On A Clear Day First Preview- Page 11

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 5:28pm

Thanks to henrik, mark, et al. for the very interesting discussion.

henrik, my old friend, in comparing your response to this adaptation to most of the others, it's hard not to conclude that you are being very generous. (That is not a criticism. You have thoughtful reasons for all your responses. Moreover, I've said elsewhere that one of my favorite moments in the theater was Prince's adding Young Sally to "Too Many Mornings", so I might feel exactly as you do.)

But however they stage it, in the contemporary Clear Day Melinda cannot arise from within David, she has to appear from outside of him. That a rather large formalist hurdle to overcome, even if one has a detailed understanding of transference and counter-transference; obviously, a lot of viewers are having a hard time making the leap.

A final question: I never hear anyone speaking of Melinda taking any action. I hear she sings jazz and sings it well, but does she DO anything? Because as you know from Aristotle, it's action that defines character, not skatting.

This was in fact a problem in the original: Mark can only love Melinda like the hero of the film Laura loves the title character: from what people say of her. (I assume Mark doesn't even have a portrait of Melinda, at least not at first.)

That makes for a rather juvenile crush, rather akin to teens reading Tiger Beat, don't you think?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 6:52pm

As I've said before, I find it rather akin to Eben's obsession with Jennie in Portrait of Jennie with shades of Laura as well. A romantic obsession with a dead woman but as with Jennie, and unlike with Laura (until Laura reappears because, as we all know, she isn't really dead), the obsessive lover communicates with the object of his fascination through a kind of time travel, rather than merely obsessing over her portrait.

As for action, what there is of it, Melinda is spunky and a self-starter, career-oriented and ambitious, and in these respects, a foil for David. What did Melinda do in the original? She chased after men and money. What does Melinda do here? She wants to be a singer. I won't pretend that this is particularly interesting. It's not. But the patient's past persona now is a much finer and more endearing human being than she used to be.

While there was a great deal more action and comedy and certainly a lot more splendor in Melinda's story in the original, count me as one who never really bought any of it in terms of building a bond of genuine affinity between her and Mark. At the risk of sounding ungenerous, the original Melinda was a selfish conniving narcissist bitch.

Here she's adorable, independent and talented and I had no problem accepting that Mark was drawn to her. And, for reasons I've already gone into at length, I had no problem accepting that Mark had the heart, imagination, and vulnerabilities (Freudian, personal and metaphysical (both Jungian and not so Jungian)) to become enchanted by her via the medium of David Gamble.

As for the current production, I will cop to being generous. But not at the expense of losing objectivity. It wasn't like I bent over backwards to be kind. I didn't expect to like the show going in to it. Was not impressed with the first act (although I still didn't think it was the fiasco I had heard tell of) until the jolt of the first act curtain. And it wasn't until the second act that I found myself warming to it; but warm to it I did.

As I've said before, there is quite a lot wrong with On A Clear Day, there always was and there still is. But for me this revisal is, from the perspective of telling a story, if not from the perspective of providing a great role for a female star, an improvement on the original.

Neither the original nor the current production is a great musical but the current show is, IMHO, not without its charms, and in some ways a stronger show than the original.



Updated On: 12/10/11 at 06:52 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/10/11 at 9:36pm

henrik, first and foremost, I hope you didn't think I meant "irrational" when I accused you of generosity. On the contrary, I took pains to point out that all your responses to the adaptation have been carefully and rationally supported here.

I merely meant "generous" in the sense that you are willing to do the intellectual work that seems necessary to fill in the blanks in the Mark/Melinda relationship.

And for what it's worth, I don't disagree with you about the original Melinda. I think she was just as problematic, but it appears from contemporary accounts that the bravura performance of Harris helped to hide the problems (though not enough to make the show a true hit).

At the end of the day, Mark and Melinda can't really interact (in the literal sense of the word), can they? Oh, I know they can sing duets and even snuggle; but they don't live in the same world, so neither really affects the other in any concrete way. Or they didn't in the original.

