On A Clear Day First Preview- Page 9

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 9:29am

I think Davy is a somewhat fundamentally different; I admit partly that might have to do with charm of Harris' performance, but not entirely. The biggest reason for the difference to me is that you can so easily divorce Davy and Melinda as people, but it's almost impossible to divorce Daisy and Melinda as extensions of each other when played by the same actress. Melinda helps counterbalance Daisy's lesser traits, but in the current incarnation they are so separate Melinda almost feels like a apparition than a past life.

Plus even a simple thing like Daisy being able to make flowers grow makes her sweeter to me, and certainly more interesting. Anyone so in touch with nature on a psychic level must have a layer of goodness/sweetness.

You're also right that I think this was the wrong show to change the heroine into a(n) (effeminate) gay male. Having a female be bitchy, stupid, evil, or whatever trait you can imagine doesn't imply anything to the audience about the intrinsic nature of all women. Phyllis in Follies doesn't make me think all women are like her. We see plenty of other examples of female characters all the time. Unfortunately we don't see such a variety of gay male characters, especially effeminate gay male characters. There's nothing offensive about Daisy being a little ditzy because it's just the character trait of this one particular woman. To make Davy ditzy is to say, well of course he's ditzy- he's an effeminate gay man after all. What else could he be? I'm sure he's a hairdresser, or a florist too!

Btw Henrik- I'm not trying to bash your opinion at all. I find this discussion very interesting actually and thank you for it.

[newintown]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 9:51am

Another flaw in this characterization of Davy: Daisy's antipathy to Warren is understandable - he doesn't really care for her, he only cares about doing the "right" things (getting the right job, marrying the right wife), and he ASKS Daisy to change for him.

But with the current Warren presented as practically perfect (handsome, sweet, sane, well-adjusted, truly in love with Davy [for no apparent reason] AS HE IS), Davy's antipathy makes Davy look empty, shallow; it makes him a character with fewer admirable/attractive/interesting traits than Daisy had.
Updated On: 11/28/11 at 09:51 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 11:52am

Thanks, Whizzer. I don't feel at all feel bashed. And our discussion has been interesting. I agree a lot has been lost with this retelling, in many ways (and more than a few interesting things gained), including in splitting the Gamble/Melinda performer. And doing so flavors Davy's characters in ways that are quite different than the way we originally perceived Daisy (including the lack of the endearing ESP and telehorticulture, and apart from the obvious genderbendering, and not always making him as likable; perhaps all the less likable in contrast to the new Melinda, who is completely virtuous and self-reliant as opposed to the manipulative, randy siren of the original).

I think a lot of feminist theorists, with some justification, would disagree with you on the prevalence and prominence of certain lies about women in the persistence of specific negative and specifically female-identified qualities in women in world drama, but perhaps we could save that for another time.

Newintown, yes there is the marked difference in Warren being so wonderful here and so conventional and blah originally. In reflection I have to admit I wish Davy's "maturation" at the end and "commitment" to Warren were more genuinely presented, and not so easy to dismiss as merely his response to realizing that "all the time I thought [Mark] really liked me... when all the time he was really thinking about.... ME?" Yet Turner was convincing (to me) in terms of having genuinely grown up when he returns, tells Marks off, and resolves that he is ready to commit to Warren. In addition, Davy's infatuation with Mark can be readily interpreted as therapist/patient transference which casts its spell over this and the original CLEAR DAY.

In addition, I found Davy's inability to commit to Warren not so different than we often see with male characters, of any orientation, being unable to commit to wonderful love interests (AND, FRANKLY, I ADMIT TO BEING SICK AND TIRED OF THIS NEVERENDING CLICHE), and I also found Davy's stated awareness that he wishes Warren had more mystery somewhat interesting (and that Turner played that moment quite sincerely).

It is clearly a troubled show.

But, I still contend (and again, I may be in the extreme minority) that ON A CLEAR DAY always was a troubled show and that, from that perspective, this is an audacious and enjoyable revival, far from the fiasco I was expecting.

It is as much a mess as it always was. In many ways, a lot moreso, and in some notable (to me) ways, a lot less.




Updated On: 11/29/11 at 11:52 AM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 12:31pm

Is "telehorticulture" a real word?

If not, it's a brilliant neologism. Now if I can only find a way to work it into a conversation...
Updated On: 11/28/11 at 12:31 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/28/11 at 12:48pm

I believe it was first used by Linnaeus in his 1743 treatise, Frondisiensis Commiendum Scandia.

