On A Clear Day First Preview- Page 10

[marknyc]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 6:39pm

Perhaps the balcony was closed, but we were sitting in the mezzanine last night (also TDF) and it was quite full. The balcony contains only eight rows, so it's not a big part of the audience.

[quizking101]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 6:44pm

I think he meant the balcony.

After seeing the rather tepid reception on here, I was wary about seeing this. (I watched the movie for reference). But, although the piece is flawed, the premise was considerably more interesting with the gay twist. (I'm not a fan of one actor playing a split personality, save for Nina Arianda in VENUS IN FUR.) Harry Connick Jr. was at the top of his game, and got a two minute standing ovation after singing the title number. He knows how to play to an audience, but my only beef was that this was a detriment in some moments, since it felt a little “concerty” for some songs. Jessie Mueller was hot talent on a stick, may she have a long and prosperous career. David Turner, who also got very bad reception on here, was actually very endearing and funny. I'll admit that he started off slow and shaky, but finally got his **** together by the end of “Hurry, It's Lovely Up Here” and kept at that rate for the rest of the show. I didn't like Sarah Stiles that much...it felt like she was imitating Kristin Chenoweth.

The set is a VERY BIG EYESORE, so if anyone decides to go see it, focuses on the actors to prevent your brain from turning into mush because of the optical illusion.

Some other songs highlights were “Melinda” (OMG, THAT TANGO!), “What Do I Have That I Don't Have”, and “(S)he Wasn't You”

I felt like a lot of the naysayers on this board were guardians of the original production/performances and/or the movie. Even though I did see the movie, this incarnation cleared up some confusion and gave a helpful twist to the sometimes confusing plots. I hope this does get a fair shake and last for longer than it's being predicted to.

STAGE DOOR: Harry Connick Jr. came out, and signed for almost everyone who asked (many people were just there gawking, a la Hugh Jackman). David Turner, Drew Gehling, and Kerry O'Malley also signed. Such a lovely bunch of people.

[No Leg Room]

Posted: 12/5/11 at 1:56pm

Mr. Roxy was to quick to post to realize he errored and wanted to say the large balcony area was not opened that evening. I sat up there to see The Producers years ago and there are a lot of seats in the balcony. There are at least twenty-five seats in each row. I never want to sit up there again especially at the prices they charge for those heavenly seats.

[CenterOrchestra]

Posted: 12/8/11 at 7:50am

I saw this last night. Harry is so wooden it is a joke. The way he opens his eyes super wide and puts his arms out, just halfway, as if his suit were too tight when he is "acting" And Davey seems to have been cast specifically to keep him unsexy so that you would NEVER imagine that Harry would be attracted to him. These 2 things killed it for me. Although Harry sure can sing!

[egghumor]

Posted: 12/8/11 at 8:39am

ON A SUNDAY THIS SHOW IS D.O.A.

[BorisIgor]

Posted: 12/8/11 at 9:23am

Saw the show last night. I can't get over how gorgeous the score is, and how much chemistry there is between Harry and Jessie (Melinda). I found the show to be specially romantic, highly entertaining and people around me were loving it. I will take a group of 25 people to see it for the Christmas holiday.
Updated On: 12/8/11 at 09:23 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 12/8/11 at 10:10am

I saw as much romantic chemistry as you would see between a depressed father and his artificially spunky daughter. It might sound creepy, but by that I mean there was no romantic chemistry at all. And he does look old enough to be her father.

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 12:47am

Everything about the show is terrible except for Jessie Mueller, in a STAR-IS-BORN performance. Watch out for this one.... she almost stopped the show tonight with cheers after her second act jazz number. I wish that she would have been able to play the full character, instead of the crazy gay storyline that was unsettling. Not cause of the gays, but because of the really weird things going on with Harry Connick's character that are never resolved. WEIRD. WEIRD. WEIRD. That being said, his voice is pretty much the 8th wonder of the world... too bad for his acting.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 1:44am

I'm dying to see a curtain picture, production shots, or press video footage so I can see what the design is like!!!