Have they found a way around this problem in the adaptation?

(Yes, Laura uses cinematic effects to deal with the same problem, but there, it's solving the murder mystery that is the central action. (BTW, thanks for letting me know how it ends; I've never been able to sit through the whole thing.))

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 12:22am

>> "the original Melinda was a selfish conniving narcissist bitch"

Uh... no, she wasnt. She was a woman who recognized what power meant and went after it in a self-assured way — except that a man screwed it up for her. The original ON A CLEAR DAY was almost a feminist musical in its treatment of women in the past and women in the present... and honestly, I find it a little funny and a little sad that attitudes havent changed all that much.

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 3:53am

Whatever it is, lol, it stinks.... pretty terrible all around.... BUT it's worth the price of admission just to see Jessie Mueller's debut. This girl is amazing, next Legendary Broadway Diva amazing. She stopped the show and people were yelling Bravo... and she didn't know what to do. lol. it was kind of hilarious... she just kept saying her lines even though the audience had stopped the show.... Harry's voice is great, but his acting is pretty bad. bad costumes, bad set, bad lighting, bad choreography..... mediocre ensemble.... but JESSIE....

[newintown]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 10:47am

henrik, I don't think M Butterfly is a good comparison - in that play, it's made quite clear that Gallimard never sees Song dressed as anything other than a woman; he is never told that song is a man; Song testifies that they always have sex in the dark, and that Gallimard takes him from behind. Added that Gallimard wants to believe that Song is a woman, the self-deception is very different from Mark looking at Davy and seeing a woman.

And, if Mark's imagination really was that strong, what has prevented him from using it with all the genuine women he has met? That's the other huge problem with this awful production - as cute as Jessie Mueller is, there's absolutely nothing so utterly magical or special about her to justify believing she (in a man's body!) has suddenly brought Mark's injured heart back to life, where all other women have failed.

[Jamie Pierce]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 11:16am

Okay, I've seen it twice now and I just have to say that there is something about this production that I just fall for. In particular, I fall in love with Davy and David Turner gives him a vulnerability that really makes the ultimate revelation about the truth of Dr. Bruckner's feelings that much more heartbreaking. And yet his self-actualization and surrender to Warren's affections also brings forth feelings of triumph! I don't know, I feel very protective of Davy.
Yes, HCJ couldn't care less and I find Jessie Mueller to be unique in voice but otherwise quite bland. The set is hideous (in fact, one patron sitting behind me got up and left prior to the show claiming the set was making him nauseous - he never returned). But it's such a good score (love the acoustic "Love With All The Trimmings") and OACD has always had its quirky charms despite its flaws. In fact I find that I have a greater affection toward the flawed shows - much more interesting.
Updated On: 12/11/11 at 11:16 AM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 11:31am

Okay, I really have to ask:

*Why* did *anyone* think that set was a good idea? I mean, okay, set it as a period piece. I can handle that (as lamely as it's apparently done), but who thought that blinding the audience with over-geometric dreck was the perfect backdrop for this little love triangle?

Honestly, I just dont get what passes for Broadway design anymore.

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 11:36am

Totes agree, it was very hard on the eyes.... matched with costumes.... terrible... and the lighting design.... NEVER throw the flood lights on dancing actors. Terrible.

[henrikegerman]

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

Gaveston, I didn't think you thought I was irrational. But for me none of this was work it was fairly easygoing, not because the problems you and others allude to aren't there - they certainly are - but that they are simply conventions of the piece, to a great extent always were, that I didn't find the genderbender as much of a hurdle as others do (and that was simply easy for me as well).

Sean, I don't find the original On A Clear Day in any way offensive from the point of view of sexual politics. Still, I don't see it in any way as feminist, and while Melinda is in many ways a superb foil for Daisy in terms of owning her power (within the terms of a woman of her day dealing with class and sex) - Mark's attraction to her never made sense to me, whereas Mark's attraction to the new Melinda to me makes a great deal of sense.

