"On the Town" Preview Thread- Page 6

[lovebwy]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 1:55pm

It's so interesting how that sex line with shows like On the Town is so hard to define, but it's so clear when it feels wrong.

I remember in Jerome Robbins Broadway the West Side Story Dance at the Gym seemed to drip with sexual energy. I wondered if it had been that way back in 1957,

I'm very interested to see how I feel about On the Town.

I saw the touring company of Anything Goes at the Ahmanson and no one felt like the 30's to me. The understudy for Reno was a disaster. Unlike the 1988 revival over at the Viv Beaumont.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 2:06pm

My Tony was injured? Quick! Fetch me my nurse's satchel. I mustn't delay.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 2:07pm

I definitely see how it's a hard line to define. I liked the ENO production when I saw it in London (that that French version is based on,) but it felt overly safe and even referential to me in the comedy. Perhaps it was more faithful -- although by all reports the original production was done as a raucous cartoon (I mean it's almost all one long chase scene, really,) with of course a more serious subtext that only really comes out in Some Other Time and (especially) in some of the longer, great yearning ballet sequences. To reference Tex Avery's 1940s Red Hot Riding Hood cartoon in the choreography doesn't seem all that out of place to me :P

But of course it's both easy to think "this is 70 years later, we have to sex it up!" as well thinking "Wait! they would have never played up the sex at all in 1944." Like you say, I guess it either works or it doesn't

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 2:32pm

I'm a little confused by all this talk of couples actually getting it on in the revival. Doesn't the lyric in "Some Other time" specifically mourn losing the chance to actually have sex:

Can't satisfy my craving,
Never have watched you while you're shaving...

Haven't had time to wake up,
Seeing you there without your make-up...

I thought the whole point was no-one actually got to sleep together.

[lovebwy]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 2:48pm

Someone in a Tree2 that's what I always thought.

When I saw the revival back in 2005 in Westwood I got the distinct impression that while they all had a blast on their madcap journey, they never got a chance to do the deed. Which was ok with them because they'd had so much fun.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 3:04pm

"I admit Claire and Ozzie makes less sense to me (do they run off to the Museum's restroom for a quickie?)"

No, they have been added to the "I Can Cook Too" scene. Both Claire and Hildy's apartments are on stage at the same time. Sometime during "I Can Cook Too" Claire and Ozzie enter (and for a moment I was afraid Claire was going to join in on the song). Both men are in their underwear dancing around the women.

The trouble, for me, isn't so much that it's lewd and crass, but that's it's incredibly distracting. Like I mentioned before about "Come Up to My Place," just let those wonderful lyrics do the work for you. There's no reason to add the other couple to the scene- it's not even their song! Again, it's more not trusting the material.

The lyrics do get lost in all the hubbub, and this is coming from someone who knows them well. One person with me wasn't familiar with the show and she said most of the words were lost to her, which is a shame.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 4:11pm

Doesn't the lyric in "Some Other time" specifically mourn losing the chance to actually have sex:

Can't satisfy my craving,
Never have watched you while you're shaving...

Haven't had time to wake up,
Seeing you there without your make-up...

Actually, no. That's an incorrect assumption.

Those lyrics mourn losing the chance of waking up together in the morning, which the 24-hour leave prevented. There is nothing in those lyrics to imply that three horny sailors and the modern-thinking girls they pick were not willing, able and anatomically equipped to do whatever they had the time and a place to do.

I've always thought petting was the furthest they went, considering other comic plays/films from the same period.

The Voice of the Turtle, the long-running World War Two Broadway play with a similar plot about a soldier on leave and the girl he falls in love with, had a second-act curtain that featured the lights going out on the girl and the soldier falling into each other's arms--IN BED! When the lights came up after the intermission it was clear that, gasp! they had had SEX!

I know it may shock the neo-Victorians on this board, but people in the 1940s had sex!

Didn't they, After Eight?

