SPAMALOT Review

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 11:03am

SPAMALOT Review

Like Randy Jackson says about most of the contestants on “American Idol” – “Spamalot,” the new Broadway musical playing nightly at the Schubert Theatre, is only a’right! The two hour and ten minute over-hyped and over-priced show is so undercooked in some spots and so over-done in others, that a happy medium is so hard to find. Fortunately there is one glaring facet that is so delicious and so on target all night long that props must be given to Sara Ramirez for carrying this lopsided spectacle on her tiny yet very capable featured shoulders. Unfortunately this is where the accolades must stop! With names like Eric Idle, Tim Curry, David Hyde Pierce, and Hank Azaria all involved with the production one can only wonder how this show cannot be a knock-out. Sad to suffice it is the material itself and the words “Monty Python” that bring about such hope and astonishment, but in the end only wind up delivering a rather unholy and over cooked grail of a meal.

“Monyty Python’s SPAMALOT” is said to be a new musical lovingly ripped off from the motion piture “Monty Python and the Holy Grail;” and to have such a unique brand of humor permeate Broadway is a risky venture to begin with. If one were to have previous knowledge of the movie version, then Eric Idle’s book full of wooden rabbits, Knights of the Round table, flying cows, and a Lady of the Lake will probably seem a riot and a laugh a minute. If you are one of the previous though, please don’t act an obnoxious fool because it is a real turn off for those in the audience who have never experienced the film version, or aren’t fans of the flick. For those a tedious yet periodically humorous evening will ensue, but are highly turned off by the Rocky Horror-esque audience members bellowing the night through. While audience members are actually encouraged to leave their cell phones and pagers on during the performances, and once certain audience member will wind up participating by shows end, the need for screaming the punch lines before they happen are bizarrely distracting.

And while the cast may not be distracting, their roles simply aren’t juicy enough to garner any type of well-deserved response. The material between Hyde Pierce, Curry, and Azaria is spread so thinly that none of them really gets more than a moment to shine; even then Curry seems so underused in the role that like Hillary Swank in “Million Dollar Baby” any actor of equal or even lesser talent in this case could do the part justice. The other two men get flashy song and dance numbers in Act II, but being so underused in the very lopsided Act I leads to a play with little or no audience concern for any one character. Except for the Lady of the Lake, and that is thanks in a large part to the brilliance that is Sarah Ramirez. Her poise, stature, and virtuoso voice triumph her material like no one else on stage and she comes out on top because of it. Ramirez is given most of the inside Broadway humor jokes, and the men are given most of the Monty Python-esque jokes. That is the most dangerous fault of the musical; trying too hard to reach to both masses and only doing a mediocre job at best.

While Ramirez is sure to give Maureen McGovern of “Little Women” a run for her money come Tony time, nothing else about the production is worthy of such success. Hugh Vanstone’s lighting design and Tim Hatley’s sets and costumes are nothing groundbreaking or earth shattering, but serviceable in all the right ways. Casey Nicholaw gives the ensemble members many strident yet uninspiring choreographed moments. And Mike Nichols directing, while practical feels like nothing more than a glorified version of “Forbidden Broadway;” only this time the Special Victims Unit are those who got sucked in to a Marketing Department who knows how to do their job. And this time around instead of flying beach balls during the curtain call, it is yet another gimmick of confetti sprayed throughout the orchestra in the final moments in a poor attempt of spectacle. Unfortunately in the case of “SPAMALOT” – a peculiar and wacky new musical that undoubtedly will attract an audience - there is too much of that second-rate spectacle and not enough substance, even in its humor. Like last years phenomenon “Avenue Q” told us, there is a fine, fine line between love and a waste of your time! Where will you fall?

[cvapb]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 11:06am

Wow. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it more! Good review, though. I really enjoyed it! Oh well.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 12:04pm

WOW what a well written review! Thanks for your sentiments! I have been hearing more and more from friends who have seen the show that I will not like it for the reasons described below. Since I am on a budget I think this is one show I will definitely skip!

