SOME LIKE IT HOT On Broadway - Reviews & News Thread — Page 20

The show is...okay.  Fun (at times) in the moment, but it completely disappears from memory as soon as the curtain falls.  It's the musical comedy equivalent of Jell-O.  The score is repetitive and wholly unremarkable.  The cast is very good (particularly Kevin Del Aquila in a breakout performance).  Christian Borle has some marvelous moments, of course (although he fits uncomfortably into the shoes of a romantic leading man IMHO), and the lovely J. Harrison Ghee's Act 2 number is a spectacular showstopper (with the worst title ever).  Adrianna Hicks has the unenviable task of living up to Marilyn Monroe and stumbles valiantly.  (She has a powerhouse voice, but is devoid of delicacy or nuance.  But then, of course, this is 2022, when every female character has to be a tough, feminist role model.  And the inexplicable crack about Josephine Baker at the end of the show negates how Baker and others -- Lena Horne, Dorothy Dandridge etc. -- braved painful racism and paved the way for talented performers such as...well, Adrianna Hicks.)  For me, the show's revisionist history is a complete and utter cheat.  Forget that the gender issues addressed and expressed would have had you thrown in jail in 1933.  What really bothered me was the show's attitude towards race.  Race is addressed when Jerry and Joe audition their act for an "all-white" nightclub and run into prejudicial attitudes -- which they miraculously and immediately overcome.  (Do we really think that an Italian American mobster, whose clientele are wealthy white people would present an interracial act -- in Chicago, of all places?)  Race is addressed when Sweet Sue (the hilarious Natasha Yvette Williams), is advised by a bigoted club owner to "know her place."  Sugar sings poignantly about having to sit in the balcony at the movies as a kid because blacks weren't allowed to sit downstairs.  (SPOILER ALERT AHEAD)  Osgood talks about having to suppress his Latin heritage North of the border and how unfortunate that is.  So in some instances the authors have rightly acknowledged the genuine racial issues that existed in America back in the day.  But then they would have us swallow an alternate fantasy universe in which blacks and whites perform together publicly, share train accommodations and hotel rooms in luxury resorts!  It's a "let's have our cake and eat it too" attitude that's maddening and more than a little insulting IMHO.  It's like Quentin Tarantino pretending that Brad Pitt killed Hitler.  Or that Sharon Tate wasn't murdered by the Manson family.  Sorry for going down that rabbit hole, but to me this raises the question of why do the show in the first place?  I get that this isn't supposed to be "Fun Home" or "A Strange Loop" (both important works of Art) -- but did the authors really think that a melange of those shows and "42nd Street" would be successful?  They think they're being brave by addressing gender and (to some degree) race issues, but there's nothing brave about ignoring the painful reality of those issues.  Instead they throw in a tenth tap number and just enough "wokeness" to placate the militant young'uns and allow the B&T crowd to think themselves progressive for seeing the show in the first place.  And scene.

nativenewyorker2 said: "They could also cut down the run time by making intermission the standard 15 mins. Not sure why it’s 20+ when act 2 stars with everyone in the same set as position and before"

Does this have anything to do with the band having to migrate from onstage into the pit for act 2?

I love this show. What a joy, and expert musical comedy performances, writing, and staging. I hope the reviews will lift its box office. It's nice to have a couple of big, new, feel-good shows on Broadway this fall (this and Juliet).

JHG is about to break out big, and NaTasha Yvette Williams is perfection; while sitting in the Shubert, I had the thought of what a perfect Dolly Levi she'd be in a regional theatre. Adrianna Hicks is such a stunning talent, but I found some of her costumes to be unflatteringly designed.

And those orchestrations are *chef's kiss*

Updated On: 11/21/22 at 01:38 AM

PipingHotPiccolo said: "...But also, I presume, keep in the trans angle, too. YIKES."

There is no "trans angle" in SLIH. Being "in disguise" (whether the premise is believable or not) isn't the same as being Trans. 

