SUNSET BLVD. Reviews - Page 9

[greensgreens]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 11:03am

Seb28 said: "greensgreens said: "Are Joe and Betty actually in love in this version? ."

Yes, all the lyrics are about that.

The "direction" is justsidelining the lyrics. And the characters.

"
You must be right. People have never used love/relationships to get ahead in their career. Or thought they were in love after a one night stand or two. And we must adhere blindly to the text without any subtext at all.
 

I’m still convinced they’re not totally in love so much as they are opportunistic. Betty is looking to get ahead career wise and Joe sees her as an escape from Norma.

 

 

[CreatureKitchen]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 11:19am

greensgreens said: "Are Joe and Betty actually in love in this version?"

Even in the movie, which is more cynical, I get the sense Betty’s feelings are genuine. She breaks down crying when she admits them. She rushes to the mansion in the middle of the night to “save” Joe. She’s flirting with him throughout the movie and has fun writing with him. If Betty was a cold opportunist, why not take the script and run?

But ok, Jamie Lloyd wants everyone to be purely opportunistic. Then why does she put herself in danger to go to the mansion? Why should we care whether Joe does the right thing by telling the truth and sending her away? Why should we care that Joe’s lies and actions hurt her? If they’re not in love, even a little, surely none of that matters?

I think that is the hollowness some critics were pointing at: the aesthetic Jamie Lloyd created comes at the expense of investment in the characters. I still just kind of find it baffling how many people are saying “the best version of this story is one in which you don’t care about any of the characters”. That’s not even the experience I had watching the movie.

 

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 11:27am

I’m personally not interested in engaging in a discussion about the future of commercial theatre with you in a thread about one specific production. If you want to have that discussion, make a new thread or take your 19 post binges to Reddit where we can hide your incessant trashing of this production. (Yes, I counted. And that’s just what BWW will allow me to see in your profile.)

But if you want to know what I think about how the cardboard cutout; Pussycat Dolls picture; and gesturing to the show poster in Shubert Alley enhances the themes of Jamie Lloyd’s vision, I feel it speaks to the blatant artificiality of theatre as a comment on the Hollywood of the script. We’ve been watching bodies on stage and on screen in real time playing it all Deadly Serious, but they’re actually in on the joke and none of this is real. The illusions of the film world are no more reality than Tom Francis dying onstage every night and Nicole Scherzinger consuming his blood. They know who ALW is, where Nicole got her start, that they’re in a musical at all. It’s beyond meta and wink-wink, but it worked for me.

Updated On: 10/23/24 at 11:27 AM

[bksnbriefs]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 11:52am

ColorTheHours048 said: "I’m personally not interested in engaging in a discussion about the future of commercial theatre with you in a thread about one specific production. If you want to have that discussion, make a new thread or take your 19 post bingesto Reddit where we can hide your incessant trashing of this production. (Yes, I counted. And that’s just what BWW will allow me to see in your profile.)

But if you want to know what I think about how the cardboard cutout; Pussycat Dolls picture; and gesturing to the show poster in Shubert Alley enhances the themes of Jamie Lloyd’s vision, I feel it speaks to the blatant artificiality of theatre as a comment on the Hollywood of the script. We’ve been watching bodies on stage and on screen in real time playing it all Deadly Serious, but they’re actually in on the joke and none of this is real. The illusions of the film world are no more reality than Tom Francis dyingonstage every night and Nicole Scherzinger consuming his blood. They know who ALW is, where Nicole got her start, that they’re in a musical at all. It’s beyond meta and wink-wink, but it worked for me."

Thank you, ColorTheHours048! You've put into words - why this elevates the material - better than I ever could.   This was exactly how it felt to me.  

I would add that the only person NOT in on this joke is the CHARACTER of this production's Norma.  Even the actor playing her betrays her in that silly costume of the 1993 Norma.   I giggled at the joke.

And so when Tom Francis brings all the jokes literally from the outside world on to the stage as we animate back from intermission, the cruelty of what is about to be done to our Norma is heightened.    It's the meme, the subtweets, the remixing of cultural reference, the culture of celebrity, our post-iphone world (the pictures that got small) that have said goodbye to this production's Norma.  

I balled so hard during AIWNSG because I kinda participated in the cruelty that lead up to it?   It worked for me but I can understand how it would not work for others.  

[Seb28]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 12:13pm

ColorTheHours048 said: "what I think about the cardboard cutout; Pussycat Dolls picture; and gesturing to the show poster in Shubert Alley, I feel it speaks to the blatant artificiality of theatre"

Whatever works for you and thanks for your reply.

I think if a show needs this to make the audience understand this, something is wrong. It borders on disdain for the audience. There is a big difference between the artificiality of theatre and the story that the script is about. To me it speaks to the artificiality of this direction. And to the fear of traveling away from the suspension of disbelief, what theatre is essentially about.