[Jamie Hat]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 12:35pm

Clever. Well done. I disagree, but thanks.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 12:47pm

With the exception of Ramirez I feel completely the opposite about Spamalot. I felt the musical constructed a more cohesive narrative to the plot than did the more scattered film. I do believe the film executes the stylized humor more successfully, but being performed by its creators, how could it not?

"...even then Curry seems so underused in the role that like Hillary Swank in “Million Dollar Baby” any actor of equal or even lesser talent in this case could do the part justice."

First of all, the same could be said of the exact same role in the film, which is more of a straight-man role to begin with that is really nothing more than an axis around which the comedy and very loose plot revolve. It was never really more than that to begin with. Secondly, the Hillary Swank comment was nothing more than a subjective cheap-shot comparison that alienates anyone who felt she deserved the Oscar for her performance and really has nothing at all to do with Spamalot.

"The other two men get flashy song and dance numbers in Act II, but being so underused in the very lopsided Act I leads to a play with little or no audience concern for any one character."

Which is very much like the afore-mentioned film. The reason there is little audience concern for any one character is because they are almost constantly playing different characters from scene-to-scene, which is exactly what was intended. The source material never demands concern for any character from start to finish with the possible of exception of Arthur so that he may finally finish his bloody quest. While such plot construction may not appeal to those unfamiliar with the film (or anything else Monty Python), to be acquainted with the film and expect otherwise is foolhardy.

ATTENTION THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM:

There never was much of a plot. Ever. It is about applying stylized humor to a familiar time and place while lampooning events of the period. It is not about the story and never will be. The film never focused on any one character, nor did it appeal to its audience to generate sympathy or concern for its characters because it is not plot-driven. It is and always will be comedic sketches loosely tied together by a common theme (in this case, a think plot involving King Arthur, his knights and the Holy Grail).

I am concerned however, by the behavior of the audience. In Chicago, there were a few excited fans that applauded or laughed when they knew what was coming, but it never reached the point of distraction.

[joniray]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 1:20pm

Thanks for saying that Matt, a very good point well made. It irritates me when people criticize a piece by comparing it against their own idea of what they would like it to be or their own tastes in shows instead of what the authors intended. "Holy Grail," the film as well as the musical, is very clearly supposed to be nothing more than sketch comedy silliness. Criticizing it for not having characters you care about is like saying SNL sucks because it never gets its audience emotionally involved. I personally prefer to be moved when I go to the theatre. I also prefer to have characters I care about, even in comedies. Therefore, the comedies I will always "prefer" will be shows like The Full Monty instead of shows like The Producers or Spamalot. But I wouldn't criticize The Producers or Spamalot for being what they are as long as they are successful at what their authors intended, and I think both of those examples are successful being what they set out to be.

I also echo your concern about the audience. Thank God I didn't have that kind of behavior going on when I saw the show. It probably would have ruined the experience for me.

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 1:24pm

Mister Matt,

Yep on the audience thing. The night I went (first week of previews) people were HOWLING and screaming for everything before it happened. I hope for the show's sake that they don't have those rabid fans on the nights the reviewers are there.

La Cage,

Good review, and nicely written. I agree, with the exception of your comments on Ramirez. I just didn't buy why anyone would be in love with her.

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 1:28pm

I don't get the Swank comment at all. She was wonderful in the film - absolutely deserving of the Oscar.

[LaCageAuxFollesFan]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 2:24pm

I really do respect ALL of your opinions and like I said, the show will divide audiences, but...in my opinion the authors intentions should aim to unite and entertain all audience members, not just a minority. I think that is what happens with Spamalot.

But thank you all again for your kind words about the review writing, I enjoy it.

[Jamie Hat]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 2:32pm

I agree that the show be very love it or hate it.
I'll be curious to see how it is reviewed.

As for Ramirez, the Tony's in the bag.

