Oh, What a Dreadful Show!

[Dollypop]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 11:17am

I went into THE BOY FROM OZ with an open mind, however, within minutes I was lulled into lethargy. Could they have picked a less interesting subject for a musical? Really, what did Peter Allen do? What was really interesting about his life? Instead of concentrating on the conflict of a gay man married to a celebrity woman--where there might have been some emotional "heft", the creators focus on a mish-mash of a "biography" that is as dull as tarnished silver. Everything is glossed over and no character emerges as being really memorable.

The sets are minimal. The costumes are merely "okay". The book is tedious. Peter Allen's music is so-so, but the music that was specifically written for this production is downright horrible--there isn't a decent melody in the score and the lyrics are of the "June, spoon, moon" variety. The choreography is probably the worst I've seen since the Encores! version of NO STRINGS last season: you'd have more imaginative dancing in an aeorbics class.

The cast works hard. Hugh Jackman really works his tail off (and shakes it quite a bit) as Peter Allen. In all probability, he's more appealing than the man he is portraying. He sings well but the score requires him to blast many vowel sounds and the effect isn't easy on the ears. I'd really like to hear him sing something by Rodgers and Hammerstein or Irving Berlin. I think classic "show music" would suit his vocal chords better. Stephanie J. Block is quite good as Liza; she has some really touching moments in the second act. Isabel Keating does a fine impersonation of Judy Garland but her big song is a victim of poor amplification and the lyric is unintelligible. I enjoyed Beth Fowler as Peter's mother who brought warmth and dignity to her role, and Jarrod Emick does a fine job but is totally wasted in the underwritten role of Greg (Peter's lover). Actually, the Peter/Greg relationship is the finest aspect of the evening. It seems as though the writing becomes more honest and the show se breathes a little life for a while. Still, the staging of "I Honestly Love You" is flawed and a more imaginative director could have done a more effective job staging that number.

I know many people will flock to the show to see Hugh Jackman live onstage. As I said, he's very good. However, I wish the show he is in was more worthy of his talents--and the talents of the others who share the stage with him.

Save your money on this one.

[Maggie]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 12:03pm

Ok I will! Thanks for the heads up.

[Corine2]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 12:04pm

Sad to hear it. Updated On: 10/25/03 at 12:04 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 12:21pm

Dolly's point is quite a revelation, not noted elsewhere: if the show had zeroed in on a gay man's marriage to a celebrity woman (look at the headlines!) and made that the narrow(er) focus instead of trying to make one not universally memorable entertainer's life "epic," it might've found something missing: a strong point of view. Also: The show operates on the bogus assumption that Allen is as compelling a subject as Minelli and Garland. Even uber fans of this man would have to agree that he didn't come close. So when those 2 iconic gals wander into HIS story, how can they not upstage his angst issues? There's something ironic about the life of Peter Allen making it to broadway before we get the saga of a real super star: Judy Garland. Now there's a tale -- a darker FUNNY GIRL -- that might've taught us all something about American show biz, from vaudeville through hollywood. Yeah, sure, it could've been VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. But then a show about a stripper could've been a tacky exploitation of that world; instead, we got GYPSY.

[BC]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 1:08pm

I loved this show. I've seen it twice and both times the audiences went wild. Standing ovation in the middle of the show. Jackman and Keating are fantastic.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 1:12pm

AUGGIE, i think you hit it on the head: Martin Sherman is no Arthur Laurents. i've been a fan of Sherman's playwriting (BENT is undeniably powerful, and even ALIVE & KICKING has wonderful moments) and he seemed a good fit for the story of a gay/bi man in an exciting world when a culture is changing---but he didn't deliver. The libretto is a tired cliche of the "then i wrote/then i met" school that went out with movies like TILL THE CLOUDS ROLL BY. They chose to force Liza's unique personality into a standard musical theatre ingenue (even if she has racier language, nothing really more shocking than the film version of Sally Bowles...hello, that was thirty years ago) and one of the most vibrant and troubled women ever, Garland, into some slightly updated soubrette role. The performances are good, and i'm sorry to hear that the design didn't advance much since previews at the end of September. i assumed once the show was set and all changes were in, that pro team would solve it visually.

