PARADISE SQUARE - Broadway Previews — Page 8

The running time isn't the issue for me. The show's style from the top is often too broadly pageant-like for the Barrymore. It feels pitched to a musical barn like the Gershwin, and that's part of that distrust of the audience I mentioned in an earlier post: the creative team -- and it's apparently a big one with 3 book writers and 2 lyricists -- doesn't believe we'll fully grasp the story being told. From the top, the narrative informs us that 1863 is our historical antecedent -- the issues portrayed will surely resonate because it's also about today. At the end, this forced takeaway is hit so hard, the audience feels too carefully taught.

The Barrymore's size might've given the creative team an opportunity to take the presentational style down a notch. Late in act two, two women sit at a table and sing and it's the kind of musical theater intimacy we've been missing all night. The stage is forever teeming with dancing people -- we get it, it's a 19th century urban squeeze on these characters -- but it means everything is choreographed and morphed into tableau vivants. That set stays busy, spinning, offering new upstage entrances, yet everyone ends up down center announcing a plot turn. The show would benefit for more silence, some moments when the audience is allowed to lean forward, listen, overhear people wrestling with their crises. Instead, it's framed, stated, annotated. That's what makes the run time feel wearying: the repetition and seeming fear that we won't get it otherwise. Though some of this is baked into the overly didactic lyrics, this is most often directorial -- a missing vision that creates space for shifts in rhythm and pacing. It's regrettable that Kaufman pushes these gifted singing/dancing actors to oversell a story -- one decidedly worth telling -- that we're happy to find on our own.

Updated On: 3/30/22 at 06:33 AM

Auggie27 said:

"The show's style from the top is often too broadly pageant-like for the Barrymore.

• Well-described. And this is standard Drabinsky.

It feels pitched to a musical barn like the Gershwin

• A collateral problem is the one you identify in your second paragraph-that the stage is too small for the number of people and what they are doing. This is especially a problem when there is a bunch of dancing going on. Which is a lot of the time. The claustrophobic feel is exacerbated by all of the towers and galleries.

the creative team -- and it's apparently a big one with 3 book writers and 2 lyricists --

• To be fair to these people, most of them worked on the show seriatim. There was no oversized work table here. And while we are at it, I think the principal fault to assign to Kaufman is his willingness to be a placeholder for Garth. Garth's fingerprints are all over this production, pretty much to the exclusion of everyone else. (The lone exception being Jones, it seems.) When a creative had had enough of ceding their vision, they moved on. Between that and the number of people who obviously gave Garth a hard pass up front, the "team" is not that much of a team, and that's a huge problem. Everything else you say is well-observed.
  

The Barrymore's size might've given the creative team an opportunity to take the presentational style down a notch. Late in act two, two women sit at a table and sing and it's the kind of musical theater intimacy we've been missing all night. The stage is forever teeming with dancing people -- we get it, it's a 19th century urban squeeze on these characters -- but it means everything is choreographed and morphed into tableau vivants. That set stays busy, spinning, offering new upstage entrances, yet everyone ends up down center announcing a plot turn. The show would benefit for more silence, some moments when the audience is allowed to lean forward, listen, overhear people wrestling with their crises. Instead, it's framed, stated, annotated. That's what makes the run time feel wearying: the repetition and seeming fear that we won't get it otherwise. Though some of this is baked into the overly didactic lyrics, this is most often directorial -- a missing vision that creates space for shifts in rhythm and pacing. It's regrettable that Kaufman pushes these gifted singing/dancing actors to oversell a story -- one decidedly worth telling -- that we're happy to find on our own.

HogansHero said: "(The lone exception being Jones, it seems.)"

Who actually choreographed what? That could be an issue come Tony time. I would say they should lump all 4 together (unlike PIPPIN, for which only the Fosse and not acrobatics were eligible). The credits are:

Choreographed by Bill T. Jones; Musical Staging by Alex Sanchez (used to be Graciela Daniele but evidently she's gone now); Irish and Hammerstep Choreography by Garrett Coleman and Jason Oremus

I'm no dance expert by any stretch, but even that seemed a little disjointed to me.

