Rath's LITTLE WOMEN Review (now includes actual review)- Page 2

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 1:59am

Rath - a friend has conducted and arranged for her. I know it's not your current area of focus, but you should be pleased to know that she has a pristine reputation as a 'songwriter's singer' (a la Clooney) who is known to pick up anything and sing it effortlessly and virtually perfectly. AND, she's as sweet as the day is long to boot

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 9:04am

*swoons*

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 10:20am

Okay, here's the real review:

I liked the show - the book is well written. The sets and costumes are wonderful. It's well cast - and I did wonder why no one here had mentioned the fact that Kristin Chenoweth is playing Amy - seriously - it's uncanny.

Sutton is very good, a bit unnecessarily schticky at points, but overall, I thought she was quite good. Danny Gurwin as Laurie is charming and handsome and is a wonderful singer, as are most of the cast. I found it odd that they cast Janet Carroll, who plays Aunt March, in another role as well. Why couldn't they use her understudy in the second role? It was more than obvious that Aunt March was also the boardinghouse lady, and that was distracting.

Maureen McGovern - well, I think I've made it clear in this thread that I'm in love, but with good reason, people. Her powerful, distinctive voice has a warmth and lustre rarely heard. Days of Plenty is a pretty mediocre song, as is the rest of the score, but I was certainly in tears by the end - and I didn't even cry at 'NIGHT, MOTHER. And as an actress, she is graceful and natural.

All in all, it's a pretty good show. I've seen dozens upon dozens that were worse. It's just too bad that the music is so bland and unmemorable. I hope Ms. McGovern is recognized at Tony time for the yeoman's job she does of making a boring song into a tearjerker.

[ElphieDefiesGravity]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 10:56am

I'm glad you liked it!

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 4:23pm

Can't have this sitting on the second page. My reviews must be read!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 4:27pm

I agree with your assessment completely -- good review.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 4:30pm

Thank you, sir!

[rubydoo]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 5:32pm

Rath rocks!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 5:37pm

I saw it Wednesday night. It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, meaning that it wasn't a mind-numbing disaster (though I must admit that I was periodically checking my watch throughout). Not really my kind of show, but the book is a solid reduction of the novel (with a few good jokes thrown in), the performances are all very good (though Sutton's buzz saw of a vibrato worked my nerves; McGovern's first rate) and Schulman's sure hand as a director elevates the overall piece to a level slightly above a Hallmark Hall of Fame Special.

The score is mostly faux-romantic claptrap, with little melodic variation (NOTHING is memorable) and cloyingly sentimental lyrics, which I guess is appropriate to the piece, but didn't stop my eyes from rolling, nevertheless. Some of the scenes and songs just went on too long for my taste, but I really think the "fault" is as much with the source material as it is with anything the creative team does here. If you're going to do a musical that honors the spirit of the book, a certain amount of syrupy sweetness and heart-warming sentimentality is unavoidable. As much as I hate family-friendly crap like that, I have to admit that, while the score could certainly be better, this is a well-done musical adaptation of the novel....... if you like that sort of thing. It simply lacks the sort of spark of creativity and inspiration that could have made it more appealing to those of us who aren't fans of the novel (Michael Musto was sitting two seats from me and looked even more bored than I was).

I would definitely recommend this show without much hesitation to families with young daughters -- I think girls and their mothers will love it, for the most part. There was a group of what looked like five 30-something and 40-something sisters (or maybe just friends) in the row in front of me, passing tissues back and forth between themselves throughout Act II -- they led the standing ovation. While there's just enough in this show to keep us non-Little Women lovers from being too bored (the performances mainly), the target audience should be groups of women like that. My own subjective feelings aside, I hope the show finds its audience -- it's a more than competently put together show and deserves to have a nice run.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 1/21/05 at 9:24pm

Except that the production totally fails to capture the emotion and sentiment of the source material.
The creative team has assumed that everyone is familiar with the material and done nothing to draw the audience into the world of the play and its characters. The heartfelt relationships of Marmee and her brood are presented strictly by-the-numbers and without impact. The underlying pathos inherent in the story of a family holding their own and awaiting the return of a father from the war (the whole reason they are considered "little women") is sorely missing from the direction and the joyous Christmas homecoming of Mr. March has been eliminated altogether! The cutting of Jo's hair is sabotaged by two pitiful wigs and "Astonishing" is astonishingly narcissistic and out-of-character. Finally, Beth's death, a notable and heartrending scene, is jettisoned in favor of yet another inconsequential ballad in a score which doesn't even BEGIN to suggest period, place or character but resorts to the most inappropriate and crushingly banal of pop idioms.
The less said about the rest of the writing and the abysmal direction (i.e. the feminized casting of the male romantic leads, etc), the better.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 3:23pm

The offer is still open - I'm still waiting for someone to get me a date with Marmee!! Come on, people!

Updated On: 2/2/05 at 03:23 PM

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 3:31pm

Beth's pre-death duet with Jo reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie where his character has been shot on stage and the director is telling him to walk over to another part of the stage while delivering his final lines. That is all I thought about while Beth and Jo are standing(!!) there singing. Here, Beth is near death, but has the strength to get out of her chair, play with a kite and sing a diaphram-pumping duet WHILE STANDING. The next scene, she had already passed.

Totally amazed that that is how it was staged. It was no better than a high school production with better than average scenery.

Updated On: 2/2/05 at 03:31 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 3:34pm

Well let's also discuss how McGovern is directed to stand upstage, in the dark, during her numbers.

[sanda]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 4:02pm

I have a question. Did anyone who watched little women had already watched the Secret Garden before?

I asked this because these two shows have the same director and I sort of feel that the theme of them are similiar. I am a big fan of the Secret Garden, mainly for Lucy Simon's score and Martha Norman's book. Well, you will know my taste.

So, my question is, do you think these two showes are very similar or totally different. Rath, you said the score is bland. How do you compare this one with the Secret Garden?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 4:03pm

I saw SECRET GARDEN so long ago - it's hard to remember, but I do believe it had a better score. And if I recall directly, the direction made a lot more sense.