For those who are extrapolating from this conversation that the staging of this revival is at all explicit or vulgar, the answer is NO, IT IS NOT. It is sweet and funny and awkward, just as it was intended.

I only wish Betty and Adolph--and especially Lenny and Jerry!--were here to tell you people what underlies this whole show. Adolph would explain, with a sudden and ferocious roar, "THEY ARE HORRRRRRRNNNNYYY!!!"

Then Betty would add, quietly and with a smile, "The girls as well."

Lenny, who was as much of a genius as Mozart and capable of being as gross and vulgar as the Mozart character in Amadeus, would then proceed to hold forth on exactly what the sexual urges of soldiers on leave during World War Two entailed, some of which he would re-enact with Charades-like gestures.

Jerry would not engage in the conversation. He would walk out of the room in exasperation. But, later, when he was working with the dancers, he would ask them to imbue their movements with more and more deep, desperate longing, asking them things like "Have you ever wanted someone so bad that you thought you would burst from wanting them?" And then when the movement was not crisp enough or real enough or deeply felt to the degree he wanted, he would berate them and tell them they weren't bursting enough until he finally would make one of them cry.

Updated On: 10/2/14 at 04:11 PM

[Christoph]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 4:18pm

I have to admit that I am still psyched to see this show despite some of the mixed reaction. As a couple have noted already, word of mouth on the forum can change dramatically on dime after opening night (i.e., South Pacific revival, Natasha Richardson's perf in Cabaret, etc.) for some strange reason. Plus its pre-Broadway reviews were across the board outstanding. I will say the complaints about the sets, projections, etc., not looking polished enough seem strange considering how over-hyped and over-hyped the last revival Sweeney Todd was on this forum. And if ever there was a show that looked like it was being performed on the fly in an old high school gymnasium, it was that one. What was the running budget, $1.95? It must have made back its production costs in a week.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 4:22pm

I find the rhythm of this thread very restful - someone posts a paean to this particular production followed by an avid agreement from Joey. Then someone else pens a post that offers questions or a bit of skepticism about what they've seen in the show or heard about it, followed by Joey invoking the ghosts of his bosom pals Lenny-Jerry-Betty-n-Adolph to prove that this is THE perfect production.

A reliable routine can be very comforting.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 4:25pm

"The Voice of the Turtle"

I guess you aren't aware of this, but On the Town isn't The Voice of the Turtle. If the creators of On the Town had wanted their show to be presented the way it is here, then they would have written and presented it exactly that way.

Luckily, they had good enough sense not to. If only you had an equal amount yourself.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 4:25pm

Christoph, you wonder why "word of mouth on the forum can change dramatically on dime after opening night"? Easy. A critical consensus is reached, and people are swayed or change their opinion to match.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 4:28pm

Why shouldn't you be still psyched to see this? Go and form your own opinion and either love it or hate it. But like some have done, don't nickpick it to death. If you are listening still to opinions...my opinion is as follows. It was terrific. There is nothing cheap or vulgar about it. It is well performed and beautifully orchestrated. Who gives a s**t of word of mouth of complete strangers, ,mine included. Form your own opinion!!!

Updated On: 9/24/14 at 04:28 PM

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 4:31pm

As a couple have noted already, word of mouth on the forum can change dramatically on dime after opening night (i.e., South Pacific revival, Natasha Richardson's perf in Cabaret, etc.) for some strange reason.

Truly, I don’t think most people (a few sure, but not most) who didn’t like a show before it got high praise from the critics suddenly pretend to like it after the reviews come out. It may seem like suddenly there is excellent word-of-mouth after good notes are received, but I think that has more to do with a trend I have noticed of fans of these shows feeling vindicated in their love for the show and, in turn, end up shouting it from the rooftops. As PalJoey mentioned this phenomenon earlier in regards to “Gentleman’s…,” there were plenty of mediocre to bad reviews of “Gentleman’s” on this board even after the reviews and Awards, but they seemed to slip through the cracks amidst all of the loud hype.