[BorisIgor]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 7:40am

I saw Harry's acting was right on. He is charismatic and takes us through the character's journey in a believable way. His songs are as beautiful as hers. That quartet in Second Act is one of the most powerful performances.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 9:30am

"Not cause of the gays, but because of the really weird things going on with Harry Connick's character that are never resolved. WEIRD. WEIRD. WEIRD."

It's the same thing happening in the original, except that his patient is male. So if you don't find the original unsettling, I'd suggest that you find this revival unsettling "cause of the gays."

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 12:39pm

I find it unsettling, but that doesn't mean I would have found the the original "settling."

I just think they "fixed" the wrong character. They should have left Daisy alone and "fixed" the psychiatrist--if that's even possible.

But splitting Daisy into two characters, played by two actors, of two different genders didn't fix anything.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 6:45pm

Good point, joey. The doctor character was always rather stiff and unapproachable (even though, as I've said above, I'm a devoted John Cullum fan).

And turning Daisy into David does raise issues that a viewer might find unresolved or even unsettling without being homophobic.

With Daisy/Melinda, Mark falls in love with the same, attractive young woman after she demonstrates a sultry and seductive new personality.

With DAVID/Melinda, Mark falls in love with what? A ghost? A radio character?

And what of the male body still lying on the couch? Doesn't it at least get in the way?

I haven't seen the production, but unless I've misread them, none of the reviews in this thread suggest the show has solved that problem.

[marknyc]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 8:16pm

These are all valid concerns, none of which matter when you actually see the show. You suspend disbelief, you enjoy the great performances and marvelous score, and have a wonderful evening at the theater. We were grinning from ear to ear when we left.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 8:19pm

Glad you enjoyed it, mark. Thanks for the report.

Despite any skepticism I've displayed here, I'll be thrilled if the show proves popular enough that I get a new cast CD out of it!

[marknyc]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 10:52pm

I should add that I shared many of your concerns when reading about the book changes. I was surprised how easily the production made them all melt away. The feeling was, "Who cares? We're having a blast!"

[matineeidol2013]

Posted: 12/9/11 at 11:54pm

Judging by the production photos, this is perhaps the most unattractive looking show I have ever seen.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 12:29am

Gaveston, I can understand your concern, but it doesn't quite emerge as a problem during the show. We are never put in the position of seeing what David must sound like/look like when he is channeling Melinda, as we did in the original with Daisy Instead a completely different Melinda apppears, often with David on stage at the same time. I suppose if I really thought about it - which I didn't for these reasons - I would have suspended disbelief, as marknyc states, based on Mark's sensitivity, openness and enlightened perspective (constant themes in the show), and vulnerability to engage in countertransference enable him to envision Melinda incarnate. All these and the facts that Melinda is a much more conventionally positive character than she was originally, and that Jessie Mueller is adorable, make it easy to accept Mark's fascination with her.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 9:23am

"These are all valid concerns, none of which matter when you actually see the show."

Actually, they do matter, even when seeing the show.


"You suspend disbelief, you enjoy the great performances and marvelous score, and have a wonderful evening at the theater."

Well, maybe you do; but no, not everyone.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 10:02am

Newintown, I realize a great many people don't like this production, but what marknyc was responding to was Gaveston's concern that it's difficult to even imagine how Mark could perceive Melinda given that she's present (outside the theatrical optique) in David's body. I know you don't like the show, but did you actually have those difficulties with the show while watching it?

One thing I forgot to add Gaveston, is that on its deepest level the show, at least subtextually - and I realize it doesn'tbegin to succeed for a great many people - aspires to questions of transferred identity (is David still Melinda, is a butterfly still a caterpillar, and what does it mean to love one and not the other on the surface). On A Clear Day always dabbled lightly in this; given the throughline of all that, and that the new version continually asks (some might say hounds) the audience to open its eyes (expand its consciousness), a semi-metaphorical leap across a Kinsey scale bisection doesn't seem too much to ask while we are taking a leap across lifetimes.

