On A Clear Day First Preview — Page 9

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.

---

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

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

NOT!

^^^^^Thank you, golden boy!

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

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."

The rush policy is rush to see something else.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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

---

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

Is there any eye candy in the chorus?

---

The mezzanine was completely closed?

---