[joniray]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 2:43pm

I think authors' intentions should be to write what they want to write, whatever makes them happy, or moves them, and hope that there will be an audience for it. If authors only wrote things to "unite and entertain all audience members" we wouldn't have ever gotten Caroline or Change, Sweeney Todd...hell, more than half of the Sondheim canon. West Side Story divided audiences (and critics) in its day. When you get people trying to put on a show designed to appeal to the largest audience demographic possible, you end up with shows like Good Vibrations and Dance of the Vampires.

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 2:56pm

Jamie Hat,

I'll bet you five dollars she doesn't even get a nomination.

[joniray]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 3:08pm

Not even a nomination?!?! I'll take that bet! Can we raise it a couple hundred?

(I'm really starting to wonder if you saw her on an uncharacteristically off night.)

[LaCageAuxFollesFan]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 3:11pm

TheGaIsSilent, DONT TAKE THE BET! :)

I Really do think she will get a nomination, she was really Good...BUT, Better than Maureen McGovern in LITTLE WOMEN? That is a horse race that entirely too hard to predict.

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 3:53pm

Whether she was off or not, her physical type is very strange for the part. This large, burly girl is supposed to woo all these men? I'm not knocking her physical appearance, I just think it's wrong for the role. Unless that's the joke.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 3:59pm

LaCageAuxFollesFan2: I COMPLETELY AGREE with EVERY word of your review - EXCELLENT. That's exactly how I felt, and I'm a huge fan of the movie. You got it right on the nose - fantastic.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 4:01pm

TheGaIsSilent - I think pretty much everyone will take you up on that bet. I hope you have very deep pockets. And I just don't buy how anyone could not be impressed with Ramirez's performance even if they did not like the material she was given. I'm really scratching my head on this one.

joniray - I agree with everything you said with the exception of Dance of the Vampires. I'm sure conservative Christians, who have made it abundantly clear that they are the largest (if not only) audience demographic possible, would be offended by it.

Are Broadway audience members who have not seen MP Holy Grail considered a "minority"? Perhaps, but there have been several people on this board who have not seen or did not like the film, yet enjoyed the musical.

[LaCageAuxFollesFan]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 4:11pm

munkustrap178 WE AGREE ON A SHOW? Wow - for that SPAMALOT deserves SOMETHING!

[TGIF]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 4:15pm

Agreed.

When I wrote my review I had no clue where to start because how do you review Monty Python? I still left enjoying myself, yet I recognized obvious flaws. It was a confusing feeling for me. Either way I was able to see Curry, Hyde-Pierce, and Azaria on the same stage. That was a treat.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 4:17pm

From the third row of the Schubert Theatre, she was a knockout. It wasn't difficult to believe at all. She looked stunning in her dress during The Diva's Lament. She's tall, curvacious and has quite a rack. How is that strange for the part?

[playbill_signer_05]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 4:22pm

Sorry you didn't enjoy the show. I loved it, and I agree completely with Mister Matt.

And TheGaIsSilent, you don't think Sara Ramirez was absolutely perfect as the Lady of the Lake? She is goregeous, a great actress, and her voice is awesome... she deserves a Tony.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 4:51pm

Im seeing it TOMORROW!!!!! Im excited.

[joniray]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 4:53pm

GalIsSilent: "burly girl"? Hmm. I guess what you see as a "burly girl" I see as as sexy-as-hell-voluptuous. Like a Latina Mae West. Those curves! Those lips! Please don't tell me your entire negative opinion of her is colored mostly by the fact that she doesn't physically look like those anorexic model/Hollywood types.

[TheGaIsSilent]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 4:56pm

No, joniray, not at all.

[joniray]

Posted: 3/9/05 at 5:13pm

Then why did you write - and this is the entirety of that particular post - that:

"Whether she was off or not, her physical type is very strange for the part. This large, burly girl is supposed to woo all these men? I'm not knocking her physical appearance, I just think it's wrong for the role. Unless that's the joke."

What exactly is strange about someone of her physical type wooing all those men? And why, when responding to why you don't think she'll be nominated, is criticizing her physical appearance what you come up with?