 

 

Updated On: 10/23/24 at 12:13 PM

[soxboy22]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 12:15pm

I cannot wait to see how the Tony voters and critics groups react to Sunset Blvd. Will Audra and her Gypsy be able to stand up to Nicole and her Sunset Blvd.?

[Seb28]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 12:25pm

greensgreens said: "Seb28 said: "greensgreens said: "Are Joe and Betty actually in love in this version? ."

Yes, all the lyrics are about that.

The "direction" is justsidelining the lyrics. And the characters.

"
You must be right. People have never used love/relationships to get ahead in their career. Or thought they were in love after a one night stand or two.And we must adhere blindly to the text without any subtext at all.


I’m still convinced they’re not totally in love so much as they are opportunistic. Betty is looking to get ahead career wise and Joe sees her as an escape from Norma.



"

If you are suggesting that Betty's whole character, all the lyrics in the show, the songs and her declaration of love towards Joe are part of an "opportunistic plan", then it is still not right when the audience laughs at her words and wonders where the hell her words come from.

It's just bad direction.

Updated On: 10/23/24 at 12:25 PM

[mshalo18]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 12:32pm

Seb28 said: "greensgreens said: "Seb28 said: "greensgreens said: "Are Joe and Betty actually in love in this version? ."

Yes, all the lyrics are about that.

The "direction" is justsidelining the lyrics. And the characters.

"
You must be right. People have never used love/relationships to get ahead in their career. Or thought they were in love after a one night stand or two.And we must adhere blindly to the text without any subtext at all.


I’m still convinced they’re not totally in love so much as they are opportunistic. Betty is looking to get ahead career wise and Joe sees her as an escape from Norma.



"

If you are suggesting that Betty's whole character, all the lyrics in the show, the songs and her declaration of love towardsJoeare part of an "opportunistic plan", than it is still not right when the audience laughs at her words and wonders where the hell her words comefrom.

It's just bad direction."

The non-romance between Betty and Joe was the worst part of the show for me. There is zero chemistry between the characters, and when they sang TMILTC, it seemed to come out of nowhere. I can’t blame it on the actors, so I can only attribute it to the direction. 

Updated On: 10/23/24 at 12:32 PM

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 12:39pm

Breaking up all the arguing to say that the massive close-up shot of Artie crying a single tear was absolutely stunning. WHAT a face on that boy.

[Seb28]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 12:41pm

CreatureKitchen said: " But ok, Jamie Lloyd wants everyone to be purely opportunistic. Then why does she put herself in danger to go to the mansion? Why should we care whether Joe does the right thing by telling the truth and sending her away? Why should we care that Joe’s lies and actions hurt her? If they’re not in love, even a little, surely none of that matters?

I think that is the hollowness some critics were pointing at: the aesthetic Jamie Lloyd created comes at the expense of investment in the characters. I still just kind of find it baffling how many people are saying “the best version of this story is one in which you don’t care about any of the characters”. That’s not even the experience I had watching the movie.

"

Exactly! Thanks for explaining this so well. I am glad that critics are pointing this out too. All these questions are what the whole story is about. It becomes more clear to me that for many people "laughing" and "not caring about the characters" equals a successful evening. A desired hollowness.

 

[greensgreens]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 1:34pm

Seb28 said: "greensgreens said: "Seb28 said: "greensgreens said: "Are Joe and Betty actually in love in this version? ."

Yes, all the lyrics are about that.

The "direction" is justsidelining the lyrics. And the characters.

"
You must be right. People have never used love/relationships to get ahead in their career. Or thought they were in love after a one night stand or two.And we must adhere blindly to the text without any subtext at all.


I’m still convinced they’re not totally in love so much as they are opportunistic. Betty is looking to get ahead career wise and Joe sees her as an escape from Norma.



"

If you are suggesting that Betty's whole character, all the lyrics in the show, the songs and her declaration of love towardsJoeare part of an "opportunistic plan", then it is still not right when the audience laughs at her words and wonders where the hell her words comefrom.

It's just bad direction."

Nobody laughed at Betty at the performance I attended. I must’ve missed something. Just so I know, when was this happening? I saw an early preview so perhaps something was changed?

As for the character, Grace in interviews is pretty clear that this production’s intent is to make her a bit harder and opportunistic. However, folks have raised lots of great points here about the libretto and original character portrayals are not really supporting that decision. 

As much as I love the show, I do agree the staging of the title song does get goofy in parts. The best I could come up with is they wanted a few moments of levity before Norma’s madness takes hold. 

I love all this thoughtful discussion friends!!!

