint I have is that, with all of the construction they did inside the theatre, there are A LOT of Orchestra seats that have an obstructed view. I was in Left Orchestra Row C, Seat 7, a seat I paid $76.50 for, and I missed the words being typed onto the back wall at the start of the show, due to the big columns that are all the way downstage, along with some chorus members during the dance numbers. You would think the Nederlanders would have learned from MTC's perfect reconstruction of the Biltmore/Friedman a few years ago, and have redesigned the seating so that every seat offers a perfect view of the stage.

Des McAnuff has a clear vision with this revival, and I think with the exception of a lost-in-action leading lady, he carries it out to perfection. It is nice to see that this is not just a generic production of GUYS AND DOLLS. It is designed with a distinct purpose in mind. I just wish it provided the audience with a competent Adelaide to help give some of the best numbers in the show the spice they need to make the production pitch perfect.

(I think Martha Plimpton would have been brilliant as Adelaide).

---

Updated On: 2/12/09 at 10:44 AM

Thanks for the well-written thoughts Yankeefan. I enjoyed reading them.

I'm not sure I like the Damon Runyon framing either. As if it were all springing forth out of his head, or out of the typewriter. That might have worked with the more cartoonish '90s revival, but it sounds like they're going for a more traditional approach in the style.

I'm also tired of sets being the star of the show. So much so, that the stars of the shows are getting dwarfed by them. As with your example of Luck Be a Lady, and the Crapshooters' Ballet, etc. That's a shame.

Sets didn't used to be all that large, back in the heyday. Neither did theatre prosceniums. They would fake the size of set pieces with forced perspective. The reason being that it made the performers look larger-than-life to scale accordingly. They understood was a good idea.

I guess today, we get a bunch of ants dancing around a giant sewer set shooting dice ... or a mammoth Victorian house rising from the ground in Mary Poppins, etc. Or Norma Desmond's hydraulic mansion. The set is the star.

I have to say, as cartoony as they were, I really liked Nathan and Faith (as Nathan and Adalaide).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAkKPPsfZH0&NR=1

---

I agree with the poster who said that sets seem to be the stars these days...I could go for less of the enormous projections in Guys and Dolls and I'm still not sure why Bill Elliot needed a bed that went to the ceiling. Great acting, singing and dancing would be enough for me!