Moreso than in the original, is Mark able to perceive David/Melinda not as David(Daisy)/Melinda might appear, but, in Kantian terms, as David(Daisy)/Melinda actually is? Again, this may not be working for a lot of people in the audience, but I would guess that in the last moments of the first act, when this question gets very hot, the point comes across loud and clear. Is it uncomfortable? Yes, for many reasons. Daring? Yes. Weird? To a great many people, I'm sure it is.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 10:25am

henrik, I did have a problem with it - there are audience members who turn off their brain and accept what's presented, no questions asked. I like to stay intellectually engaged, and it made no sense that Mark would "see" a woman where a man was - it might make sense if he were bisexual and attracted to Davy and Melinda, but not otherwise. It made sense in the original because Daisy and Melinda look alike.

Imagine a totally straight man (truly straight, not closeted or hung up), looking at a gay man and pretending he was seeing a woman, and falling in love with her, This is no Prelude To A Kiss scenario, where the man has met the woman as a woman. It really struck me and my pals as stupidly bad storytelling.

As I've noted before, I find this adaptation to be witless, stupid, and dull - Mayer and Parnell have eliminated everything fun about the original, without "fixing" any of the problems they perceived.

And my comment above was merely a response to the idiotic universal use of "you," as though marknyc felt that he was speaking for everyone who sees the show, when he only speaks for himself and the few people he was with.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 11:04am

Newintown, there are several reasons I can accept Mark looking at David and falling in love with Melinda, all of which put me (although we reach different conclusions) in the camp of those, like you, who remain intellectually engaged and don't turn off their brains while watching a show.

First is that I accept Mark's imaginative powers (just as easily as I can accept a person falling in love with a character in a book through the powers of his or her imagination). Second is that I accept that Mark can fall in love with a woman he is having interpersonal communication with although he has never seen her (as easily as I can accept Georg can fall in love with Amalia before he has ever seen her, or that Amalia might still love Georg although he might be old, bald, and even, as Ilona worries, a knucklecracker). Third is that while David is experiencing transference (falling in love with his therapist), Mark is experiencing countertransference (as Sharone keeps reminding him) (falling in love with his patient, but in this case referred to the patient's alter ego/past life). Fourth, having already been asked to accept reincarnation, we - or rather, I, let me speak only about myself so as not to commit the error you ascribe to marknyc (although by his use of "we," clearly marknyc was merely speaking in the commonly accepted vernacular and was not presuming to speak for everyone who saw the show) - as I was saying, I was primed, to "open my eyes" (expand my consciousness) and accept remarkable things. Most importantly, I can accept there is the ability to love another human being beyond the physical, well beyond the physical, and even among people who don't consider themselves bisexual, and have never had any real reason to consider themselves bisexual, there is the ability (among some) to open their hearts and love another human being of the same sex (and yes, even love another person of the same sex erotically; although here, of course, Melinda is not of the same sex as Mark so it is somewhat beside the point as it is only a concern to the degree that Melinda is currently incarnated in David's body, which for reasons stated herein, don't cause me too much distress). With all due respect, to accept this theme in a show like Prelude and not be able to even begin to do it here seems rather shallow in my humble opinion (not to imply that one has to like this production of On A Clear Day, or Prelude, or that there is a basic problem of consistency or inconsistency in preferring one or the other on this or any other ground).

By the way, newintown, I'm curious how you dealt with the converse issues of credibility in M. Butterfly? There a man sleeps with a man for decades and still believes he's in love with a woman.

And there: No reincarnation. No transference/countertransference. Hell, it's not even a musical! (all of which suggest, and in the latter case requires a suspension of disbelief)

Still, it's said to be a true story.






Updated On: 12/10/11 at 11:04 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 11:08am

imagine how Mark could perceive Melinda given that she's present (outside the theatrical optique)

Where did you get your theatrical optique? I think I dropped mine and it broke.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 11:11am

I got it from Shaw. Really.

[marknyc]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 2:31pm

"You suspend disbelief, you enjoy the great performances and marvelous score, and have a wonderful evening at the theater."

Well, maybe you do; but no, not everyone.

_________________________


I should have said IF you suspend disbelief. Of course, if you sit there for the whole show saying, "This couldn't happen" you'll have a lousy time. But that's truefor many shows. I meen, "Finian's Rainbow" has a leprechaun - how ridiculous!

It's "idiotic" that I used "you" instead of "one"? You're really getting insulting now - can we discuss the show and avoid the personal attacks?