A similar conversation will be had for FUNNY GIRL, which has a "choreographer" and a "tap choreographer."



Also, add me to those who felt the size of the stage felt fine for the physical production onstage. (Though the Gershwin is an apt comparison, being that the design directive for this seems to be "do what Eugene Lee did for SWEENEY."

4 days to Opening...

Updated On: 3/30/22 at 11:25 AM

In this oversized production, “Paradise” is lost.

Whew, that was a LONG sit. I wanted to like this because the premise seemed promising on paper, but it ended up feeling like a relentless assault on the senses in an attempt to be seen as a VERY IMPORTANT MUSICAL (TM). Instead, it felt like “The Last Ship” and “Ragtime” had a love child that grew up to be “Les Mis”.

The story had absolutely NO room to breathe and exist and that was profoundly annoying because I’m sure there was something good to be found in there. Whatever story I could cull from this was complicated by the fact that there were too many character threads and they often seemed to get lost or tangled in the relentless ALL SINGING-ALL DANCING production of it. It seems the composers and choreographers didn’t consider that throwing in everything and the kitchen sink doesn’t necessarily make the show better.

I need to make clear though that NONE of this is the fault of the cast, who clearly work their asses off to deliver the endless parade of pageantry. The singing MVP was Kalukango, naturally, and she has her slot in the Tony race set, especially after the two minutes of applause following “Let It Burn”. Sidney DuPont was the dancing/supporting actor MVP and I could see him sliding into that race himself.

Overall, I give this a C+, because the cast kept this from being a total misfire for me. Although, in the words of Ethel Merman, “‘I thought it was a piece of s***, but the rest of the audience [clapped] and cried, so what the f*** do I know?’”

The show hasn't opened, and the CSM review is already up?

Here is a big NYT piece on Garth by Richard Zoglin.

An interesting quote: "Drabinsky stressed, he is not in charge of the show’s finances — an arrangement made explicit by the limited partnership formed to bring it to Broadway. “I walked away from every element of fiscal control of this show,” he added. “I don’t sign checks. I don’t get involved. I never want to live through the horror of what I went through in 1998 again.”"

HOWEVER, he then goes on to say, "I made the decision, in terms of marketing, that our best course was to ensure that we filled the previews to capacity at whatever average ticket price we could get, and let word of mouth take over"......which is very much a financial decision.

Going by publicly-available SEC data amended yesterday, all the money is in as of April 1 ($13.5M), and Bernard Abrams is Managing Member of the LLC, despite Garth being the only Producer (there are numerous others above the title "in association with," including Abrams). Press performances are happening today. Both of these things dispute a rumor floating around yesterday on social media.

Is Chilina Kennedy still out with COVID, or will the understudy be playing press nights and Opening?

Updated On: 4/2/22 at 06:48 PM

She’s in tonight.

Tom-497 said: "I saw this evening's performance and, despite really looking forward to this show, I share the above-noted Ethel Merman view -- I don't think I've seen a worse Broadway musical, but a lot of the audience seemed to love it. I actually thought the first act was decent, but the second was such a horribly written (and ridiculously plotted) slog that it dragged down my overall opinion.

I was surprised at how dull so much of the dancing was and annoyed by how, during the dance competition, the choreography had to (it seems) be intentionally mediocre for one number just so the winning number could more readily contrast with it. I also was bothered by the way one character kept coming back to the bar rather than escape to safety -- although I frequently feel this way while watching bad action and horror movies, I think this was the first Broadway musical I've seen where I started hoping a character would pay for their repeated stupidity with their life."

I have to agree completely with the above, except I thought Act 2 was better than 1, probably because it was shorter and didn’t feel like I was being tortured for 1.5 hours in the mezzanine seats with little leg room. A friend’s 17 year old daughter had the best review. “I wish they all had died in the fire and riot.”