Also, word of mouth may increase for a show that got good reviews just from the mere fact that more people are likely to see the show after it getting good notices. However, I have a very hard time believing that most people suddenly decide they like a show they previously didn’t once the critical reviews come out.

And, I must say that even if this production is the best version of their musical the creators could have ever dreamed up doesn’t mean that others can’t still find it sloppy, too long, etc. PalJoey, it’s fine to back up the reason why you love this production (or, at least how it was at Barrington) with those reasons, but that doesn’t mean that others who gave it less-than-stellar reviews are wrong in their opinions (or will suddenly change their tune if the show receives good critical reviews).

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 5:33pm

"Can't satisfy my craving,
Never have watched you while you're shaving...

Haven't had time to wake up,
Seeing you there without your make-up...

I thought the whole point was no-one actually got to sleep together. "

That's a good point about the implied lyric, though I suppose it doesn't exactly mean they didn't have time for a quickie :P

Whizzer--thanks for clearing that up for me! Ugh, I don't like them being added to the song at all. Weird--anyone know if it was done that way on the much smaller Barrington stage?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 5:36pm

You forgot, PalJoey the part where Jerry tells the male dancers that they all look like fags and have to butch up.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 5:45pm

GilmoreGirlO2, I don't think Christoph is suggesting that individuals changes their mind, but the tenor of the overall consensus changes because a critical consensus has been reached. If I see something in previews I might say it's "good" but if I saw it after opening (when the reviews were mostly raves), I'd probably be more likely to say it was great.

[lovebwy]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 5:50pm

"You forgot, PalJoey the part where Jerry tells the male dancers that they all look like fags and have to butch up."

That was in Forbidden Broadway! "play it butch butch boys, reallllll butch" (to the tune of "Cool")

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 6:09pm

I always thought it was a fair assumption that Hildy and Chip had sex. Hildy clearly is out to get laid, at the very least. Remember in the book scene before "Come Up To My Place" Hildy has just gotten fired and is out to get one more fare. She passes on several men who won't do the trick and yells, "No girls" to a woman hailing a cab before setting her sights on Chip.

Hildy also isn't inviting Chip up to her place for a warm glass of Ovaltine. She tells him:

I may not have 5,000 seats, but the one I have is a honey

and

Stick with me kid, and I'll show you the road to ruin.

Her intentions aren't exactly subtle.

(The real question for modern audiences is that of Chip's sexuality. He's been cooped up on a ship for how many months, he gets to New York for one day, a woman is throwing herself at him and all he wants to do is go see a Broadway show!)

I agree with After Eight that stuff like the baguette joke should be cut, but not because it's vulgar. It's just amateurish and not even worthy of an American Pie sequel. It all goes back to trying too hard and not trusting the material.

Sure, go ahead and imply that they had sex, because they probably did. Don't do so that you distract the audience from the lyrics/song though, which IMO is happening now.

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 6:30pm

ON THE TOWN is nothing like THE VOICE OF THE TURTLE. VOICE is an excellent play, but it should not be turned into a musical. All of this talk about the sexuality being way too overt in this piece makes me nervous to see it, but I won't lose hope just because I love the show so much and the it may be worth it just to hear the score live.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 9/24/14 at 7:23pm

I saw the matinee today and I absolutely loved it. Sure, the individual performances may not be as scene-stealingly hilarious as you recall them in past productions and the design and direction accentuates the innate cheese of the Golden Age. What it lacks in sincerity, it more than makes up for in devotion and spirit.

Like Roundabout's recent Anything Goes revival, this production is a love letter to musical theatre. It's big and colorful and silly and totally, 100% committed to itself. The score sounds fantastic and the comedy (while still finding its footing) is all there. A lot of plates are spinning, so to speak, so I'm not surprised a few of the slapstickier moments aren't landing yet. I had no problem with the projections. They mostly stayed out of the way and I actually liked the images of the subway and "Come Up to My Place".

