On The Twentieth Century Previews- Page 13

[SharoninB]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 5:25am

Is it selling I really want to see this Kristin better get a TONY.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 8:43am

"The original 1978 version had four wonderful African-American porters (historically accurate) and this version seems to have just one and three white guys."

That dang racist Roundabout, giving black roles to white actors.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 9:23am

Sat through this last night. God bless that understudy for doing his best, knowing his lines and having all that blocking firmly down, but he's just plain in over his head in playing the role of Oscar Jaffe. He's got zero chemistry with anyone at all on that stage, the relationships among them never demonstrated the real emotional devotion those people feel for each other, certainly not the real dysfunctional passion between Jaffe and the female lead Lily Garland (surely this woman would stick with the dim but adorable Bruce Granit) and without a more charismatic leading man who can lift the third rate score and that dreadful watered down blandified book (Comden and Green should be flogged at Hecht and MacArthur's graves), the show is absolute torture from start to finish. Only the occasional bit of life from Chenoweth and Andy Karl mitigated the slickly produced, over-frantic horror.

Updated On: 3/5/15 at 09:23 AM

[ebontoyan]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 9:43am

We must have seen a different show because I thought the show was awesome with Kristin, Andy Karl, the understudy and all others in the cast. I also did not see/hear all the complaints you just listed out!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 10:05am

Glad you dug it. I found little to enjoy. Andy Karl doing bicep curls with Kristin C was the evening's highlight.

Opinions. They're gonna differ.

Updated On: 3/5/15 at 10:05 AM

[decotodd]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 3:37pm

I'm with Roscoe on this one. Didn't care for the show at all other than the deco set and Chenowith, who sounds great and works hard. But man, totaly agree that the score is 3rd rate and the Comden/Green book really mediocre. The only laugh I got was when Andy did the bicep curls.

[pli1018]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 3:50pm

Interesting, re: Gallagher- http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/peter-gallagher-olivia-thirlby-star-779501

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 4:12pm

I freely admit that I am not the ideal audience for this musical. I'm a great admirer of the original film, TWENTIETH CENTURY, directed by the sublime Howard Hawks, from a script by the great Ben Hecht and Charles Macarthur, starring the sublime John Barrymore and the sublime Carole Lombard and the sublime Walter Connolly and the sublime Roscoe Karns. Faster, funnier, and a lot better written than the unfortunate watered down slop tossed onstage by Comden and Green and Coleman. That's got to be the blandest non-Wildhorn score I've ever heard.

The film goes into a lot more detail, a LOT MORE DETAIL despite the comparatively brief 90 minute running time, about the really seriously dysfunctional relationship between Oscar and Lily -- there's a lot of gloriously articulate enraged yelling going on, and yet somehow, through all the screaming, it's clear that these folks are completely devoted to each other. Owen and Oliver, despite their frequent frustration, would clearly take a bullet for Oscar -- their emotion at specific scenes is absolutely genuine. And check out the film's depiction of Lily Garland, a woman who splits a really appallingly emotionally abusive relationship with Jaffe and finds success in Hollywood, only to find something missing...

A fascinating and troubling comedy, laugh out loud funny in damn near every scene -- Barrymore's description of the Passion Play he's got in mind for Lily is a particular highlight. The bloated overlong musical can't begin to do it justice -- the second act of the musical takes a solid hour to cover the 90 minute film's last 15 minutes (I checked with the DVD after the show).

Updated On: 3/5/15 at 04:12 PM

[matineeidol2591]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 11:43pm

Add me to the group who loved this production. It was spectacular top to bottom. Chenoweth is on her A game. A must see!

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 10:02am

Twentieth Century is a good film that deserves more attention. But there is a reason why it never matched the popularity of Bringing Up Baby or It Happened One Night or His Girl Friday. The film is a showcase for Barrymore. The handling of his interaction with the minor roles may be sublime, but since they are minor roles they do little to attract an audience.

To love the film you have to love what Barrymore is doing, and to quite a few an hour and a half of his bluster and sarcasm and cynicism is too much. Barrymore and his persona were and are not as popular with filmgoers as the smoother Gable and Grant.

And judging a play against a musical is difficult. Rather like comparing Pygmalion to My Fair Lady. It's a different audience, and a lot of the work done by the cast exists to set up the musical numbers.

I think most have agreed that the 20th Century songs can be characterized as those in an operetta. Very different from most musicals where the story is temporarily put on hold while the someone performs a song about what is going on in the plot. In 20th Century, the musical, most of the songs are an extension of the script. The performers are singing the dialog. That's enough reason right there to dislike the music. The songs were pretty alien to me at first, but I came to appreciate many of them.