Newintown, I accept everything you say about M. Butterfly and the distinctions you make. But, again, for me, the power of countertransference, the mere fact of Mellinda's unavailability, and the sheer romance involved in the lovely woman from the past (in the tradition of Portrait of Jennie and Laura) offer clear separations, to me, from Mark's inability to connect from the genuine women around him, not only Sharone, incarnated in the equally lovely Ms. O'Malley, but the string of dates she sets him up on. There is also however subliminally the fact that Melinda's being dead, as Mark eventually learns, is a commonality with his genuine lost love, his wife. Of course, in the end, we are left with the impression that Mark just might be able to go on.

That much of this may, at first glance, be under the radar and subliminal and that we are talking about a musical comedy, a slight one, is offset by the fact that it is a musical comedy that deals blatantly with psychiatry and the metaphysical. More than dealing with these concepts, it wears them on its sleeve. Moreover, there are scenes where Sharone, concerned that Mark is headed for a fall professionally and emotionally, challenges Mark to face what to her are the facts about his underlying motives that fully support what otherwise might be seen as wilder takes on both his romantic imagination and his inability to face reality, the here and now, and the genuine women that life offers him right before his eyes. Opening his eyes may mean expanding his consciousness. But it also means something much more earthbound.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 12:34pm

Despite my criticisms, I wish the cast and staff of On a Clear Day a magnificent opening night, and I hope all the critics agree with marknyc.

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 2:25pm

I saw the show yesterday and, while I agree with many of the criticisms on here (especially the strange book, Connick's acting and the ugly set), I think the show is well worth seeing for the score. I was so incredibly taken with by it and I think it might be one of the most delightful I've ever encountered. On top of that, it's so well sung and played that it made me love the show, even if the other elements were not on that level. Also, the cast they have to bring this score to life is first rate. The supporting cast is one of the strongest I've seen. And Jessie Mueller is truly a wonder to behold. I hope the reviews emphasize the wonderful things that this production has to offer instead of its problems.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 4:29pm

"Despite my criticisms, I wish the cast and staff of On a Clear Day a magnificent opening night, and I hope all the critics agree with marknyc."

My fingers are still crossed that the show is at least successful enough to gain us a new cast album.

***

henrik, we're having semantic problems. When I said you were willing to do the "work", I didn't mean as in drudgery. Obviously, the current adaptation poses intellectual questions that you enjoy pondering. I tried to make it clear that you and I have enough in common that I might very well feel exactly as you do.

FWIW, M. Butterfly is by far and away my favorite play of the past 50 years, and it is several times more demanding than Clear Day! (As Newintown implies, "self-deception" is indeed the word when it comes to Gallimard; he admits as much in the play's climactic "revelation" scene. And the entirety of the play is devoted to demonstrating why Gallimard deceives himself for Song rather than simply choosing a biological woman. Is the choice as clear in Clear Day? Somehow swapping one dead woman for another doesn't strike me as a result of the same degree of cultural indoctrination.)

[751guy]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 5:27pm

When I first heard about this production, I was excited simply to hear that beautiful score again and for some reason, I'd never seen a production of it. Then I started reading the posts on here and thought, 'Ouch! This sounds horrible!' I wasn't sure I wanted to spend any money to see it.

Fortunately, opinions seemed to moving in a better direction and we headed to the theatre last Thursday night, a press performance and I gotta' admit, I wasn't sure what to expect? But like many here, by the end, I was enchanted. Is it perfect? Far from it. But is it a wonderful night in the theatre? Absolutely. And the next day I was downloading the soundtrack to hear all those gorgeous melodies again.

Have no idea what the critics will say and it may not play to the masses, but it's far from the 'safe bet' that is often produced on Broadway and for that alone, one should see this production.

