Playing Nancy Groundhog Day?- Page 2

[10086Sundays]

Posted: 8/7/17 at 4:36pm

There's no place for it in the show other than where it is, so, the only option would have been to cut it. 

Phil hooks up with Nancy in the middle of the "Philandering" number, when he's realized he can do anything he wants, so putting it there would be even more jarring and out of place. And that number leads directly into another scene, so it can't go at the end. 

The only time we see Phil and Nancy onstage together in Act 2 is when Nancy bumps into Larry while Phil, Larry, and Rita are setting up for the broadcast. Well, aside from at the dance at the end, but Phil and Nancy aren't anywhere near each other then. 

[schubox]

Posted: 8/7/17 at 4:57pm

Saw this with my gf a few weeks ago and as soon as this song was over she turned to me and asked why in the world this song existed. Kind of had to agree with her. Song is fine, but it's an odd opener and it seems to be trying to flesh out a character that doesn't need to be fleshed out. It's like they needed to pad the runtime, or give that let a song so they could attract actors to it. Very odd 

[Andy Bates]

Posted: 8/7/17 at 5:23pm

When we saw the show the first time, my wife also asked why that song had to be there, and thought that it should have been cut.

Then after seeing it a year later, she said, "After watching this show again, I can't even remember why it bothered me the first time! I loved it!"

So, maybe it just takes a bit of perspective.

[Andy Bates]

Posted: 8/7/17 at 5:34pm

It's an attempt to make the audience see the townspeople as more than just simple idiots, but it ends up being more jarring than moving. It goes completely against the flow of the first act and entr'acte, and audiences are left saying "Am I still seeing the same show?"

As previously noted, this is intentional.

It makes Nancy seem like she's going to be a major character down the line, but she isn't.

She was a prominent minor character in the first act, which leads to this song is about that character. Lots of characters have prominents roles, then a song, and then fade into the background afterwards.

It's pretty cliche and overdramatic -- the hot girl is more than she seems to be. Been there.

That's an oversimplification. It's actually about a hot girl who is exactly what she seems to be, and how she's okay with that. And it's a clever comment on casting of female characters based on their attractiveness.

If they wanted to make the townspeople more relate-able, they could have done it in a better way.

It's not either-or. They did make other townspeople relatable in other ways. See Ned Ryerson, for example. This is how they made Nancy relatable.

In my opinion it's the weakest part of the show, and hurts the credibility of Tim Minchin -- Some of my friends who didn't like the show just point to Nancy and were like "If this is good writing, then what was THAT?". And that kills me, because I think the show is brilliant otherwise. 

Maybe the song deserves another listen, because it is brilliant.

[raddersons]

Posted: 8/7/17 at 6:26pm

Andy, I think most of your comments are just differences in taste between you and I, so there's no point in arguing about it. The one question I have is...

Andy Bates said: "It's not either-or. They did make other townspeople relatable in other ways. See Ned Ryerson, for example. This is how they made Nancy relatable."

I think what it comes down to is... Is it worth stopping the whole show (I mean seriously, the action freezes around her) just to have one minor character sing a ballad that really isn't necessary?

You could say the point of making Nancy relateable is to make the audience cognizant of what a dbag Phil is. But this could be done any number of ways without stopping the show. It can even be done with a song sung by Nancy at the beginning of Act II. But it doesn't need to stop the show in a freeze-frame slow ballad moment. In fact, let's be honest. We already know Phil is a dbag, from the first song. Why do we need to stress that point again, and why does it need to be from this angle? Does the song have the impact that makes it worth stalling the entire show? I don't think so.

Ultimately, I don't know what the answer is, but if half the audience is left feeling "What just happened?", then that's not the answer.

[Andy Bates]

Posted: 8/7/17 at 7:33pm

raddersons said: I think what it comes down to is... Is it worth stopping the whole show (I mean seriously, the action freezes around her) just to have one minor character sing a ballad that really isn't necessary?

First of all, you're coming right off of the intermission and a 30-second entr'acte, so it's not like you're right in the middle of the action and suddenly everything stops. People are still finding their seats, putting down drinks, all that. It's not like you're interrupting the play in action, because it hasn't really started yet.

But I don't know how you define "necessary" in this context. You seem to be complaining that the song interrupts the story of Phil Connors in order to focus on a relatively minor character, and I'm saying that's exactly what the song is about. It's right there in the lyrics!

"Is it my destiny to be a brief diversion/Just a detour on the journey of some man"

You're saying that she's an unimportant character whose song distracts from the Phil story, which is exactly why she's so sad! It's a very self-aware song. And the texture of a play (or a movie, or a book) is often created by providing interesting details about a minor character or event that is otherwise tangential to the main plot.

You could say the point of making Nancy relateable is to make the audience cognizant of what a dbag Phil is.

The point of the song is that Nancy doesn't want to just be defined by her relationship to Phil! Saying her song doesn't advance the Phil story misses the entire point. It would be like saying "On My Own" should be cut because it doesn't advance the romance between Marius and Cosette, when the entire point of that song is that she is ignored by Marius.

But this could be done any number of ways without stopping the show.

I don't know what to tell you. The song is part of the show, so it's not stopping it in any way. And it's setting up Act II, where Phil Connors becomes aware of other people as individuals of their own, instead of just seeing them as tools to be manipulated. So it completely sets up the mood and the theme of the second act.


Ultimately, I don't know what the answer is, but if half the audience is left feeling "What just happened?", then that's not the answer.

Every time I've seen the show, the audience has roared with applause at the end of that song, so I don't see the problem. And maybe the idea is to get the audience to stop and think about the song.