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 1:41pm

I think there can be aspects of a show that bring out something really thrilling and exciting, even if not all the choices work.  For some people this can still make it a good show that's worthy of going to, but for others that might just mean the whole show doesn't work and that's okay.  So if people can't answer the questions you ask to justify certain aspects, that doesn't mean it's a bad show for them--it's not a thesis defense or anything.  Not everything has to work 100% for it to be a great experience for people. 

Seb28 said: "I think if a show needs this to make the audience understand this, something is wrong. It borders on disdain for the audience. There is a big difference between the artificiality of theatre and the story that the script is about. To me it speaks to the artificiality of this direction. And to the fear of traveling away from the suspension of disbelief, what theatre is essentially about."

imo I feel like this is more about the artificiality of film (or really any performance medium, but film suits the script more, if you insist).  Plenty of theater pieces in the past have played with metatheatrical concepts and the "breaking down" of suspension of disbelief.  Maybe those aren't the parts of theater you enjoy, but that doesn't mean they're not valid theater concepts.

I do agree the Betty and Joe parts are weak.  I find it hard to believe that Betty would be opportunistic about her relationship with Joe when he has no real job and is a bit on the outs from the studio when her existing fiance is actively working on sets (albeit in Tennessee).  I can see a world where Too Much In Love is done ironically, but not with the characters as presented in this production--and I think it's quite astute to point out that lack of emotional investment in Betty/their relationship does take away from the Joe "breaking up" with her to protect her too. 

[BroadwayLuv2]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 1:45pm

Has anyone tried in-person rush for this?  Where were the seats? 

[WldKingdomHM]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 1:47pm

Friend won the lotto for tonight. Seats …balcony 

[CreatureKitchen]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 2:08pm

I think, ultimately, this is a matter of priorities, and what people want the show to prioritize.

Betty being more opportunistic reinforces the bleakness of Hollywood and adds some interest to her character as an individual. But, as I said, it doesn't really gel with her actions in the libretto and her relationship with Joe loses any impact. It also lowers the stakes of the ending and you don't get that glimmer of hope before everything comes crashing down ("two people, both risking a kind of happy ending").
The Act II opening highlights Jamie Lloyd's vision and masterfully showcases the artificiality of Hollywood. But the gags and meta references also obscure the meaning of the song, both because it's hard to absorb the lyrics with so much going on, and because the audience is laughing over them much of the time. Ironically, as bloated with spectacle as the original production was, that moment has always been staged simply and is a good character moment for Joe. The reprise of that number creates a beautiful stage picture with the ensemble members, but it also obfuscates what should be a tense moment between Betty and Joe.  

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 3:18pm

Any opinions on how Mandy plays Norma compared to Nicole and her chemistry with Tom Francis?

[OhHiii]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 4:03pm

Sorry, but the title number is a total stinker lyrically and the melody is crunchy as hell. When I saw the 2017 revival, couldn't wait for it to end. Joe just dressing himself after a swim in the pool really put the focus on the song. This production was the first time I've enjoyed it. Whether that be due to the distraction of the staging or not, the number worked for me for the first time. Same with a few others that are typically just fluff getting us from WIth One Look to Goodbye. To me, Jamie knew where and when he needed to deploy more to make up for the lesser moments of the score and book.

For me, the distance between Joe and Betty was purposeful. This production's Joe is an opportunistic f*ckboy. Betty pulls him out of it at some points, but ultimately he sees her as a means of escaping Norma. Grace is excellent in her scenes especially with the magnifying effect of the screen. Her intensity/vulnerability really shone through.

It's baffling to me that people can't understand the concept/refuse to even engage in it. The concept is clear. The show is about the underbelly of Hollywood as much as it is about a faded star that it chewed up and spit out. Jamie Lloyd put making a movie on stage. The opening and end credits make that crystal clear. A framing device...novel I know.

At the end of the day, the word of mouth is overwhelmingly positive, sales are looking especially strong after opening. Nicole is likely walking away with the Tony. The haters will continue to crap all over the production (they're already repeating the same critiques over and over and over as though it isn't proving the point so many of us have been making.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 5:23pm

Seb28 said: "To me it shows they don't care. They care about seeing a popstar. Nothing else. Just like the director does. This is not saying they can't have that opinion, they can love it, it is just calling out facts."

I don't think you're going to get fruitful discussion when you express this kind of low-key contempt for those who like this production more than you did.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 6:20pm

greensgreens said: "Seb28 said: "greensgreens said: "Seb28 said: "greensgreens said: "Are Joe and Betty actually in love in this version? ."

Yes, all the lyrics are about that.

The "direction" is justsidelining the lyrics. And the characters.

"
You must be right. People have never used love/relationships to get ahead in their career. Or thought they were in love after a one night stand or two.And we must adhere blindly to the text without any subtext at all.


I’m still convinced they’re not totally in love so much as they are opportunistic. Betty is looking to get ahead career wise and Joe sees her as an escape from Norma.



