On A Clear Day First Preview- Page 8

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 10:38pm

I'm so confused about this show's plot.

This gay man has super powers, like singing to flowers to make their stems grow. Because of a smoking problem he has to see a doctor who discovers he used to be a woman in love with a painter who cheats on her. After it all, he dumps his lover to find new horizons and doesn't score with either the lover or the doctor (because he's Harry Connick Jr. and wouldn't go there).

Is this right?

[theatreguy]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 10:51pm

The gay man has no super powers, he just works in a flower shop. He told his boyfriend he would quit smoking and then didn't, which is now a problem because the boyfriend wants them to move in together. Which eventually leads him to the doctor who discovers he used to be a female singer in the 40's (there's no painter). After it all, he re-affirms his love for his boyfriend and accepts his offer to move in.

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 10:59pm

Doesn't it come off as offensive that the gay man had to be a woman in the past?

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 11:13pm

It doesn't seem offensive- but O'Malley makes a joke to Connick like, "So you're treating a gay man who used to be a diva singer in a past life and you're surprised by this?!"

I actually saw this again tonight for the second time to see if they've made any changes. I know people were saying "Go To Sleep" had been cut, but it was back in tonight (with some new dialogue in between the verses about David seeing Funny Girl 17 times, but Dr. Bruckner hasn't seen Funny Girl once, if you know what I mean!).

Many patches of dialogue have been reworked or are completely new. Bruckner now has a line where he says he's working on controlling David by ESP so now Come Back To Me doesn't completely come out of left field.

Basically it's still the same mess of a show, though everyone has grown a little more comfortable in their performances. The set, costumes and lighting are still as hideous as ever unfortunately. Mueller was much more at ease this time around, and I actually enjoy her Norah Jones type voice quite a bit, but the character is just so bland there's not much for her to work with.

David Turner is still cringeworthy and honestly 3/4 of his gay quips land with a silent thud. Gehling has the only appealing character on stage, but even so I would still cut Love With All the Trimmings for length purposes. When I'm Being Born Again also desperately needs to be cut. Without the Greek just scrap it. Not to mention it ends with Connick's back facing the audience...nothing like applauding to his backside.

If major changes are going to be implemented they better happen soon.

[Tom5]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 11:16pm

In "Defending Your Life" Meryl Streep was Prince Valiant in a past life and Albert Brooks was cool with that.

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 11:18pm

"So you're treating a gay man who used to be a diva singer in a past life and you're surprised by this?!"

That's offensive! This show sounds bizarre either way, what was the purpose of changing the leading lady for a gay man?

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 11:29pm

Ha well maybe it doesn't seem offensive in the context of the performance. I mean David Turner is giving a performance of gay man akin to Jack on "Will & Grace." I suppose one could find the mincing and prancing around the stage offensive if one wanted.

[Tom5]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 11:31pm

Yes, it's insanely overloaded. Plus 1974! "On A Clear Day.." has one of the most charming premises for a musical I've ever heard. They should have focused on developing that premise alone. Plus, if Sutton Foster had been cast as Daisy, I'm sure the gay audience would have been at least as happy.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 11:35pm

If Sutton had been cast as Daisy she would have stopped the show cold with "On the SS Bernard Cohn!"

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 11/26/11 at 11:47pm

It's funny- watching this production, you get the feeling (or at least I did) that Sarah Stiles, who is so full of life and vitality as Muriel, would have been one hell of a Daisy in the original incarnation of the show.

And what's so shocking about the way David Turner is playing Davey is that the character is written to be meek, unassuming, and demure, and yet he's playing him as stereotypically flamboyant and obnoxious, which goes against the very traits he's said to lack.

The whole thing is just very, very bizarre. I imagine it played infinitely better at Vassar with seasoned actors like Brian d'Arcy James and Anika Noni Rose in the leads, given that both are able to make choices so specific and interesting that they're capable of lifting the quality of sub-par material. Someone like Rose in particular is crucial to the Mayer/ Parnell concept working, because I can see her being so fascinating and polarizing that you can easily justify everything that takes place within the story. While Jessie Mueller is a terrific talent with a beautiful voice, she's nowhere near seasoned enough to provide the layers necessary of making something out of such a blandly written role, and the show suffers for it (although Harry Connick's complete boredom, which gives her nothing to play opposite, is a way bigger issue.)