[751guy]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 5:30pm

And thanks for the (mostly) informative discussions about this particular production. I've learned alot.

Congratulations to everyone involved with this production, regardless of what the critics have to say.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 5:30pm

>> "I don't find the original On A Clear Day in any way offensive from the point of view of sexual politics. Still, I don't see it in any way as feminist, and while Melinda is in many ways a superb foil for Daisy in terms of owning her power (within the terms of a woman of her day dealing with class and sex) - Mark's attraction to her never made sense to me"

No, that's the point: it wasnt offensive. Melinda was a strong, independent woman, and while I never saw the production, just reading the script made me understand completely why he would fall for her. From what I've read of this production, moving her to the WW2 era just allows for some more interesting orchestrations, but that's about it. He's only going back twenty years, not three hundred, and that — to me, anyway — diminishes the power of his realization that she actually existed.

And perhaps (I'm thinking as I write this) that's the core of it. Melinda, coming from the Restoration Era, is a fantasy, something he thinks Daisy may have pulled from some rubbish romance novel — until he finds out that she was real. This time around, all he has to do is go on the web and verify it. Mystery (for that much of it anyway) solved. Eh. All the glamour is now gone, replaced with a bunch of scat singing and bad 60s costumes.

[marknyc]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 5:43pm

I agree with 751guy - I had all kinds of script and concept concerns before seeing the show. But once it started, they all fell away.

The new book is sloppy if you think about it - but we didn't care. We just had a great time, and it's been so long since we experienced that on Broadway. We left the theater glowing and went to Angus McIndoe for dinner. When we were walking home, I said, "Wasn't that a great New York evening? A charming show, a wonderful score, a great cast, and a hearty meal - I'm glad we live here!"

I couldn't care less if the book actually makes sense - the show is fun!
Updated On: 12/11/11 at 05:43 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 7:34pm

Good point, mark. "Making perfect sense" is not actually a prerequisite of successful musical comedy. Look at GUYS AND DOLLS and KISS ME, KATE!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/11/11 at 10:37pm

This show only needs to make solid emotional sense. We'll go anywhere with the conceit -- I was once in an amateur production, and the audience loved it, and cheered. It had a satisfying romantic aura, and the songs lifted it. But the audience's investment must be rewarded, and splintering the scenes and score is daring but risky. Without a triple threat at its center -- and a powerhouse Daisy was a glorious reason to stage the show -- it's a diluted concept in search of some decent storytelling, precisely what's lacking here. The idea of taking a Streisand/Barbara Harris vehicle and giving it to ... someone else ... just points up the nature of the risk.

Updated On: 12/11/11 at 10:37 PM

[goldenboy]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 12:54am

Caught it Dec 10.
Lot of problems...

I was at the reading of the Vineyard back in August. It seemed reasonable and charming in the reading but what was on the Broadway stage was much more awkward and much more problematic than the reading.

Problem one. Harry Connick Jr. He played depressed all through Act I. You can't feel for an actor who plays depressed. Was he depressed about the show he committed to or because the character couldn't get over his wifes death? You don't care for him and if he is the focus you have to care. Didn't the director realize he was getting a one note performance from his star?

Ironically Mark Kudish who did the reading pulled this off much better as his character wasn't one note... depressed.. Mark commanded the stage while Harry
hypnotizes you into lethargy and fog. You can't carry a musical and act depressed and wooden for its entire first act.

Problem Two. "Hurray it's Lovely Up here." The first good song which lies there like a dead plant. It is staged poorly. The flowers need to grow before your very eyes to show that this is a special person- manning the flowers.. Poor David Turner is given nothing to do but talk to flowers that don't grow. And the number just is dull.
Given the staging, it would be hard for any actor to pull this one off.


Problem 3: When you get bored, you get hypnotized by the dizzying set.


