On A Clear Day First Preview- Page 7

[Miranda3]

Posted: 11/21/11 at 11:18pm

Interesting, Gaveston, re Berkeley Square. I'd never heard that and I too thought Clear Day was an "original" unlike the adapted trifecta (Fair Lady, Camelot, and Gigi). Your thought of Lerner's inserting a Zorba is very funny. I remember that Titos Vandis (sp?) played the Greek character in the original and was praised in at least one review for his performance, but I don't remember the plot link between the Greek, Daisy, and the doctor.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/21/11 at 11:25pm

It's an old joke, and I had the t-shirt, but now they could really call it ON A QUEER DAY.....

Am I wrong or wasn't BORN AGAIN... given to the students in the original run, or maybe the tour or stock productions.

One thing no one seems to remember was Herbert Ross' great, sexy ballet for the raunchy friends of Melinda. It was very erotic. There are pics of it in the original program book. and Freddy Wittop's delicious period costmues.

[Miranda3]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 8:30am

Curtain: I saw a touring production in Houston in either '66 or '67 with Linda Lavin as Daisy and Van Johnson as Dr. Bruckner. At least in that production, "Born Again" was sung by the same Greek character as in the original, though that could have been changed later. I think Gaveston posted earlier that he saw a different touring production around the same time.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 2:06pm

The Kansas City Starlight website shows CLEAR DAY playing during the summers of 1967 and 1970; I know from later years that the big midwestern theaters used to (maybe still do) co-produce and tour most of those productions. So it would make sense that Miranda saw the 1967 production when it got to Houston; I saw the 1970 production in KC and it starred John Cullum.

Miranda, that was the last time I saw the show, so take the following with a grain of salt. The Wiki synopsis says this about the tycoon:

"Greek shipping magnate Themistocles Kriakos learns of Mark's belief in reincarnation and offers to finance a study of the events of Melinda's life in exchange for Mark's help in discovering who he will be in his next life, which will allow him to leave his fortune to his future self."

My memory is that there were occasional references to Mark's stuffy colleagues being appalled by his research into ESP and past lives, and therefore threatening his position at the university. The appearance of Kriakos and his money saved Mark's job. It was just another thing thrown into the mix and seemed designed to show how obsessed Mark was, how he would risk everything to be with Melinda.

[Miranda3]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 6:55pm

Gaveston: Thanks for the 411 on the Greek. I would have loved to have seen Cullum in the role. Van Johnson seemed miscast. I've seen several comments that although Cullum's singing was wonderful, he was somewhat stiff in the role. He looked fine to me in the Bell Telephone Hour clips. In the Shapiro book, I read that he was chosen as Jourdan's replacement in Clear Day (after having understudied Burton in Camelot) because Jourdan's singing was considered weak.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 7:50pm

I knew Cullum had replaced Jourdan, Miranda, but I never knew why. Jourdan's singing seems fine in the film of GIGI, but of course laying down a track for a movie and singing live 8 shows per week are two, very different things. (BTW, Cullum also played Sir Dinadin in CAMELOT and you can hear him on the OBC record in "Take Me to the Fair.")

I suppose Cullum has always been stiff, in a sense, but no more so than most musical leading men of the 40s, 50s and early 60s. I think it may have had to do with standards of masculinity of the period more than any lack of ability on Cullum's part. I don't see Cullum or Raitt or Keel or any of those guys doing BOY FROM OZ.

Cullum was in the first professional production I ever saw, a 1966, pre-Broadway tryout of MARY, a musical drama about Mary Queen of Scots that also starred Inga Swenson in the title role. (It tried out in my hometown, Fort Lauderdale, of all places! The librettist was from there and also went to my junior high school, so we were offered $1 tickets to fill out the house.) Apparently it wasn't very good, but I was 12, thought it was perfect and became a lifelong fan of both stars. (This may have been Cullum's next project after the Broadway CLEAR DAY.)

I only saw Cullum in CLEAR DAY because I had a layover at the KC airport and noticed an ad for the show in the paper. With less than $20 in my pocket, I hopped in a cab and demanded to be taken crosstown to the theater. (Ah, the follies of youth and thank God for 1960s' prices! I was 16 and had no idea how much the 10-mile trip and ticket would cost. I managed to get back to the airport in the middle of the night by taking a series of buses when I ran out of cash.)

I later saw Cullum on Broadway in 1776, SHENANDOAH (many times) and ON THE TWENTIETH CENTURY (also many times). In CENTURY, he really cut loose as Oscar Jaffe, I thought, so I'm sure he always had it in him. Cutting loose just wasn't required by earlier parts.

