Once Upon a Mattress

I saw this Mon. night & was delighted for the opportunity. I couldn't imagine a better production & hope that folk make the effort to catch this in a charming little trad. jewelbox auditorium space a little out of the way but worth it. The prod. represents classic 50's musicals nicely & has been outfitted with a full talented cast & 12 piece orchestra, super lighting (R.Lee Kennedy) & sound (Walter Trarbach) & imaginative live hand drawn projected backdrop (Ken Fallin & Andrew Lazarow) along with a nice scenic design by Sandra Goldmark. Jackie Hoffman is just STELLAR along with John Epperson. I especially liked supporting players Jessica Fontana & Zak Resnick as the couple Lady Larken & Sir Harry, & Hunter Ryan Herdlicka as the Minstrel. Ensemble is strong too. Anyone, especially w/kids to take along, should make your reservations now. The one kid in attendance provided some charming response which only improved the super talented casts abilities to pick up on it. I couldn't imagine a better production (which I thought was worth repeating.) Hopefully some visiting families will include this one amongst their scheduling. It can certainly hold its own alongside the Disney spectacles - even more so since they will be sitting closer to the action.

Updated On: 11/24/15 at 02:38 PM

I saw this on Wednesday and found it to be a mixed bag. As a star vehicle for Hoffman and Eperson, it's fine. Both are wonderfully idiosyncratic and unique performers, and are able to show off their skills here to great effect. And it's fantastic to see Jackie Hoffman have a lead role, especially one that is both ideal casting and casting against type. Epperson skillfully camps it up, peppering his lines with imitations of divas past and mugging beyond Gloria Swanson levels.

I wish the rest of the production- and the show itself- had as much personality as Hoffman and Epperson do. The rest of the cast is thoroughly competent, but without real character. It's the same problem I had with Dames at Sea: this show needs character actors to sell the material, and only really has a couple. They sing well, they dance well, they speak well- but it all feels rote. The comedic timing, it should be mentioned, needs considerable tightening.

There isn't a real coherent vision for the production, either. Ken Fallin provides live-drawn backdrops, and a couple props are made to resemble his style. But why? If you're going to use a caricaturist as an inspiration, which is a fine idea for such a frothy show, it should pervade every aspect of the production, and it just doesn't. The technical elements are extremely minimal- a table, some short risers- and mostly reliant on the Fallin backdrops. It really just looks cheap, and not because there isn't a lot onstage. I have seen shows with *no* scenic elements that don't look cheap at all; but here, it looks skimpy and budget. The costumes are similarly cheap looking, and are very uninspired, totally unevocative of character or place. Choreography is downright amateurish and busy, and often not terribly fun to look at. The exception is Cory Lingner's solo in the second act; he's a very strong dancer and watching him perform it is impressive and a joy.

The show itself is... slight. Despite being written in 1959, it feels like it easily could've been written in the 30s, with its padded nature and feeling of loosely-plotted sequences strung together and tailored specifically to performers. A lot of it now falls flat and most of the score, though delightful in the moment, is pretty generic. The first act drags, and the second act really has only one plot element (Winnifred going to bed) and the rest is just spinning its wheels.

I'm glad Hoffman and Epperson have been given an opportunity to headline a production and show off their talents. I just wish the rest of the production were worthy of them.

undercoveractor said: "I'm so sad to hear this...I actually think OUAM is charming and silly fun. But it won't work unless it is packed full of personalities.

In the past decade, it seems that the genuine character actor has become more and more scarce. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that these musical theatre schools don't really embrace individuality....

"

You could not be more right. I used to sit in faculty meetings and listen to speeches about how we only wanted to accept "true triple threats" and we would only graduate those who could sing, dance and act with equal skill.

And I invariably thought, "You're talking about training members of a modern musical-theater chorus, not musical principals or stars."

This is not to say a theater professional shouldn't have training in all three areas, of course, along with fencing and dialects and some degree of acrobatics. As you describe it so well, the problem is the assumption that the best performers do everything equally well.

I'd go so far as to say the opposite is true: almost all of the great musicals have one or more major characters who are really actors-who-can-speak-on-pitch. Few of them require that the leads be true dancers.