I found David Turner quite charming and endearing in the reading. His David Gamble is the only character you care about. He seems to have notched up the gayness since than. Overall I still found his performance endearing
in spite of upping the gayness but he really doesn't need to push it. He's gay enough.

Problem 4: The transformation on the couch from David to Melinda. Very awkward.
Very clunky. Very unbelievable. Very WTF!

And the entire first act lays there like a piece of musical fertilizer with every song ever written for every production and movie of On A Clear Day jettisoned in (and some clunkers from Royal Wedding too) whether it fit or not with some really awkward staging and choreography. Does nobody realize less is more and its okay to cut songs?. Hell let's throw in a few from My Fair Lady for fun.

Problem 4: To paraphrase Ben Brantley, they forgot to give Jessie Mueller a character. She just scats. She's fine but I don't find her the "find" that many of the critics are claiming. The audience does respond enthusiastically to her "Every night at seven".

Problem 5: All of the bad songs are in Act One. So far not so clear.

On to Act Two where things are looking up as the better songs are here.

There are some wonderful moments in Act Two: Drew Gehling (who is great as Warren) and Harry Connick Jr singing Come back to Me. The foursome, David, the doctor, and Melinda and Warren Singing On A Clear Day and David Turner doing a great job with "What did I have that I don't have now.'

But why didn't they take some of that charm and care and put it into act one? It's Too late in the day.. And by now you are dizzy from looking at the set. Outlook bumpy and foggy,

[newintown]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 10:18am

It's interesting, henrik, that you reference Portrait of Jennie and Laura, two narratives where the obsession originates with an image of an unobtainable woman. Again, I note that Mark has no image of Melinda at all in this show. All he can see is Davy.

[henrikegerman]

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

Actually, newintown, the obsession in Portrait doesn't originate with the image, exactly. Or not in the same sense as it does in Laura. Eben meets Jennie, in the flesh, during an episode of time travel in Central Park. He later sketches her. At first meeting, Jennie is not an image, but a young girl.

Of course your general point is taken. Eben can actually see Jennie when they meet and she is not presented to him in the guise of a male child. But rather of a female one. Thank heaven for little ghosts!

Again, I note that love can be blind.



All

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 4:24pm

Since I'm far away and reading posts here rather than actually seeing the show, it's easy to see patterns in viewer's responses.

Although final conclusions about the show vary widely, almost everyone agrees on what is weak in Act I and strong in Act II.

One can only wonder why the adapters didn't see the same things more clearly.

***

And speaking of "Hurry, It's Lovely Up Here", it occurs to me that flowers blooming on stage or not, the problem with the song (which I admit I love) was always that Daisy/David sings about how perfect everything is just at the moment when s/he should be singing about what she lacks, in order to kickstart the plot. Blooming flowers s/he has in spades and splitting the song into fragments only seems to compound the problem.

Maybe Lerner's song about wanting to quit smoking didn't pan out.

Dramaturgically speaking, if a song about flowers must be sung, it ought to say "Hurry, Come Decorate this Sad and Lonely World" or the like. (Yes, I recognize the logical problem of summoning plants to a unpleasant world; nonetheless, it still makes more structural sense.)

[newintown]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 4:33pm

The song works so much better as written - it's a terrific charm song, meant to make you fall in love with heroine. The doctor coerces her into talking about her talents, and asks for proof that she can make flowers grow "faster."

In the current version, it doesn't say much at all about Davy, except that he works with flowers. Not a particularly interesting revelation, particularly as flowers don't play any other role in his story. And that's indicative of the imagination-free approach Mayer and Parnell took with this adaptation.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/12/11 at 4:38pm

Charming though it may be (and I'd argue that its charm is largely that of the punning lyricist, not Daisy herself), it's still a charm song where a different type of song needs to be.

(ETA Put another way, if Daisy or David does indeed believe "it's lovely up here", then there's no play. Unless Mark is the protagonist, in which case he ought to DO something.)
Updated On: 12/12/11 at 04:38 PM