Updated On: 11/22/11 at 07:50 PM

[Miranda3]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 8:19pm

Gaveston: Wonderful stories, especially the trek there and back to Clear Day from the airport. Cullum hop-scotched through your life at significant times. I was young and in grade school when Clear Day was on Bway. I had the LP and used to pretend to be Barbara Harris. Such was life! Re Jourdan: it was the composer, not Lerner, according to Shapiro, who wanted Jourdan replaced by Cullum due to his concern that his score be presented in the best possible way. Evidently Jourdan found the singing difficult and departed willingly, if Shapiro is correct.

[Glitter and be Gay]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 8:20pm

Regarding the Greek shipping magnate, I've never seen Zorba or listened to the cast recording and so never made that connection. I always assumed the character was a parody of the Greek shipping magnate, Aristotle Onassis.

I've also never heard of the show being based on the play "Berkeley Square". I know I've read somewhere before that the story was inspired by the Bridey Murphy case.

As a longtime fan of this flawed but fascinating work, I have been eagerly awaiting this new production, but I'm very unhappy to learn that David/Melinda has no psychic powers at all. For me the psychic abilities were a big part of the charm of the character and the show.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 8:39pm

Miranda, believe me, when the cab meter passed $10 (half of what I had and before I'd even bought the ticket) was one of the scariest moments of my life. I lived in Florida and was a long way from anyone I knew. I later sat at bus stops in the dark in some very dicey parts of the city. It was all quite stupid (particularly since my uncle was shipping out to Vietnam the next day and I was racing home to see him before he left; missing my flight wasn't really an option).

Glitter, yes, of course, you're right that the tycoon was based on Onassis and may have been part of the plan since before the film, ZORBA THE GREAT, with Anthony Quinn. (The stage musical came later, so we know that wasn't a factor.) I just think the whole show is cadged together with things that were trendy in the early 60s, including op art and ESP; the appearance of a Greek character is so random I have to suspect the film may have inspired the interest.

And, also yes, the Bridey Murphy case was the famous past-life regression case that inspired popular interest in the subject, beginning about a decade before the show. I'm sure it was on everyone's mind.

I agree that Daisy's psychic powers were a big part of the charm, but I was always bothered that she seemed to have every sort of ESP gift at once, but used them inconsistently and only as required by the plot. I mean the flower bit is cute for one number, but IIRC, never matters again through the rest of the plot.

That Daisy was Super ESP Woman wasn't such a big leap to make in a musical comedy, perhaps, except THIS musical comedy was already rather scattered.

[Miranda3]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 8:46pm

Gaveston: Aha! I was wondering why you were on that trip all alone at such a young age. Did you worry all through the show re how you would get back to the airport, or were you able to suspend your anxiety?

[Glitter and be Gay]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 8:58pm

Gaveston, I've always thought of the show as more of a musical fantasy than a realistic musical comedy, so I was never bothered by Daisy's "super esp". In fact I delighted in it. After all, this was the era of Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie, two enormously popular shows that I also adored.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 9:07pm

I'm afraid I worried all through the show; I only knew the first bus that headed in the general direction of the airport and had to wonder if I could get connections all the way. And I was never what you'd call a "free spirit." As I recall it, however, there was a lot of time for set changes (and for the Daisy/Melinda transformations), so I had those periods for worry and could pay attention to the show during the scenes.

[Miranda3]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 9:29pm

Gaveston: Plus, it was dark when you had to go back. The unwitting bravery of youth!

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/22/11 at 9:43pm

Yes, if by "unwitting bravery of youth" you mean utter idiocy, Miranda. (But the incident does serve to show just how much I like John Cullum.)

Giitter, yes, I do know what you mean and I tried to say above that Daisy's scattershot powers would be less problematic if they didn't reflect confusion in the show as a whole. I agree the show WANTED to be a fantasy, but I don't know that it ever really got there.

Most of the present day scenes were concerned with pedantic matters such as Mark trying to keep Daisy in therapy, Warren trying to keep Daisy in line, Mark trying to keep his job, etc. Notice that none of those actions move forward; at best, they merely try to maintain the status quo.

And the 18th century scenes are all in the past, so they basically just "unfold" without really offering much in the way of suspense. I do remember Melinda's fate being concealed from us until very late in the plot, but that's just a minor mystery, not drama (and certainly not comedy).

No matter how much we love the score, I think we have to admit the original had a lot of problems.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 11/23/11 at 7:35am

Saw it last night. Got two rush seats at 7pm for an 8pm curtain, and it looked like there were plenty more available. The view was fine.