I've been in that place of being in the extreme minority in not liking something nearly everyone else loves. (I'm assuming that this show will be a well-received hit with critics and audience.) And it's especially awkward when the "third rate" book and music won Tony awards.

I stand my ground, but at the same time I look to see if I have some bias against the plot or a leading actor that is influencing me.

LILY
Stop your trying,
I’m not buying.

OSCAR
Tragic story,
lost your glory.

LILY
Some Svengali,
In an alley.

OSCAR
Shop girls ape you,
Farmhands rape you.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 2:03pm

True, the film of TWENTIETH CENTURY is a showcase for Barrymore, and it is a showcase for Carole Lombard, and it is a showcase for Walter Connolly and Roscoe Karns, who all do some of their very best work. In it's current form, with an understudy doing frankly lackluster work in a role requiring a far more capable leading man, the musical can't come anywhere near sublimity. Maybe with Gallagher there'll be something approaching the chemistry that Barrymore conjures so memorably, but it sure as hell wasn't happening the other night.

True, the film was a major flop when it was released. It's worth remembering that BRINGING UP BABY, with the "smoother" Cary Grant, was far from being a major success, turning in only a modest profit in its second release.

Judging a musical against its original source material isn't that hard, really. Just tot up the differences and similarities and decide how you feel about them. For me, the admirable qualities of Hawks's film of TWENTIETH CENTURY (the clearer storytelling, more fully fleshed out characters and relationships, better performances all around, lack of third-rate musical numbers that bloat a swift 90 minute screwball door-slamming farce story into a full two and a half godforsaken hours) are far more admirable than anything I sat through the other night -- Andy Karl's bicep curls being the sole exception. The relationships are sketched in at best, there's ZERO chemistry between the four principals, extra running gags are shoe-horned in to little or no purpose (the silliness about everybody having a playscript was much funnier in MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE, but just dragged here), and score is completely unmemorable apart from the little earwig few notes to which the words "On the Twentieth Century" are sung, and sung, and sung, and sung, and sung, and sung.

Sure the songs have been described as being operetta-ish, but I'll have to disagree on one point -- they bring the plot to a screeching halt more than once. That excruciating French number in the first act, all the stuff with the porters, especially that second act opener about life being a train, the really tiresome big chase sequence, and then that agonizing endless second act horror show where Lily is imagining the new play with interruptions from the Magdalene play did nothing to further the plot, they're showstoppers in quite the worst meaning of the term, at best particularly bloated and overlong star turns for Chenoweth to strut her stuff. There's a well-taken point to be made about the problems of adapting a swift and savage ninety minute screwball farce comedy to the demands of a more popular-style Broadway musical complete with happy ending, sure, but I don't see that Comden Green or Coleman, or anyone involved with the current production, have done anything to solve any of those problems.

I'm in familiar territory in not liking something nearly everyone else loves, that's for damn sure. Tossing in a reference to the book and score winning awards doesn't exactly bolster any arguments about quality, unless one really really believes that awards only go to high quality work.

Paraphrasing Oscar Jaffe: When I left that (Broadway Theater), I felt as if some magnificent ruby had been thrown into a platter of lard.

Updated On: 3/6/15 at 02:03 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 2:19pm

"In 20th Century, the musical, most of the songs are an extension of the script. The performers are singing the dialog."

I certainly like On the Twentieth Century much more than Roscoe does, but I honestly don't think that's true- especially since there are many book scenes, and they bear the most burden of plot. Only a handful of the songs actually move the plot forward- "She's a Nut," for example, and even then that's just one piece of information disseminating amongst the ensemble. Most of the songs repeat one theme or idea- does "Repent" tell us anything substantial about Mrs. Primrose or forward her arc? No- it's a showcase number for an older actress and is essentially a one-joke song. "Babbette" is a production number that culminates in Lily making a choice that we know she's going to make before the song starts.

It's a question of whether you will enjoy the one-idea or one-joke songs. I do, and I think the score itself is a lot of fun. That being said, I'm not sure it's a SUCCESSFUL score. The story is a fast-paced farce and the score doesn't further that idea very often.

But I also love the score for Candide- another great score that's not successful for the story it has to convey.

Updated On: 3/6/15 at 02:19 PM

[promisespromises2]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 2:21pm

^Oh! "Babbette" is my favorite number!

It's actually interesting/refreshing to hear another point of view. I'm in total awe of the show (and even if I'm a devoted Cheno fan, I would have seen it even if she wasn't Lily Garland... it's just an added bonus for me). This is one of the first "farce" musicals that I fell in love with. I'm usually deadset on emotional plot-driving storylines, but the music in this show just makes me incredibly happy.