Updated On: 11/27/11 at 11:47 PM

[fflagg]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 12:31am

Sutton who?

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 3:53am

I also saw this show tonight, I actually enjoyed it!
I'm no Harry Connick fan, but I thought he did terrific.
David Turner was good but a bit misdirected at times, Jessie Mueller is making her Broadway debut and it shows! But she has a gorgeous voice nevertheless.
I thought the costumes, lighting and sets were fabulous, and they should make the show a bit shorter, but "Love With All The Trimmings" and "Go To Sleep" should definitely be part of the show.
It probably would have been fine if they hired a female belter who can make justice to this score that Barbra sang so well, but I get why they decided to turn Daisy Gamble into David Gamble...they wanted to make the show a bit more relevant.
This show was certainly flawed, but I'd see this again anytime before sitting through "How To Succeed" or "The Book of Mormon" ever again. An enjoyable evening with a glorious score.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 8:21am

Wow, where to start. First, I don't find Sharone's (O'Malley's) line "so you're treating a gay man who used to be a female diva in a past life and you're surprised" offensive at all. I found it funny and perfectly in character. A) As wise, hip modern Dr. Sharone would know, many gay men idolize female singers and actresses and there is nothing offensive or wrong about this or acknowledging this, and B) Sharone is making a point that Melinda is David's associative hypnotic fantasy, not his past incarnation.

I, as a gay man, would say the same thing if a psychiatrist friend told me that he believed that his gay male patient had been Billie Holliday or Dolores Gray in a former life because the patient had become one of those ladies during hypnosis. How many of us wouldn't? Would that make us homophobes?

Second, there is nothing wrong with Melinda being David's past incarnation. Nor is there anything saying that a straight woman had to be David's past incarnation, or that David is gay because Melinda was his past incarnation. There is no pathologizing of sexuality going on here. And, as in the original, there is no karmic cause and effect between Melinda and David's personas on any level. Although it is curious that in the original, Daisy and Melinda shared a common throughline trait. They were both psychic. Here, neither David nor Melinda are (therefore, David really doesn't have superpowers, Blaxx, just an ordinary garden variety green thumb).

Finally, turning to Whizzer's proposal: "I suppose one could find the mincing and prancing around the stage offensive if one wanted."

Why should anyone want to find that offensive (and, don't get me wrong Whizzer, I'm not suggesting that you were suggesting that one should)?

Some people - and yes, some of them gay men - mince and prance. Why shouldn't their stories be told?

This On A Clear Day may not be working for a great many people (judging by this thread, clearly it's not). But one would hope that should it fail, the reason would not be that it dares to present as a leading romantic character an effeminate gay man.

I might feel quite differently about David Gamble as he's being played in On A Clear Day if I felt that only effeminate gay men's stories were being told in the commercial theater when a gay man's story is being told. I don't see any evidence of that of late at all. Otherwise, I would have had that "here we go again, he has to be flaming because he's gay, why can't they for once...." But that is simply not the case today.

Somethingwicked, perhaps we should agree to disagree; while David is clearly effeminate, I don't find his flamboyance, that is, his having an uninhibited sense of style (as Daisy Gamble certainly did) contradicts, or even masks, his numerous professional and personal doubts or insecurities. Nor did I find him at all obnoxious (although, interestingly, I remember some of my mother's friends saying the same thing about Streisand's Daisy).



Updated On: 11/27/11 at 08:21 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 9:27am

I think you oversimplify, henrik. The problem isn't that Turner plays Davy simply as "an effeminate gay man, " but rather as an over-the-top outdated stereotype that amuses the straights and allows them to dismiss all gay men as mere funny little wisps. (Just as he did as the utterly unbearable Winston in the utterly unbearable In My Life).

Perhaps it's a schtick he falls upon when afraid or unsure of himself, but he needs to find something else to do.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 10:41am

Newintown, any "straight" in the audience dismissing Davy for the reasons you proffer, has to also contend with many other things. In addition to Davy's much more "tolerable, butcher," in their minds, less "wispy," boyfriend, Davy is not simply the funny, foppish sidekick character we are used to seeing in gay men of his type, he is a romantic protagonist. This, rather than being comforting to the "straights" in the audience (whom I think you might be dismissively oversimplifying, and whom you are certainly stereotyping) is probably revolutionary, whether they can deal with it or not. Frankly, I can see this causing a great deal of discomfort for many gay people as well as straight people, and I think it's a good thing. But I also think those that who find it jarring to see an effeminate guy as a lead in a romantic comedy need to "Open Their Eyes," and hearts.