Wow, the show sucked.

The good: I actually liked the new storyline--making the patient male adds additional, more complex hypotheses to the doctor/patient relationship.

The bad: everything else. Hideous design, middle school choreography, songs that were way out of place, it was WAYYY too long. Harry Connick Jr., who I've admittedly never liked, was just unlikeable, overacted the scenes and underacted the songs. His voice was way too monotone and broody for the part, and "On a Clear Day" was performed as if he was a lounge singer doing his 12th performance of the week. No emotion at all.

I read the reviews on here and thought, "well, I'll get to see a classic show, and it'll be interesting." I'm regretting that decision.

I hope the reincarnation they speak of is true, because it will effectively allow me to get those 3 hours of my life back.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/23/11 at 2:23pm

Sorry you had such a miserable time, Tony.

I'm neutral on Connick, Jr., myself, so I'm not here to defend him or change your opinion of him.

But I do think the character he plays has always tended toward the unsympathetic. (Think of the movie!) The doctor is not only manipulating a patient to get to her alter-ego, his entire through-line is rather, well, whiny and clingy. It's fitting that his big number is called "Come Back to Me".

Apparently, they've attempted to justify his behavior by giving him a dead wife. Smart choice, but not enough to please you and others.

This is why I asked people why they thought Connick was attracted to the project in the first place. For John Cullum, the show was his first lead and big break on Broadway. For Yves Montand, it was a chance to star in a big Hollywood musical. For Connick?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/23/11 at 2:25pm

Wow, Tony, as I've been one of the more positive voices here, I regret if I had anything to do with your biting the bullet.

Honestly, I don't think anyone should ever listen to my opinion about a new musical. There's a very good chance I will hate anything that will be a huge hit and find at least something to like in any likely flop.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/23/11 at 2:35pm

That disclaimer applies to all of us, henrik. Tony seems sophisticated enough to know there is no guarantee he will agree with anybody else's opinion.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 11/23/11 at 5:07pm

Absolutely not, Henrik. The variety of responses made me intrigued. Maybe it was a little strong to say I "regret" going altogether, as it allowed me to experience the show and form my own opinion of it. I just thought it was very sloppily executed.

Yes, I did realize that the character is not altogether a sympathetic or even likeable person, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy every time he's off stage more than when he's on it. Instead of seeing fraught internal tension, I saw brooding and manipulation, and I think the former could have made it more enjoyable and relatable. Similar to how Georges in SUNDAY, although on the surface a cold, unloving, abusive person, is actually an obsessed, frustrated soul struggling to connect with the people around him. The dead wife does make that more possible, although for much of the first act I wasn't sure if Melissa wasn't some sort of manifestation of his dead wife through his patient.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/23/11 at 6:21pm

Personally, I felt about Georges in SUNDAY exactly as you describe your reaction to Dr. Mark in CLEAR DAY. While I recognize his skill, I'm not a big Patinkin fan.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 11/24/11 at 6:45pm

I guess I'm intuitively referring to Daniel Evans. I found Evans' performance to have much more depth, hidden warmth, and vulnerability than Patinkin's, though to be fair, I've only seen the video of the OBC as I was born during its run, and much can be lost when you don't experience it live.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/25/11 at 7:27am

And I didn't see the Evans production, so we've probably gone as far as we can go with the comparison. Suffice it to say I found both characters rather stiff, but I love John Cullum and find Mandy Patinkin to be a bit trying. (To be fair, the latter is just a matter of personal preference. I know MP is highly skilled and has many, devout fans.)

[evic]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 11:21am

A thoroughly unexciting show. Not one showstopper- and it is so hideous to look at all evening- Harry is a great crooner and I thought he did well in his scenes, but the show is a lox. Some good voices and a great orchestra, but the show is like- why did they bother?- it reminded me of those awful CLO shows I used to see in LA-the small chorus looked like they wanted to be home in bed. The people around me looked like zombies with looks like "I paid full price for this junk?" Don't bother. David is no Daisy.

[Tom5]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 5:10pm

Thanks for the youtube link. It's a side of Barbara Harris I had not been aware of. I also thought her version of "Hurry, it's Lovely Up Here" was superior to Barbra's film version of it because Barbra seemed to be more showing off her voice (A LOT)than serving the song. Also Barbara Harris had to do the whole thing live, into an overhead mike and working with flowers at the same time!

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 10:10pm

"Not one showstopper...."

Ouch! Then they've destroyed the one thing the original had going for it: several great songs and at least half a dozen good ones!