Speaking of the chemistry. Are you faulting the actors or the book? I agree that they could be a little more tight-knit, but they have only just begun.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 2:28pm

I love "Babbette," too, and thought it was a highlight of the production.

I'm not sure farce lends itself to musicalization particularly well, simply because farces need to keep going and keep all the balls in the air, and musicals essentially dilate time in order for characters to sing about their wants and fears and feelings.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 2:31pm

"The story is a fast-paced farce and the score doesn't further that idea very often."

Voila -- my point in a nutshell, many thanks.

[ebontoyan]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 2:35pm

As someone who has no prior knowledge of what this show is about whatsoever, I thoroughly enjoyed the show and glad I do not carry any baggage from prior experiences! Just my opinion. I will be making a return visit before the show closes!
Updated On: 3/6/15 at 02:35 PM

[ILuv2shop531]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 2:48pm

...And Gallagher is out tonight and tomorrow afternoon too.

Is it safe to say Moye has played almost as many performances as Oscar now as Gallagher has?

[nmlhats]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 6:26pm

Dang, man, I'm going Tuesday night and I guess it's a total crapshoot.

[Theatrical Landladies]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 6:27pm

Thank you ROSCOE for your quite erudite if long winded analysis of the show. It is clear you don't like this musical or it's most recent incarnation.
Thankfully I am still very excited about seeing one of Cy Coleman's most adventurous scores and will form my opinion in due course.

[wonkit]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 6:47pm

With Gallagher out this long, will they put off the opening? Or ask reviewers to come after opening and hold their reviews till then? Or what other option do they have?

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 8:32pm

Thank you THEATRICAL LANDLADIES for your description of Cy Coleman's score for ON THE 20th CENTURY as being "adventurous" which gave me more of a laugh than anything else in that tedious exercise in dumbing down a rich and original work of art into something utterly boring. It is clear you do like this musical and I'm sure you'll love its most recent incarnation.

Enjoy.

Updated On: 3/6/15 at 08:32 PM

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 9:42am

I certainly like On the Twentieth Century much more than Roscoe does, but I honestly don't think that's true- especially since there are many book scenes, and they bear the most burden of plot.

I probably went too far here. Clearly the plot is advanced by the book much more than by the songs. It's no true operetta. But I think that the songs that do advance the plot distinguish Twentieth Century from almost all other musicals that lack them. There had to be a scene where Oscar tells Lily that she has sold out to Hollywood. I think that "I've Got It All" accomplishes this perfectly and is one of the highlights. The creative folk probably think the same since the first video released was of Kristin and Peter recording this song.

I also don't want to imply that the fact that a book or score or performance wins a Tony validates the majority view of greatness. "The emperor isn't wearing any clothes." It's hard to buck a large, enthusiastic majority. I have a number of shows that I think this applies to, but I don't want to get into trouble by naming them.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 10:17pm

I saw the show this afternoon and thoroughly enjoyed. James Moye was fine as Oscar Jaffee, but after seeing Ben Crawford filling in as Max, I couldn't help to think how he'd be as Oscar.

I loved Kristen's performance, as well as the porters. I also liked the set and costume design.

My only complaint is that it's synthesizer heavy where strings should be. It just sounded so fake. I hope if there is a cast recording that they load up on the orchestra.

I will definitely go back if the opportunity presents itself.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 10:32pm

It seems ludicrous to have Gallagher return the show at this point. The cast has already gelled with Moye. Seems to be only a matter of time before they admit he isn't going to be returning.

[Kimbo]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 10:41pm

On the contrary, until we hear otherwise it's ludicrous to think that he WON'T return. He's one of 2 above-the-title stars who happened to get sick in the worst winter in NYC memory, in a season rife with illness. (One of my co-workers has been out of the office for almost 3 weeks now, longer than Gallagher's been missing from this show.) To say the cast has "gelled" with Moye makes no difference - especially given that fully half the comments I read, here & elsewhere, say Moye's giving it "the old college try" in a role for which he's fundamentally not ideal. (I mean, hell, more than half a dozen people have said there's a DIFFERENT performer IN the show who'd be more right for the role.)
It's entirely possible we'll have a scenario like the Roundabout's Company from 20 years ago, where the star (in that case Boyd Gaines) will do press performances, open the show, and the understudy (in that case James Clow) will do nearly two-thirds of the performances in the actual run. But unless there's something much more serious going on, or more nefarious afoot, and with one opening night postponement already, I really feel we would've heard something by now if the intent was not for Gallagher to return and do as much of the run as he is physically capable of.