On A Clear Day First Preview — Page 4

"Yes, he's falling in love with her, but Bruckner realizes that Melinda's confidence and vivacity are the very things David is missing in his life in order to realize his full potential, and that gives him a reason to continue his interaction with her that isn't entirely selfish. By the end, Melinda has helped David find those gifts inside himself through Mark and, simultaneously, helped Mark find the courage to move on and embrace love again. Have they fleshed out the execution of that completely yet? No. But, conceptually, it's a beautiful touch, and I think they'll get there."

Somethingwicked, here's the thing. That was all true in the original, no? And it was all accomplished, however imperfectly, with a dual role which held the show together with the one thing it truly had going for it - star power. I think what a lot of us are saying is with the gender twisting, 1) what's gained (not that there isn't something to be gained in principle, but do they have a clear idea of what that is?), and 2) how does the decision for David and Melinda to be played by two different people relate - or not - to what they are trying to achieve?

I think I understand your point. But I don't understand how it's undermined by having the hero/heroine be played by a different actor/actress in his/her earlier life, especially since the theme you are focused on is exactly what the theme of the show has always been. Although, don't get me wrong, I'm not implying it was explored satisfactorily in its original conception and can't be improved upon. Quite to the contrary. I think what many of us were hoping is that this audacious riff in the revival would lead to elucidation of the original idea, which is the same idea you rightly identify.

Personally, I would think having Daisy and Melinda or David and Melinda played by the same person helps in that it makes the audience realize what the present day incarnation could be, that the integration of the two could be "so much more than he/she ever knew."

There are so many different ways this could have been done. And goodness knows drag isn't the only way. David could have been closeted presently and out and perhaps a drag performer in his former life (to name but one of a thousand variations, and not to suggest it was the way to go). Mark could have been gay and Daisy about to marry a gay man having been a gay man in a former life. All of these are off the top of my head and no doubt ridiculous ideas, but the fact is that gender/orientation identity play between the present and past is certainly rife with brainstorming and it seems there is an optimal route to CLEARing it through. They are on to something..... but what?

And as I've said there may well have been a good way of going with David/Melinda with two different actors as well.

Anyway, I'm babbling. I haven't seen the show yet and shouldn't. Can't help myself. Sorry.

thewaytooearlyorratherearlier

Read more: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?page=3&thread=1038834&boardname=&boardid=1#ixzz1dsds4eff

Updated On: 11/16/11 at 10:07 AM

Having seen this bore at Vassar and in workshop at the Vineyard, I feel I can safely say that the re-write is definitely "less than" the original in every way. It's less funny, less romantic, and less interesting. It was a case of subtracting from rather than adding to. It's trying hard NOT TO be the original, while forgetting to focus on what it wants to be. Just a bore.

Oh, well . . . I think I'm still looking forward to seeing it this weekend, anyway.

Okay, I see that--SPOILER--David decides to leave Warren to explore broader horizons. Fine.

What about Dr. Mark? What of Melinda? What are the objective correlatives that reveal the character shifts being discussed here?

Because in the original, Daisy's return to stand up to the doctor harassing her via telepathy was a clear (if comic) indicator of how she had changed. That she and Mark ended up together was irrefutable proof that the action had produced a new state of being by the end of the play.

Theatre always has at least two levels of reality: that of the narrative being told and that of the play physically unfolding in front of us. Having the same actress play Daisy and Melinda wasn't just a gimmick and wasn't just a chance for Harris to show off her mad character-acting skills. It LITERALLY made them the same woman, despite all their differences. That was a big part of the reality of the play.

In the rewrite, we are apparently TOLD that Melinda and David are the same, but in the "objective" reality, of course, they are NOT the same. This isn't automatically bad, but it is necessarily less visceral. What do the adapters do to compensate?

LOL, henrik. I haven't thought of GOODBYE, CHARLIE in years! I saw Veronica Lake in a terrible dinner-theater production when I was a teenager. (Yes, I've seen parts of the film on TV. Debbie Reynolds, yes? It didn't seem much better.)