Which again, is not to say, that they have to like this production; it merely reinforces my hope that the show will be judged on its merits, and not fail because it dares to present a fey guy as a romantic lead.

As for being as "outdated stereotype," Davy may be "outdated," as a "stereotype," but I would disagree that he's outdated as a personality. Ironically, the idea of an effeminate gay man as a romantic lead in a light comedy, musical or otherwise, (with the exception of La Cage, which is a different animal entirely, a larger than life character, an older man, a much more outlandish, over the top character and largely a drag role, in a show which deals explicitly with gay pride, gay families, and gay acceptance as central themes) is not at all outdated.

Updated On: 11/27/11 at 10:41 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 3:50pm

Apologies henrik, but I think you're altering the topic of what's being discussed in order to defend Turner. I have to point out that Turner is (to me and my friends, at least, as well as others here) is not just playing a gay man - he's doing a highly affected, over-the-top caricature, the kind that was out of date even on 70s sitcoms - a sexless kind of creature that reinforces the beliefs of homophobes.

As for being the "romantic protagonist," and as for that being "revolutionary," a) he's not (Warren wants him, but I certainly can't see why, and anyway the romantic protagonists of this production are clearly Mark and Melinda), and b) it's not revolutionary at all - gay characters as protagonists (romantic and otherwise) are long established on Broadway.

To defend any portrayal of any gay character is not really admirable - effeminate is not bad, certainly. But a two-dimensional cartoon who milks laughs from a straight audience by playing a stereotypical "queen" is nothing to admire.

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 4:41pm

They were both psychic. Here, neither David nor Melinda are (therefore, David really doesn't have superpowers, Blaxx, just an ordinary garden variety green thumb).

Got it. I still think it's a strange premise. It makes me think of In My Life in terms of the bizarre, are there dancing skeletons and giant lemons?

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 5:15pm

I didnt see the original, but I got a copy of the script (whatever happened to Fireside editions?) and never once thought the show confusing. But the impression I get of this "revival" (since the creative team itself seems hesitant to use the word themselves) is that they had a great concept and then lacked the balls to really see it through. Instead, they opted for a cop-out, on several levels.

Moving Melinda from the Restoration era to the 1940s? Come on. There was a reason for that time period, and it was more than just the opportunity for pretty costumes: it established Melinda as a woman ahead of her time, a female powerhouse in a time when women were expected to just be pretty. But by moving her to the 40s, they've cut off all of that, and to no real end.

And from what everyone here describes, not having the doctor dare go there with his feelings or his sexuality just makes the whole show pointless. When I first heard the concept, I thought, wow, the first big time coming out musical. But I guess the producers panicked when they realized the matinee crowd probably couldnt handle Harry kissing a man and living Happily Ever After with him. But let's face it, folks: the show isnt about the doctor. It's about Daisy/David/whatever name that character has and the character's transformation from slightly goofy to slightly-goofy-but-fully-assured-in-her-goofiness. The original production got that. The movie got that. Why on earth does this feel like the revival team simply didnt get it? Oh wait, because they need Connick on the marquee. Sheesshh.

I saw the photos in the Times today of the sets. Oh. My. God. This is supposed to be a show long on charm, and instead it does indeed look like a bad high school production with a monster budget... and I'm finding that to be more and more of trend on Broadway these days.

Updated On: 11/27/11 at 05:15 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 5:37pm

We saw it last night & I have a few things to say about it.

First of all, we saw Private Lives in the afternoon. A first rate revival in every aspect ( although the parisian apartment set left me scratching my head wondering what was going on in the set designers head). The mezzanine/balcony was about 1/2 empty & my guess is many of those there were tdf/tkts . If this did not have a scheduled end date it would be closing quite quickly, A shame

Now on to On A Clear Day. The psychadelic set was a bit cheap looking . Many of the sets reminded me of Laugh In & one performer was dressed like Judy Carne.Many of the signature numbers were horribly staged. We saw no sense in changing the gender of Gamble and as one poster put it Sutton Foster would have been a natural for the role. Chenowith would have been great also. The girl who plays Melinda looks like Liza in New York New York.

