It really is amazing how varied people's responses to shows can be--Priest's description of being glared at during the ovations for Little Women reminds me of seeing "Boy From Oz". I was dumbfounded by what I thought was an evening of total Crap, and all around me were people giddy with excitement and delight. I mean, Hugh is hot and all, but C'MON...
I'm going to observe the slightly enforced rule regarding pre-opening reviews for Little Women, but I would say a few things:
Having seen it at Duke and again last week, I am astounded by the changes, particularly in the First Act--the book has been extensively (60%? More?) re-written to focus on the principal themes. I think VERY successfully.
I find the carping about Amy McAlexander a bit too harsh. I think that there is a "preciousness" that comes from a decision to have the actors e-NUN-ciate and ar-TIC-u-late in an "authentic" mid-19th century fashion, and Amy's delivery combines with her character's childish whining and pretentiousness (appropriate to the character) to make her a bit cloying, but not--to me--so painful as Matt G and Priest describe.
I think the fundamental weakness of basing a show on "Little Women" is the likelihood that people will find the show treacly or simple or maudlin--the source material is short on razor-sharp cynicism. Wouldn't it be unbelievable (astonishing???) to see what Sondheim would do with the assignment? I'm not comfortable judging the book against Overtures. I really enjoyed the show--the book, the lyrics, the score--as an adaptation and interpretation of a favorite old book, much the same way I felt about Hairspray. Neither is a landmark by any means (sorry folks, Hairspray doesn't "deal with racism") but a good night out.
"They have never understood, and no reason that they should.
But if anybody could . . . " --SS
Updated On: 1/3/05 at 09:18 PM