The album with the revival cast with Sarah Jessica Parker has been one of my favorites since I discovered it and I've always wanted to see it on stage. My hesitation with this revival is that the cast is, well, not terribly diverse. I can't explain why it bothers me when it does bother me but seeing photos in all of the articles it was just so striking.

The night I saw it, Hoffman had very, very few adlibs- and those she had were quite minor. I assume her physical schtick on the mattress itself varies night to night, but that is mostly wordless.

I was vaguely aware of the show's development, Gaveston. Hoffman is more in the Burnett mold- but she and Epperson absolutely bulldoze the rest of the cast in terms of personality.

The lack of personality is a conversation my friends and I have been having a lot recently, too- only I generally call it "weirdness." Not in a pejorative sense, mind you! Weirdness and idiosyncrasy can be a very good thing in a performer, and it's a quality that so many of our most memorable performers had or have. It's the ability to make daring and interesting choices drawn from the performer's unique take on things. And it's something that cannot really be taught.

But with the rise of musical theatre undergrad programs, we are getting a lot of very competent performers who have qualities that can be taught, and are being made into interchangeable parts that can be switched in and out of long-running shows. Universities get to tick them off as a Broadway-working alumni, and get more students.

Let me just preface this by saying I really like Jackie Hoffman and I really love Once Upon a Mattress.

I am sure she is great in the part but isn't she too old for the part really? I am sure the show was not written for someone to be in their mid-50's. I haven't seen it but after the other thread on this board where posters are arguing that Kelli O'Hara is too old to be Eliza Doolittle, I wonder why it's different here (or is it?) .

I am not trying to be argumentative or to push for one opinion over the other - I am just curious to hear what others think.

The first time I ever saw Mattress was with a middle aged Fred. I thought it actually adds to the story...an older prince still being treated like a child (and we understand why he's still single), and an older Fred brings feelings of sympathy for her and more a reason to root for them both.

I'm going to sound like a huge cheapskate but I'm super broke. Does anyone know if they're papering the show? I'm looking at a few dates and it seems pretty empty. PM me if you have the scoop.

I saw this on Saturday afternoon of Thanksgiving break. Jackie Hoffman was great. I found Epperson to be very "stiff"---"I am supposed to step three steps this way", "I will read the lines very quickly without any inflection or character". Every once in awhile he would liven it up and it was very good, but most of the time he looked as if he just found out he was going to do this role. I understand it is still in previews, but he did not appear to be prepared.

Granted, it could have been an off show from him and after reading the comments from others who saw it earlier in the week, that must be the issue.

I thought the Minstrel and Jester were delightful in their roles. The Jester's solo dance number was the best of the show.

This show is a campy classic and if everyone would have followed Jackie's lead, it would have been a much more delightful afternoon.

I thought Epperson was the best part, because of his/her comedic skills. But my friends said he wasn't the best actor...I thought he kinda stole the show, but I'm on the minority here.

Just to jump on the talking points about theatre programs and whatnot. I think a lot of it has to do with casting too. No one is taking a risk to find a star these days. And even shows that might have a star turn - Josh Gad in Book of Mormon, people are then going to look for a "Josh Gad" type to do the role instead of another acting coming along to put his stamp on the role. Same with Wicked, etc. I consider myself a "quirky Leading Man" and trust me, it's tough. Most of the time they just want the dreamy, model kid who can sing pretty but is dead behind the eyes. It's just what it is. But that's why shows like Ghost, etc. have failed. There's nothing interesting really happening.

I would assume Abrons is much cheaper of a venue, yes. I think their spaces are actually really great, but, yeah, it's a pain to get to for the majority of audience members. I remember very well having to walk to and from the F train this past miserable winter to see Pretty Filthy.

Another reason for the growing dearth of distinctive personalities on stage: the long-running musical, which puts the production itself as the central draw and by necessity turns the cast into interchangeable parts to deliver a consistent product. Wicked is a good example here: an original cast of distinct personalities and whose replacements, by and large, are ascended chorus-types.