For the most of us, it's doubly hard because we've been waiting for a project to attract a talent like Jackman back to the stage and reinvogorate the genre. i've written elsewhere that BFO is a throwback to shows like THE ACT, THE RINK, and CHITA AND ALL THAT JAZZ (basically, glorified nightclub acts) but with the onus of being the "next big book musical" on it, Sherman et al just couldn't deliver. Now with WICKED somewhat faltering critically, who knows what will happen to the form? Thank god AVENUE Q is doing well. i'm excited about NEVER GONNA DANCE, but it's not "new" in that it's probably this decades MY ONE AND ONLY or CRAZY FOR YOU...a nice look back, but not really moving forward.

Where are the new writers creating vehicles for Jackman, Chenowith, even Bernadette for that matter? is it really that expensive on the Main Stem? support your regionals, folks...

[magruder]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 1:25pm

I wouldn't be able to defend The Boy from Oz as a great show ... the book is short on humor and too sketchy and episodic, the musical numbers often trail off instead of building to a climax or button, and the set is Robin Wagner in his minimalist mode. Plus, it's really hard to put iconic figured like Liza Minnelli and Judy Garland on stage without seeming silly. That said, I enjoyed the efforts of the cast, loved the orchestrations and thought Hugh pulled out all the stops to deliver a star performance. I also was moved by the Peter-Greg relationship, even as I wished for more development throughout the show to get a better idea of Peter Allen as a person. Great, it's not, but I didn't find it to be a dreadful show.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 3:04pm

The audience also gave THE BOY FROM OZ a standing ovation last night--and I joined them. The cast is splendid and deserved the ovation they get--the material is weak. By the way, could you think of a tackier grand finale than what is done in this show? Geeze!

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 5:38pm

My problem with the show is that Peter Allen gives me the creeps He's as smarmy as Neil Diamond, Barry Manilow and Neil Sedaka combined- so I have no desire whatsoever to see it.

Though I'm sure Hugh is everything the critics and fans say he is.

Updated On: 10/25/03 at 05:38 PM

[PPetow]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 6:05pm

Ok...so I don't live in NY and I haven't seen the play yet, but I have been reading the reviews and all of your posts and I am saddened that the producers and directors of this play didn't think about who Peter Allen was and that they hardly bothered to put across what his life was all about. It sounds as if they went full speed ahead for the dollars and, in the process, butchered anything remotely important about Allen's life. I understand that "Tenterfield Saddler" was left out of the play. If that is true, why even bother trying to tell the tale of Peter Allen? Couldn't they have found a better vehicle to showcase Hugh Jackman's apparent super talent as a charasmatic, charming stage performer?

[Dollypop]

Posted: 10/25/03 at 6:46pm

THE BOY FROM OZ is this year's VICTOR/VICTORIA: another star-driven vehicle which is a mess, but brings in the crowds.

[Monkshould]

Posted: 10/26/03 at 1:54am

My mother, sister, and I saw the show on the last Saturday before it officially opened. There was a Standing Room Only crowd which went absolutely wild. Jackman was phenomenal, and the young boy got repeated standing ovations. Yes, the story was minimalistic, as were the sets, and "Liza" was rather a weak link, but this particular audience sure didn't think it was dreadful!! It was sheer entertainment, as were Peter Allen's shows when he was alive. Nothing wrong with that, as far as my hard-earned money is concerned.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 10/26/03 at 6:41pm

Standing ovations mean nothing in today's world. Remember, diners will applaud in restaurants whenever a waiter aaccidentally drops some dishes. Do you call THAT entertainment?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/26/03 at 6:46pm

Question to all re Victor, Victoria

If the movie was good & it had basically the same music & same lead, how could it be so bad or am I missing something ? How could it change so drastically ?

My wife & I saw it with Anne Runalfson & we enjoyed it. The show was good & Runalfson was just as good as Andrews as I have seen the video with her in it.

[newyorkuniq]

Posted: 10/26/03 at 6:47pm

Hugh Jackman is in this show. I will not see it. The sight of him in those tight pants makes me want to hurl.

Posted: 10/26/03 at 7:39pm

Dollypop~
Your comment about waiters dropping things, made me start to sing the Avenue Q song that is hard to pronounec. I call it the Farfenhoogan song... lol

[PigletH13]

Posted: 10/26/03 at 7:57pm

Well even DP knew I was going to respond to this thread. NYuniq...thats sad. May I ask who you do find appealing in tight pants?