Re Daisy/Meinda v. David/Melinda, one of the advantages of the double casting is that both personae can appear on stage at the same time. (To me, showing different times simultaneously is one thing the stage does particularly well relative to film.) Does anybody know if the show makes good use of this potential?

Yes, Gaveston it was Debbie Reynolds in the movie (Ellen Burstyn appears as Ellen Rae Macsomething.... whatever her show biz name used to be). Years later it was quasi-remade as SWITCH with Ellen Barkin. Curiously, SWITCH also attempted to update with a gay plotline, with Lorraine Bracco making the moves on Ellen; still a mess!

Gaveston, as I said above your initial post, "The other thing the new device does that drag wouldn't is that it allows David and Melinda to interact simultaneously, which I think is really powerful (especially in the context of how Mayer has staged the show.)"

---

i didn't know Sarah Stiles was in it, i love her. And i'm sorry to hear that one little thing about the choreo, as i think Joanne Hunter is terrific...any other responses to the choreo? i'll see it if its running next time i'm there, cuz i love the leads very much....but too bad they couldn't really revise it. The trick to revisicals is not just solving the moments that inspired the new concept, but linking them together cohesively. We accept jumps in logic from older shows because of the genre. These days, we want re-writes to make much more psychological sense, and years of movies and TV hooking us on naturalism (even the rise of reality TV) makes "good old-fashioned musical comedy schtick" not work anymore.

---

Gaveston, you are raising some very good points about the show having always been perhaps too all over the place. There is definitely an uneven tone that a revitalized libretto would need to focus on.

But I don't think aiming high/seriously thematically is at odds with the score, highly resonant with themes of identity transformation, personal growth, loss, grief ("He Isn't You" addresses grieving a lost love brilliantly, as it simultaneously contemplates a new one), "seeing who you are," "having what you had," "coming back," "life down below [the surface]," "life up here [where it's lovely}. The soaring melodies and poetry of "(S)he Isn't You" "Come Back To Me" "What Did I Have.." and above all the title tune all go to the core of the matter. And I would imagine that the wonderful "Too Late Now [to forget the past]" could be a spot-on addition. Yes, there are several novelty or charm numbers that don't quite mesh, but that's true in almost any score.

And, as I've already gone on about at length, "Hurry It's Lovely Up Here," a song I love which seems unfairly maligned here, is not just about talking to plants. It's all about projection as it juxtaposes the heroine's (or hero's) inhibitions and inner vitality (which she is striving to get at, although she doesn't even know it), which when subtly played by an actor of supreme intelligence (Harris, if there ever was one) is a knockout introduction to what the character's journey is about. The movie uses it as a big opening title song, and situationally it is certainly challenging to imagine the scene as written working on film, but I would have loved to have seen what Streisand would have done with it in the context of the scene.

Still, however you slice it, the score is highly romantic, emotionally vivid and demands a story churning toward personal and romantic fulfillment, or, perhaps more powerfully, the moment when the protagonist finds her/himself so that such things are more than probable when the curtain comes down. The question is, how well have they succeeded?

Somethingwicked seems to suggest that they may be on to something, and I'm now more excited about seeing what it is they have done.

Updated On: 11/18/11 at 09:30 AM

When I saw the show, Harry Connick was very dour, as though he was upset about something...it was like his paycheck had bounced right before act one. I don't think he cracked a smile once.

Also, as a huge fan of the original cast album, I recognized only about half of the score. There are a lot of songs from other sources, and many of the songs that are actually from the original are massively rearranged, reminding me of the way the Godspell score is treated in the current revival.

---

"When I saw the show, Harry Connick was very dour, as though he was upset about something...it was like his paycheck had bounced right before act one. I don't think he cracked a smile once."

Lee, this makes me wonder whether Harry might have discovered before curtain that he was among the victims of the ON A CLEAR DAY Thief? (see Riedel's Colummn and related bww thread).

Updated On: 11/18/11 at 04:30 PM

Very funny, Miranda!

ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN DISCOVER A THIEF AMONGST YOU