Surprised to see that there are people who thought Act 1 was stronger than act 1. I think Act 2 is WAY more successful. Act 1 needs a good 30 minutes slashed, and there are easy ways to do it too. And this is the main problem for me: the book. Much of the dialogue is very clunky. It tries to bite off A LOT (mostly in Act 1 where it basically keeps introducing major story threads. This is where they needed to cut more). And some moments are, as some have mentioned, overly presentational when it needs to pivot towards intimacy (I dont have a problem with presentational style and it works here in places, but then they didnt know when to dial down and give us genuine character moments). Also, yes Chilina Kennedy is back in, she played the press matinee saturday. Her voice is wonderful, but sadly she is the weakest actor on stage, SO over the top and steamrolls through all of the comedic moments her character is supposed to have.



However, despite qualms I still walked away glad I saw this. Joaquina Kalukango is simply divine. This is a true star making performance. Her final song gets a roaring standing O and she has many beautiful, powerful moments on stage. (She also seemed to be fighting through congestion, coughing a couple times to clear her throat so she could go for one of her epic belts...so I hope she is not sick. Especially for opening, because she deserves all the praise she is going to get). The choreography is also fabulous and I appreciated how much storytelling responsibility was given to dance. Sidney DuPont and AJ Shively are the other acting MVPS, and one or both could break into the featured acting races at the Tonys.



I was definitely moved by the story and overall enjoyed myself. There is a powerful tale here. I just wish they had really gone in an excavated the book before opening night on Broadway.

Auggie27 said: "I'll add: Kennedy Caughhell, who went on for Chilina Kennedy (the double Kennedys leading some to be confused) was quite wonderful as Annie. The show is lucky indeed to brim with this level of talent."

Oh yeah. Caughell was excellent when I saw her. Had I not seen the understudy slip, I would’ve assumed she was the one opening the role (which is high praise considering the under-rehearsal of understudies in previews)

As with any show like this, I feel bad for the artists involved. They all deserve better, from the writers and creatives to the performers.

Even Jaoquina, who will probably have the best reviews, has a completely uninspired, lyrically repetitive, and ineptly staged 11 o’clock number.

Jon Dossett is a super reliable actor but has a thankless, one note role here.

Caught this Friday night and I think it a solid mid-tier show. There's a lot of problems with it but my biggest issue is that the music doesn't do enough to support the show. I agree with Ermengarde that the 11 o'clock number is so dull lyrically that it takes away from Joaquina Kalukango's prowess as a singer. And going into the show, I knew it was probably heavily papered, but I think the standing ovation after Let it Burn and the immediate standing ovation after the end of the show really gave it a "friends and family are in the audience" feel.

Act 2 was better than act 1 for me, as act 1 felt a little too transparently like they were just moving people into the positions they needed them to be in to set up the conflict. The characters are just a little ugh sometimes, like Mike takes a heel turn so quickly that it's hard to have any sympathy for his cause, and the way Owen complains about his plight is just so reminiscent of privileged straight white men that it's difficult to feel for him as well (I understand that part of this is intentional, but the show seems to want us to think that Owen is just a nice young lad caught in terrible circumstances). As for Stephen Foster, I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to say that they do a decent amount of calling him out for taking songs from/about slaves and black people and glorifying them for a white audience. But it seems strange that a show that brings that fact to the forefront would still also use his songs so prominently in a non-diegetic way.

The story about the Irish immigrants/free blacks was an interesting cultural conversation but I wish they emphasized the politicians and upper crust more in terms of how they maneuvered circumstances to turn those groups against each other, which would've been a much more interesting story in my opinion. The choreography was definitely the standout, but some parts of it seemed strange, like Owen's entry into the dance competition where he barely danced. Either way, a few stellar performances and a very talented cast, but generally a pretty middle of the road show.