I was with DP for the show as were Badseed and her sister...and while the show has its flaws...the performers make it a very enjoyable evening. Not one person around where I was sitting...row B seat 10...said anything negative...however, I know what you all will be thinking...

well what do they know

but...thats the point! They don't! But they are the majority of the ticket buyers! If there was a company that would be willing to do some surveys of the ticket buyers on TKTS, or even on Telecharge, lets face it...the majority of those people come to NY to see shows but really haven't studied theatre as much as people on the theatre websites! They just know that spending $100+ for a ticket to see someone they have heard of...ie Hugh...may be interesting. I seriously doubt that many of those people will tell you that they did not have a good time at the show.

I am not going to disagree with people about the book, sets, etc...but I sure don't want the show to close. Its keeping people employed! and i sure don't want to see talented people not working.

Updated On: 10/26/03 at 07:57 PM

[Dollypop]

Posted: 10/26/03 at 9:22pm

Okay, do you think people would be paying $100 to see BOY FROM OZ if Justin Bohon was playing Peter Allen?

Justin is one of my favorite performers, but I doubt that he has marquee value--yet.

[PigletH13]

Posted: 10/26/03 at 9:32pm

I know you would! LOL! I don;t feel its right for anyone to charge so much for a show...I think its very sad that prices have gone up on everything. Good God! I mean, when I was a teenager, the price of a music concert ticket ranged from $10-35. Now, if any kid wants to see a concert...the better seats are sometimes over $100! I just think its sad.

But, if a name draws a person to a show...then fine. And it makes me happier if that name does himself or herself justice!

[Dollypop]

Posted: 10/26/03 at 9:39pm

On the original Opening Night of TWHM in 1964, our third row center seats cost a whopping $9.90. I've kept the stubs!

[PigletH13]

Posted: 10/26/03 at 9:42pm

See! I mean, I understand about economy and stuff...but good God! I am just overwhelmed by entertainment prices these days.

[alterego]

Posted: 10/27/03 at 9:02am

I saw The Boy From Oz in here in Melbourne, Australia. It was no great show then. In fact everthing that I felt was wrong with the show at that time has been stated in the reviews in NY and on this board.

What I find amazing is that it had an all new cast and production team from top to bottom. I did notice that the original song listing (for NY) was considerably different from the Australian version but by the time it opened with one or two exceptions the list had more or less reverted to that which we had here. We also had minimal sets and some bad wigs too. On the plus side there were some very good performances especially from Chrissie Amplett (Judy), Angela Toohey (Liza) and Jill Perryman(his mother).
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has the Australian cast album and has seen the Broadway version, did you see the show you thought you were going to see (from impressions gained from the CD)? To me they would have been better off doing a splashy review of Peter Allen songs as the dialogue was not great (and with an all new book still isn't any better it seems). The original book was by Nick Enright who was an Academy Award nominee (for the movie Lorenzo's Oil).He died last year.


When the show opened in Sydney it received enormous publicity. Peter Allen was very popular in Sydney and that is where the show had it's greatest success. I saw Hugh Jackman as a great Gaston in Beauty and the Beast and a good Joe in Sunset Boulevard. I think he might wear out his welcome (for me) in a role like Peter Allen. Do you think there is enough interest in him to keep this show running another eleven months? I hope to get over there in April and compare the Australian version and what ended up on Broadway. Updated On: 10/27/03 at 09:02 AM

Posted: 10/27/03 at 9:22am

Th bad, huh? Maybe I'll stay clear of it this weekend.

[jo]

Posted: 10/27/03 at 10:28am

You guys are lucky that you live in New York or nearby. What about Broadway fans who live across the world??? It's not the cost of the tickets - but the plane fare, hotels, food, etc., that will burn a hole in your pocket :rolleyes:

That's why I am going to see THE BOY FROM OZ several times - to spread the overhead or "to average down" ( my costs) , as a money or capital market specialist would say

Jo

Posted: 10/27/03 at 10:31am

jo...

Honey...I guess I have it better than you but I still drive 8.5-9 hours to get to the city.