But those dance sequences, you guys. Megan Fairchild is unreal and Tony Yazbeck is a worthy partner. And the ensemble. I could have watched all of them all day. And the orchestra is every bit as gorgeous to hear as you'd imagine and expect.

I did the TodayTix $20 ticket lottery and my seats were premium price quality, so I highly recommend that route if you're strapped for cash.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/25/14 at 12:13am

All of this talk about the sexuality being way too overt in this piece makes me nervous to see it

The talk is untrue. Go see it for yourself.

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 9/25/14 at 8:54am

Thanks, PalJoey, for sticking to your guns. No, I haven't seen the production at the Lyric yet, and yes, I will be terribly disappointed if it doesn't work as well as it did at Barrington. But having seen the show a number of times, this was the first production that felt right, particularly in its depiction of the characters' sexuality. Yet it still maintained that youthful exuberance of what it's like to discover sex with a new partner.

I admit to being a stickler about changing shows just for the sake of showing off your directorial skills. But I have to say that this was one instance where it saved what had become a not-very-good show (brilliant songs and dances notwithstanding), and made it something new and special. And yes, after I see it at the Lyric next month, I will be the first to admit if it has been botched in its transfer (and yes, I wish it was in a smaller theatre). But I remain hopeful!

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 9/25/14 at 8:59am

TalkinLoud, I was referring a bit more to these comments of PalJoey's:

The last time this happened to me on this board was with A Gentleman's Guide, which I had seen and loved in Hartford. During the previews, all you saw on this board was kvetch, kvetch, kvetch, with a lot of vaguery like "It just doesn't click" and "It looks amateur."

Then opening night came, the critics loved it, and within about 36 hours, so did everyone on this board. It was like magic.

I thought this comment seemed to suggest that those who didn't like it on this board before then started loving it after the reviews, which I don't agree with (nor do I think the less-than-stellar comments on the show suddenly disappeared). I could be wrong in my interpretation, though.

Hoping that this production does well and lasts for a while - I'd love to see it when I come to NYC in the spring!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/25/14 at 11:14am

What I really meant was that things happen during preview periods that often make bad shows better and good shows great: actors settle into their roles, cuts are made, technical errors are fixed, sometimes rewrites are put in.

But other things happen during previews: magical things that can't quite be quantified or described: moments blossom and come to life, emotions deepen, comedy transforms from shtick to genius, the pace tightens, the show comes to life. It's what theater people hope for and pray for.

And sometimes the things that stick out in first previews cease to matter, because their proportional effect on the show becomes far outweighed by the virtues that spring to life as the preview go on.

This doesn't always happen, of course. There are Moose Murders and In My Lifes that just go from bad to worse. But it happens, to lesser degrees, more often than not.

So the first-preview reports, while undoubtedly accurate to that first preview, can be somewhat unreliable indications of what is wrong with the show. And by the time the critics arrive and more audiences comes, those flaws that seemed fatal turned out not to be. Again, I say it's what theater people hope for and pray for.

What happens on a board like this is that those flaws, which are reported as legitimate experiences of those first previews, are then trumpeted by the "venomous fishwives" (to borrow a phrase from All About Eve) who haven't even seen the show but like to appear oh-so-smarter than the people actually putting the show together, and voila! A falsehood is born! And so it has in this thread with the false idea that the "sexuality is too overt."

I am willing to bet all the money that I won on whether or not A Gentleman's Guide would get good reviews and run that this production of On the Town will be greeted as it was in the Berkshires, as "one of those rare revivals that remind us what a hit show from long ago was originally all about" and an "enchanted vision of a city that was—and of course never was."

Updated On: 9/25/14 at 11:14 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 9/25/14 at 11:42am

"This doesn't always happen, of course. There are Moose Murders and In My Lifes that just go from bad to worse. But it happens, to lesser degrees, more often than not."

Given that the majority of Broadway shows fail (commercially and/or critically), I would say that doesn't happen more often than it does. But c'est la guerre.