Connick was very good in the role of the shrink. For some odd reason.A few of what should be his solo numbers were staged with others singing with him . Sarah Stiles as Muriel has to have the most annoying voice on Broadway. Now on to the musical numbers.

Tosy & Cosh & Don't Tamper With My Sister are gone among others. The whole Elizabethean past life is now a 1940's waitress/singer instead. The Greek Tycoon is gone.

Wait 'Til We Are 65 - Total disaster. Done as a buffonish comedy
number. Now comes in Act 1
When Im Being Born Again - Slightly better than 65 but not by
much
Bernard Cohn - Passable Should have stopped the show but didn't

On A Clear Day now comes right before than finale. David Turner as David Gamble was so so most of the way but really showed his singing chops with What Did I Have That I Don't Have in Act 2

The choreography is done by an unknown (sort of odd with a big name revival)& it shows.The choreography or lack thereof is the biggest dissapointment.

I do not see this getting a Tony for revival . As maligned as the original was I think it had to be superior to this.

Updated On: 11/27/11 at 05:37 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 6:31pm

Newintown, I really wasn't commenting on Turner, but on the fact that Davy as being played is in addition to being gay, effeminate. Of course gay characters, romantic or otherwise, are well established on Broadway. Ironically, you seem to suggest that straight audience members can only tolerate nelly gay men, but, although gay male characters, romantic and otherwise abound on Broadway, the nelly gay man on stage in On A Clear Day is out of date. Perhaps I'm not understanding you, but isn't that a contradiction in terms? If straight Bdwy audiences can only handle gay characters like Davy, but gay male characters are well established on Bdwy, by your argument, it would seem that we would only see gay male characters like Davy, and that they wouldn't be out of date.

My point is that it is rare to see a young effeminate gay male character seen in a romantic and non-tragic role, and that rather than this being comforting to straight people in the audience, as you suggest, I think it is flipping a lot of people, gay and straight, out. Effeminate men exist and it shouldn't be jarring to see them in roles like this. There's room for everyone at the table.

[Copperfield2]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 11:04pm

Someone mentioned Sarah Stiles playing Daisy and that would have been terrible in my opinion. I kept wanting less of her when she was in the workshop at the Vineyard for this.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 11:26pm

How does changing Daisy to Davey make the show more "relevant"?

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 11/27/11 at 11:31pm

Henrik, I certainly don't want to imply that all effeminate gay men are shallow and superficial, but largely when effeminate gays are portrayed on stage or film those are their primary qualities. Both the character of David Gamble and the characterization by David Turner are shallow and superficial and therefore this specific performance does not make a good case for an effeminate gay making for a good romantic leading man.

Does being effeminate always equal being bitchy, ditsy etc? (I'm not saying David is bitchy, just asking theoretically.) Can't one be effeminate and also be smart, sweet, loyal, etc?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 7:13am

I'm seeing this Wednesday and I'm looking forward to it more and more. Hearing better things from people as previews go on. I'm hoping by Wednesday it may actually be good.

It sounds like the logic of Alan Jay Lerner's original book was muddy and the task of clarifying it was beyond the talents of Michael Mayer and Peter Parnell: They changed what worked and added new things that didn't.

What always worked gangbusters was Daisy/Melinda. What didn't work was the psychiatrist. They should have fashioned a musical around the female character not the male and found another vehicle for Harry Connick.

After a workshop or two, they should have taken advice from two of the songs:

1. What did this show have it doesn't have now?

2. Don't tamper with a diva-role in a public place.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 8:40am

Whizzer, do you think Davy is that different than Daisy fundamentally in terms of loyalty, smartness and sweetness?

Perhaps your point is that this was the wrong show to turn the female heroine into a gay male? But then was there something offensive about presenting Daisy as an example of womanhood to begin with for the same reasons there is something offensive as presenting Davy as a gay man, effeminate or otherwise?

I didn't take it on that level. I took him as a single character, very much like Daisy but a gay man, and in this case, refreshingly and gutsily, unabashedly nelly. But that's my opinion and I'm more than happy to own up to it as unorthodox.