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

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 2:47pm

I agree with CurtainPullDowner on this one...

I mean, yes, it's possible for an actor's performance to improve during previews (since it is their first time playing the character in front of an audience), but he/se should at least have some kind of character developed before the first preview. Testa was the only one who did.

[Actor 7]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 2:51pm

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.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 3:02pm

It doesn't usually happen during the rehearsal period.

Then it's a crappy rehearsal period.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 3:06pm

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

[jordangirl]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 3:13pm

I think both points of view apply ~ and it largely depends on the play (I remember at the free but donation for BCEFA reading of The Homecoming they talked about how especially with that kind of a play during the strike it was important to get it in front of an audience) and how important audience reaction is. For some shows it's more obvious how things should be played than others.

Should an actor have an idea (a very good one) about their character from rehearsals? Of course. But should they also be open to changing parts of that interpretation if it's not working for the audience? I say yes. I would hate for someone to have an idea of who their character is, discover that it's not really working for the audience and refuse to change it because "previews are primarily for technical stuff".

Updated On: 2/8/09 at 03:13 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 4:02pm

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?

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 4:30pm

Lauren Graham has no business being on stage at all...

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 4:45pm

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

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 4:49pm

Platt has a long list of theater credits.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 4:52pm

Platt was very good in SHINING CITY.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 5:00pm

Maybe Platt is just better in straight plays and not musicals...

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 5:02pm

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

[dg22894]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 5:02pm

Thanks for the Review :)

[bwayguy22089]

Posted: 2/8/09 at 5:43pm

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!

Posted: 2/8/09 at 8:22pm

Sounds interesting... I'm not sure I like the idea of Damon Runyon being there (and "dancing") at all, but... Speaking of dancing how is the choreography? Michael Kidd's Runyonland, and Luck be a Lady particularly were always highlights for me (thankfully we have them recreated in the so so film). However, I know even the 90s revival cut Runyonland to 90 seconds... so. (Neither here nor there but I always find it so sad that Christopher Chadman finally got his big breakthrough Broadway show as choreographer with that revival only to pass away within a year or so)

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 2/9/09 at 2:57am

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.

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/12/09 at 1:17am

Well, just saw this tonight and had the same reaction as earlier posters, so things may not be changing too much here as they edge closer to an opening...Kate is the standout as Sarah, Bierko is fine, and Graham and Platt can't really keep up with those two, although she is making the better effort. It's a testament to Mary Testa that she can take a tiny part and make more out of it than a leading actor here. Questions: Why does Titus have to wear a fat suit anyway? And am I the only one who is getting tired of all the projections? I mean, I get it in shows like Sunday in the Park with George where it was really essential, but in G & D, it's just constant. I think the biggest surprise tonight was that the Nederlander Theater is so improved now that the water cooler actually dispenses hot water that you could use to make tea or hot chocolate! Just looking for the bright side to all this....

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 2/12/09 at 4:21am

"...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.

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/12/09 at 9:18am

Actually, I don't fault the actors as much as I fault the folks who hire them...I'm sure Lauren Graham will bring a lot of Gilmore Girls fans into the theater and these are tough times; I also give her credit for really trying to stretch here. Platt, as has been pointed out here, was excellent in Shining City at MTC; I don't see him as a TV star, per se, just a versatile actor who's miscast. The people who put this together made their own bed, now they'll have to sleep in it, and maybe the names Graham and Platt will bring more of an audience in than good reviews would have, but it sure seems like a lousy choice!

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/12/09 at 10:44am

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

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 2/12/09 at 10:51am

I have to admit that stunt casting has made me upset before, because I’ve seen some truly awful stage performances by actors who were only up there because their names would bring in big crowds. But I don’t believe that that’s the case here. I guess I am biased because I’ve been a huge Lauren Graham fan for awhile, but I enjoyed her performance in Guys and Dolls and do think that she has the acting and singing chops to be up on that stage; I also believe that as she gets more comfortable in the role she’ll only improve. Could someone else do a better job? Perhaps, I don't know. But based on what I saw I think she deserves to be up there. And those who haven’t seen the show really shouldn’t comment on the performances.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/12/09 at 12:04pm

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

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 2/12/09 at 1:50pm

Thanks for posting that link best12, it really took me back. I loved Nathan & Faith in G&D. Both were perfection.

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/12/09 at 2:29pm

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!

[MCfan2]

Posted: 2/12/09 at 3:06pm

I'm not likely to have a chance to see this production, though I really wish I could. But I'm just chiming in to say that, stage experience or no, I would have thought Adelaide the ideal role for Lauren Graham. Her comic timing is so good, and when you hear her spout the dialogue on "GG," you'd think she was born to perform songs like "Sue Me." If she's having trouble, I do hope she gets through it and settles into the role soon, because it could be such a perfect role for her.