NOT!

[goldenboy]

Posted: 11/29/11 at 1:01am

You can telehorticulture
but you can't make her think

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/29/11 at 3:12pm

^^^^^Thank you, golden boy!

A little Dorothy Parker always makes my day! And your update is worthy of the original!

[Owen22]

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

Okay, the "I'm going to try to hypnotize Davey psychically" HAS to go. Its ludicrous. Why would this even come up? Why would a modern doctor think this could happen? It made sense when Daisy was psychic. And I know it was a recent addition to show to make sense of "Come Back to Me". But puh-lease..
I'm unsure why they got rid of the Davey/Daisy being psychic plotline. It sorta made the ease in which he falls into his past life a little more believable. In a revisal I actually didn't hate, this is the biggest flaw. I love the original line about Daisy having the sort of love inside her that could pull flowers out of the ground. This is what made her truly special. This is what instigates the somewhat mystical lyrics of the title tune that Mark sang to her. Now Davey is just a sweet effeminate gay man. But nothing special.

[newintown]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 9:43am

Losing the ESP part of the story is illustrative of the way our culture has lost its collective imagination - comedy must now be utterly plausible; we no longer have any taste for the wacky or unusual. Thus our sitcoms are now 30 minutes of people sitting on chairs and sofas talking about dates; they may be funny, but I miss the wild implausibility of "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie."

[BrdwyThtr]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 9:45am

Is there a rush policy for this show yet?

[denali.fire]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 9:58am

The rush policy is rush to see something else.

[newintown]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 10:00am

I'd like to see THAT on the front of house.

[Miranda3]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 10:18am

Newintown: Great point, this:

"Losing the ESP part of the story is illustrative of the way our culture has lost its collective imagination - comedy must now be utterly plausible; we no longer have any taste for the wacky or unusual."

I wondered when reading your post about the popularity of "Twilight" and why the culture at large seems disposed toward "dramatic" vampires but not otherworldly comedy. But the vampires in that saga seem drawn down into soap-operaesque interaction with humans, minimizing their otherwordliness to some extent and making them more like the chair- and sofa-sitters you mention.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 10:23am

Count me in as one who finds axing Davy/Daisy and Melinda's psychic abilities inexplicable. The comic possibilities from the original should be replicated and if Warren's single minor flaw were a Darren Stevensesque esp-skepticism it might make Davy's wish that Warren had a bit more mystery (or, perhaps a little more understanding, as how exactly does a psychic find someone he's intimate with mysterious.... or maybe that's the problem: he can't) a little richer (and go far - or near) in explaining exactly what's missing in Mr. Wonderful so as not to make Davy appear to so many, here at least, so ungrateful for having such a great boyfriend).

[goldenboy]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 1:14am

Okay . Im bewildered.
Davey isn't psychic and his flowers don't grow instantaneously?
After seeing the reading, I just assumed the flowers would grow immediately.
That is what makes that character charming, interesting and with a 6 sense.
That is just so misguided. It's musical comedy after all.

See a show about a man who makes flowers instantaneously grow
or see a show about who doesn't. I think the correct choice is obvious.

Saw the reading in June. Havent seen it on Broadway yet.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 2:23am

Newintown--I'd somewhat disagree. I think a lot of popular comedy nowadays is quite surreal, imaginative and/or absurdist. It's true though that Clear Day probably was easier for people to grasp in the mid 60s when you had hit shows like Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie--that mixture of real life and fantasy type humour.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 7:44am

Despite some holes in the logic of the reworked text and some moments when the old songs seem shoehorned into the new plot, the production is inherently likable, excitingly sung and surprisingly moving.

Harry Connick gives it his 100%, his voice sounds great and his fans will be satisfied. The [SPOILER] at the first-act curtain is handled perfectly and his scene at the airport is very well played.

David Turner and Jessie Muller do very well, but it's very clear that it was a mistake to divide Daisy/Melinda into two actors. Barbara/Barbra/Kristin all had the advantage of seeming more versatile simply by dint of playing opposites and finally coming together in "What Did I Have That I Don't." David as David doesn't get the chance to be as multifaceted, and Jessie as Melinda gets one scene to play each time she comes onto the stage.