"

If you are suggesting that Betty's whole character, all the lyrics in the show, the songs and her declaration of love towardsJoeare part of an "opportunistic plan", then it is still not right when the audience laughs at her words and wonders where the hell her words comefrom.

It's just bad direction."

Nobody laughed at Betty at the performance I attended. I must’ve missed something. Just so I know, when was this happening? I saw an early preview so perhaps something was changed?

As for the character, Grace in interviews is pretty clear that this production’s intent is to make her a bit harder and opportunistic. However, folks have raised lots of great points here about the libretto and original character portrayals are not really supporting that decision.

As much as I love the show, I do agree the staging of the title song does get goofy in parts. The best I could come up with is they wanted a few moments of levity before Norma’s madness takes hold.

I love all this thoughtful discussion friends!!!"

Nobody laughed at Betty at any of the 3 performances that I saw either, so I have no idea what some of these people are blabbering about. 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 6:24pm

CreatureKitchen said: "I think, ultimately, this is a matter of priorities, and what people want the show to prioritize.

Betty being more opportunistic reinforces the bleakness of Hollywood and adds some interest to her character as an individual. But, as I said, it doesn't really gel with her actions in the libretto and her relationship with Joe loses any impact. It also lowers the stakes of the ending and you don't get that glimmer of hope before everything comes crashing down("two people, both risking a kind of happy ending").
The Act II opening highlights Jamie Lloyd's vision and masterfully showcases the artificiality of Hollywood. But the gags and meta references also obscure the meaning of the song, both because it's hard to absorb the lyrics with so much going on, and because the audience islaughing over them much of the time. Ironically, as bloated with spectacle as the original production was, that moment has always been staged simply and is a good character moment for Joe. The reprise of that number creates a beautiful stage picture with the ensemble members, but it also obfuscates what should be a tense moment between Betty and Joe."

There are no lyrics sung in the title song until he steps outside the theatre. The backstage portion has zero singing. Just music. 

[spicemonkey]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 6:27pm

kdogg36 said: "Seb28 said: "To me it shows they don't care. They care about seeing a popstar. Nothing else. Just like the director does. This is not saying they can't have that opinion, they can love it, it is just calling out facts."

I don't think you're going to get fruitful discussion when you express this kind of low-key contempt for those who like this production more than you did."

Exactly 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 6:29pm

Nobody laughed at Betty either time I saw it, either, and I agree with the earlier post that the title song has never been staged particularly well until now, and I'm a fan of the show since the 90s.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 6:31pm

PipingHotPiccolo said: "MusicalGuy3 said: "Mandy is giving her own wonderful/dazzling performance. Wow!"

Audios abound, and Mandy sounds good, but her delivery only confirms the bizarre manner with which Lloyd is directing these ladies. I land on the side of this hurting, undermining, the show as a whole, even if its entertaining as a concert, but to each their own.

Its funny how people insist something is great and "works" and "slays" but then cant back it up with any explanation/clarification. Enjoying a performance is one thing, explaining how it makes sense/elevates material/moves an audience, is another."

It has already been explained by multiple critics who gave it rave reviews, as well as by multiple posters on this board. There is no reason to further try to explain anything to certain haters in this board. 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 6:33pm

Seb28 said: "binau said: "It’s the minds that are small."

I don't think this is fair. You don't have to accuse people who dislike this production of being small-minded.

There are people who enjoy conceit and there are people who enjoy sincerity.

It can also be argued that taking people deliberately out of the story is bad directing. Laughing at your leads in the most serious scenes and laughing at serious story lines is not for everyone. But indeed, some people seem to like that. In any case if there's a limitation of the mind, this fits that description better.

And like CreatureKItchen said:

"My issueisthat Jamie Lloyd seems completely disinterested in what the musical is, except as a vehicle for his concept. Hecares about the live video aesthetic, and Nicole's performance, and not much else. I think the dynamics between the characters and the actual plot are sidelined for that overarching concept."

I agree, and thereforeI think Jamie Lloyd's vision is extremely small-minded.

"

The authors disagree with you. How do you feel about that???

[CreatureKitchen]

Posted: 10/23/24 at 7:13pm

Matt Rogers said: "The authors disagree with you. How do you feel about that???"

I understand the tone of some of the 'haters' in this thread has been smug and obnoxious, but I have really tried to be even-keeled in my comments, give Jamie Lloyd credit for the very intentional choices he is making, and explain why some of them don't work for me. There really isn't a need to come at me like 'haha gotcha!!!'
As for your comment, I think ALW and the show's writers are clearly open to alternate interpretations of their work, as they should be. I also appreciate a lot of the big swings this production takes, even if I haven't talked about that here (my comments are not a full review, nor are they obligated to be). Also, on a practical level, ALW would be very foolish not to endorse a production of his that's got a lot of buzz behind it.