Updated On: 8/7/17 at 07:33 PM

[10086Sundays]

Posted: 8/8/17 at 12:58am

Realized I was incorrect, Nancy is one of those who bids on Phil during the auction, in fact, she's the last one to do so before Rita. So you could call that interaction. 

Also, just a reminder that we do see Nancy's story get somewhat resolved in act two. By giving her her own song it makes the moment when Larry asks her to dance at the end more poignant. Here's a nice guy, close to her age, who may end up being the first real relationship she's ever had that would no longer make her feel like she has to accept being "just collateral" in someone else's story.

It makes the show more well-rounded and deep that we get to see the payoff of Phil's journey not just for himself, but for those around him. 

Updated On: 8/8/17 at 12:58 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/8/17 at 1:11am

What I got out of it was that Phil can escape the mundane hamster wheel that he is in, but Nancy is stuck "playing Nancy." I also liked that it was a bit of a ho-hum start to act 2. You expect some big production number and then it's not. I dunno. I loved the whole show. It's so off-beat and weird. I mean it doesn't even end with a big rousing chorus number. 

I think "Playing Nancy" from GHD and "No One Else" from The Great Comet are the best songs of the season. 

[springwillcome]

Posted: 8/8/17 at 2:26am

So, I agree with all the comments in favor of the song - it's SUPPOSED to be sudden and change the pace and call out both Phil and the audience. Only thing I haven't seen said already is WHY they do this with a minor character. And the answer is part of what I find so lovely about this show. It's very ensemble-centric, and the message very people-centric. Life isn't all about yourself, or the main character. Other people have other things going on. The audience sees Phil's story, but we also experience the stories of the Punx residents. For Nancy, rather than a 2-dimensional cliché hookup there for one scene, we have this song to understand what she wants (we have her line in "One Day" I suppose, but this song emphasizes that further, brilliantly references the world of theater, and sets the tone for act 2 for the audience, alerting them that people other than phil matter too). We see this resolved with larry at the end - I don't know, for me, I love when shows have sub-plots. Phil breaking the loop and getting Rita is great, but fred/debbie getting engaged, Nancy and Larry, etc is great too, and desired by the audience after One day+philanthropy. Plus it reflects the message of the show really well too. Without that message its just a cheesy rom-com. 

[Andy Bates]

Posted: 8/8/17 at 12:40pm

10086Sundays said: "Here's a nice guy, close to her age, who may end up being the first real relationship she's ever had that would no longer make her feel like she has to accept being "just collateral" in someone else's story."

And Larry and Nancy only notice each other because Phil stopped worrying about himself and actually asks Larry's opinion on something. It's all very well choreographed and scripted.

[10086Sundays]

Posted: 8/8/17 at 4:51pm

Andy Bates said: "10086Sundays said: "Here's a nice guy, close to her age, who may end up being the first real relationship she's ever had that would no longer make her feel like she has to accept being "just collateral" in someone else's story."

And Larry and Nancy only notice each other because Phil stopped worrying about himself and actually asks Larry's opinion on something. It's all very well choreographed and scripted."

Very true.  I also like to think it could have been intentional on Phil's part, as a way to make up for how he treated Nancy before. And Larry too. 

[Kara Lee Sweeny]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 11:13am

I definitely think the placement of the song is a little odd, but it grows on you. 

I wanted to add some thoughts to the discussion of GHD, My advice is to see it at least a 2nd time for anyone who didn't like it the first time they saw it.The first time I saw it (and didn't know what to expect) I didn't hate it but I didn't love it. But when you see it a second time you fall in love with it, and by the third time you are bawling your eyes out at the end. There's something about the show that makes you feel connected to it, it's hard to explain. If I could afford it I would be ready for a 4th and 5th time.   

[Owen22]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 3:48pm

So many people (obviously including the creators) coming up with justifications for this number. Unfortunately, no redux explanation will work. It's structurally wrong and calls attention to itself (luckily it starts the Act so it doesn't necessarily interrupt the flow).

[Andy Bates]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 5:01pm

"And since I'm mentioning people who sang, there's a really beautiful song that the lyricist, Minchin, should get some credit for. I think it's called "Being Nancy", I think that's the name of the song, and there's a girl named Rebecca Faulkenberry who's sort of like the hot object of Punxsatawney, you know, if you can be the hot object dressed sort of like in a fur hat, almost like down clothing. She does it, she's very attractive.

But, this song is very...it comes, I did not see this one coming. It opens the second act, and again, this song really, really gets to people because they don't see it coming. I love when people don't see it coming, and they don't see this song coming. And I'm not sure I've ever...and I guess I've seen musicals where people have tried to do something like a "woe is me" number, or "little lost me", but this one is better than any one I ever saw. And she...everyone sings really well, but she sang it really well.

It's a very powerful song, and to open the second act with it...! Usually it's the kind of thing that you put somewhere at the end of the first act, you know, but it just comes out, and it comes from out of nowhere!"

--Bill Murray

[Andy Bates]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 6:37pm

Owen22 said: "So many people (obviously including the creators) coming up with justifications for this number. Unfortunately, no redux explanation will work. It's structurally wrong and calls attention to itself (luckily it starts the Act so it doesn't necessarily interrupt the flow)."

Yeah, I don't know why a musical number would want to call attention to itself! It's almost like it was done intentionally. But if you want a show that doesn't do things "structurally wrong" (whatever that means), then there are plenty of other safe shows out there to see.

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 11:59pm

This song and its placement exemplify why I think the show is one of the best-written in recent memory.  It sets up the structure and tone of the second act perfectly.

[Margo319]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 1:21am

Thinking more and more about it, I absolutely agree with you.  ^^