By separating the characters, the big song becomes more of "What Does SHE Have That I Don't Have," which is more conventional and petty than the way it was originally intended, with the past tense/present tense ambiguity and the fact that Daisy and Melinda were the same performer. The new book similarly fails to properly make places for "Come Back to Me" (Dr. Mark doesn't REALLY want David to come back--he wants Melinda to come back--but in the original, they were the same), "Wait Till We're 65" (why are kids in bell-bottoms during the free-wheeling 70s be singing about retirement at all? huh?), "Bernard Cohn" (it was always a goofy number but it was fun, now it's basically icky--David is lying to his friends about a date with a straight professor) and "Hurry, It's Lovely" (which used to be about a girl who could magically make flowers grow--now it's just about a boy who likes plants).

It's one thing in a Gershwin revisal or a Abba jukebox musical to shoehorn the well-known songs in, but in a book musical (with serious overtones), the first order of business on the part of the bookwriter ought to be to set up sure the book songs in a way that has its own logic and seems fun. Making fun of the songs is sloppy bookwriting, Peter Parnell.

The rest of the cast is good. Really good. Really, really good--so good you end up wishing they sang more of the big songs: Kerry O'Malley as Dr. Sharone has such a throbbingly emotionally voice that you end up wishing she could sing "What Did I Have." Drew Gehling as Warren has such a thrilling voice that you end up wishing he had a song like "Come Back to Me" and Sarah Stiles as Muriel has such a piercing belt and an appealingly goofy sweetness that you end up wishing she sang both "Hurry It's Lovely" and "Bernard Cohn."

Which would leave the main characters with no songs. I know. But that's what happens when the leads are under-serviced by the book and the supporting cast is that talented.

So all in all, with the sex change of Daisy to Davey, the show is a bit of a hot tranny mess with a Sinatra-like crooner in the middle, but it's got great music, great performances and it's thought-provoking.

I liked it.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 3:50pm

Thanks for the report, joey.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:39pm

A friend summed up the sex change by saying "Ditsy girls are cute. Ditsy gay guys are annoying."

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 6:46pm

Ha! Thanks for your thoughts PJ, and your friend is right!

[marknyc]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 2:13am

Saw this tonight and after reading all the scathing comments here, I wasn't expecting much.

Surprise! I loved it. I didn't think they could make the gay thing work, but they did. It's fun and it does set up a wonderful dilemma: after the audience gasped at the Act I curtain, my boyfriend turned to me and said, "So how are they going to write themselves out of this one?" That's just what you should be thinking at the end of Act I of any show.

Davey was better than I expected, and Melinda was of course amazing. She really capture 40s jazz and big band singing. Harry does his Frank impersonation as usual, but he does it so well that it was great to listen to. And he brings some real emotion to his songs - he's not just showing off his voice, but performing them in the context of the show.

The interpolated songs fit in surprisingly well, thanks to the orchestrator, who managed to make the entire score sound like a seamless whole. It's just so great to see a musical where you can't wait for the next song, instead of hoping each song would end. Lane and Lerner certainly were masters of their crafts, and their work is given the care and feeling it deserves.

I didn't really miss the psychic stuff - it's enough to have the past life stuff in there. The change in Mark is quite evident from Act I to Act II.

I, too, thought there would be a real problem with "What Did I Have That I Don't Have?" since the answer is so obvious. But the setup for the song is handled so nicely that it does work.

All in all, a wonderful evening at the theater - something we haven't experienced in a while. We will definitely be recommending it to visiting friends who ask what shows to see, and I expect good reviews next week.

We'll see.

Updated On: 12/4/11 at 02:13 AM

[BorisIgor]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 9:14am

I also saw the show last night and have to agree with MarkNY.

The story is beautifully told, the score is gorgeous and the audiences were cheering. You forgot to mention that Harry got a standing ovation while performing the title song.

A very nice and unforgettable night at the theatre. I wish this show well!

[GatorNY]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 4:55pm

Is there any eye candy in the chorus?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 5:43pm

A friend of ours saw it last night. He did not like his TDF seat and asked to be changed. He was given a box seat & looked at the mezzanine & it was totally empty & closed.

Does not bode well for a show in Christmas week with a bankable star & fairly decent pedigree. He was not enthused by it and also thought it looked like he was watching Laugh In . He could not take the short one with that shrilly voice either.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 12/4/11 at 6:15pm

The mezzanine was completely closed?