"On the Town" Preview Thread — Page 6

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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

"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")

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.

---

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.

---

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!

"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.