"On the Town" Preview Thread — Page 8

Thanks, GoSmile, but I come to this board because I'm interested in what others think. I get the distinct impression that many are not interested in the opinons of others, which kind of defeats the whole experience for me. I love discourse but when it sinks to the level of junior high insult antics, I'm lost. Nothing against any junior highers who may be on the board.

And be nice to Pal Joey. He’s an elder statesman around here.

Here we go again with that rumor that I was in the audience for "Our American Cousin" the night Lincoln was shot.

That was After Eight. And he said it was disgraceful that Ford's Theater would display such trash and that he hadn't seen a good play since Uncle Tom's Cabin.

---

Aren't you afraid I'll invalidate your cooking?

---

"Thanks, GoSmile, but I come to this board because I'm interested in what others think. I get the distinct impression that many are not interested in the opinions of others, which kind of defeats the whole experience for me. I love discourse but when it sinks to the level of junior high insult antics, I'm lost. Nothing against any junior highers who may be on the board."

I am a teacher by trade and don't mean to sound like I am on a soap box or anything, but I tell my kids..you can't control what someone else says and does. You can only control what you say and do. Otherwise, you spend a lot of time banging your head against the wall. And generally speaking, you will attract people who approach the world the same way.

For me, I try to state my opinions period. I have only gotten into one scuffle on the board in the number of years I have been here. It makes like a lot easier for me that way. I like to read real opinions as well.

That said, some others really enjoy the back and forth between posters...even if it's snarky at times. Good for them...to each his own. This is a large enough board that there is someone here for everyone.

Back to the subject, as I stated earlier, I didn't think On the Town was perfect in a lot of areas... but it had a LOT going for it...and I enjoyed the second preview, hoping that certain things will be corrected by opening.

Updated On: 9/26/14 at 11:10 AM

Johnson is fantastic. Yazbeck and Alvez should switch roles. It would improve both of their performances ten fold.
Umphress has the audience in her back pocket. Stanley is technically capable and dull as a bag of hair as ever. Fairchild, while right to cast a ballet dancer, is the WRONG ballet dancer and is utterly painful to watch aside from the Turnstiles ballet and Coney Island pas de duex.
Guinn, Hoffman and DeRosa are a gas. Rupert is sleep walking.
The design works as a concept, but is too small for that barn of a house and you can't help but think back to the BIG shows you have seen there. It also lacks a certain level of polish... The detailing isn't enough and certain things are sloppy and lazy... The reflective surfaces can be distracting, especially when actors are waiting for entrances and you can see them reflected on stage.
Bergasse' choreography is nice, but sometimes lacks build and the cast just isn't enough to fill the stage at a few critical points.
The projections are okay.. Occasionally awkward - the hearts, when the lighting washes them out during the cross-overs... But my god, do they work brilliantly when paired with that taxi, Umphress and Johnson during that cab ride.
The sound design was fair, but the mixing was absolutely sloppy.
The need to make more a "production" about how they start the show. If they want to do it that way, they need to start with an announcement, a few actors.. Something. Josh Clayton's orchestration for it is beautiful though.
Rando needs to tighten, tighten tighten.. It plods and drags. The pregnant pauses are too many and too long and that stage so huge that all of the cross overs he ads take FOEVER and silence as actors cross the stage is adding many minutes to the running timing and killing any forward momentum the show has.

Perhaps. I should have chosen my words more carefully, I was trying not to make my post longer than necessary..
Yes, those in-one crossers for the chase are in the script, as are the various cross overs when Yazbeck is watching the Statem Island Ferry, but he doesn't do anything interesting with them and it is a HUGE stage.. So they need to move at a faster clip and the ones not set to music need to overlap a bit more... Not "wait for group A to exit before group B enters". The only reasonably interesting thing he does is the same gag he used in Wedding a Singer. There is just a lot of cross-overs in his blocking that felt like "Enter stage right and don't start dialogue til you hit stage right"

Yes, the in-one chase cross-overs are there purely to cover set changes in the original production. Most shows use intimate scenes for that instead.

broadwayguy2 - appreciate the thoroughness of your review. Wish professional reviewers would comment on each aspect of the production. It's astonishing to me to sometimes read a major review in the Times or another publication and see no mention of certain design elements, the orchestra etc.

Thank you, HorseTears.
For the record, I will say that Tiler Peck would be PERFECT as Ivy.
The costumes are pleasant and really do resemble the way a musical was designed in the 40s-60s, which I LOVED.
Bergasse's work is nice, but he needs a bigger ensemble on that stage, as evidenced since his duets and smaller groups work wonderfully. The group numbers are where it gets lost.
Also, the orchestra does get a bow! (And the need to cut the conductor interacting with the actors pronto. It greatly, really takes you out of the show... Even more than the cast being forced to use the theatre aisles - and speak to audience members - like it is Taymor's Circle of Life in a theme park staging.

I like Lahr's reviews for The New Yorker (can NOT wait to read his Tennessee Williams bio,) but he is so guilty of that. He should just do a theatre column related to a current show--instead he more often than not comments on the history of the show or its writing, or whatever, and it's usually interesting to read, with only a few random brief comments about what he thought of the production, or not.

When does the conductor work with the cast?

How is this show 40 minutes longer than it was in Barrington?

I know that there are plenty of other posters who share my opinion on this one, so I will try to keep it short. I thought that the orchestra was glorious to hear and the score was sung decently well. However, everything is overacted and in the wrong direction. The choreography is pleasant but lacks spark and the set is attractive enough. I chose to blame the director for all of the faults of this show. The Lyric looks nicer after the renovations, but is an ugly theatre still.

---

Well then I am happy for you that whatever show you saw had electrifying choreography. The choreography that I saw was a less than stellar recreation of some of the greatest choreography ever created.

---

Updated On: 9/27/14 at 01:32 AM

No (I would have been negative 44 at the time) but I have seen productions of the show where they used similar choreography, and I saw the '98 revival which was equally misguided but had better choreography with more pizazz and life to it. In other productions of the show, the steps were in the same style, but had more definition and more thoughtfulness to them than in this production. The steps are still very good, which is why I called the choreography "pleasant" and not awful.

---

Updated On: 9/27/14 at 01:35 AM

I believe I've seen it at Encores and at the English National Opera as well as the 1998 Broadway revival. Pretty much every production you see will have similar choreography as it is very famous work.

EDIT: I also believe I saw a concert version of the show when I was very little, which would have been in San Francisco

---

Updated On: 9/27/14 at 01:42 AM