Updated On: 11/21/22 at 08:46 AM

When we rewrite history to serve our own purposes, we erase history.  How much more honest (and thrilling) would the show have been had Jerry and Sugar acknowledged the fight ahead of them!  That would be something to cheer for.  Right now everything gets tied up in a neat little package and IMHO, it's a cheat for the sake of "entertainment."  

"Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em...How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em and they'll never catch wise!"

Updated On: 11/21/22 at 09:55 AM

I hate to break it to you, but Jerry is still hiding at the end of the show.  

LucyEth2 said: "I hate to break it to you, but Jerry is still hiding at the end of the show."

Yes, but it sounds like (maybe):

PipingHotPiccolo - Clarification?

 

What mobsters?  They're no longer a threat by the end of the show.  In your version, Jerry is living their life as Daphne not by choice, but to save their skin.  That's even worse!!!

LucyEth2 said: "When we rewrite history to serve our own purposes, we erase history. How much more honest (and thrilling) would the show have been had Jerry and Sugar acknowledged the fight ahead of them! That would be something to cheer for. Right now everything gets tied up in a neat little package and IMHO, it's a cheat for the sake of "entertainment."
"

Once again, I am disturbed that you think anyone is rewriting, or even addressing, anything historical. Its a farce. Its not real. And you don't seem to be realizing that youre arguing against diverse casting; do you think the upcoming Camelot needs to address the socio-political factors that would arise from an interracial relationship between fictional, magical characters in ages-ago England? Because your suggestion here is no less ridiculous.

PipingHotPiccolo said: " And you don't seem to be realizing that youre arguing against diverse casting; do you think the upcoming Camelot needs to address the socio-political factors that would arise from an interracial relationship between fictional, magical characters in ages-ago England?"

 

Ah, there's a big difference between those two examples. SLIH is color conscious casting. Persons of color are playing persons of color and there are plot points where this comes into play. CAMELOT is color blind casting. Persons of color will be playing persons of a different race, as was the case in 1776.  So I do not think your criticism of Lucyeth2's comments is on point in that regard.

 

Updated On: 11/21/22 at 09:29 PM

Ok…plain and simple this is some HOT garbage y’all! The score is….maddening. The book is predictable, pat and woefully unfunny….and while the performances range from sensational (Ghee) to “GET THE OFF THE STAGE” (Hicks), nothing can (or should) save this HOT mess…why keep sinking millions of dollars into these paint by numbers shows that run for 3-9 months and are quickly forgotten? This had a lot of on paper potential that turn out results that are flaccid and wandering. There is just simply no here here.

I know what I'm about to say may upset many, but there's one thing commenters could do that would take all the differences of opinion to a higher level: use your real names.

I know that's probably not going to happen, but I think when you back up your opinion with who you really are it would be acknowledging work created by real flesh and blood artists, writers and actors critiqued by real flesh and blood audience members. Hiding behind nom de plumes allow some to let their better angels be overpowered by their darker side, and be less civil as a result. 

So maybe just take a moment to think if you'd write what you've written with your real name attached, and if not, what does that say about how you really feel?

Broadwaybaby332 said: "It is maddening to see Broadway producers continue to pour money into awful shows simply because they’re based on existing properties. How many times can this fail before they realize it is not a guarantee for success? The material needs to be there as well and believe me, it isn’t. Hicks is giving a truly abysmal performance. Although I doubt even the best performer could do much with the bland nonsensical role they’ve turned Sugar into."

I agree re: the material. The show just falls so incredibly flat. It a perfectly passable production, but the whole show just feels half-baked. While I wouldn't call Hicks "abysmal", I do agree her performance is slightly lackluster. Of course it doesn't help that she is hindered with one too many boring and long ballads that just stop the show dead in its tracks.

 

Broadwaybaby332 said: " I work in the industry and do not have the luxury of sharing my opinion here under my professional name as I am an actor who cannot afford to have it impact my chances of working. Nothing “negative” I’ve seen in this thread has been personal or uncalled for. This is the place for people to share their opinions on the piece. Everyone is allowed to do so in whatever way they please, even if you don’t agree with them."

 

But you have no problem with anonymously trashing the performances of other WORKING actors and potentially affecting THEIR chances of working in the future??  Sure -- makes sense.