Posted: 11/2/16 at 11:36pm
That ending sounds chilling. Is it impactful, or are you just really good at making it sound that way?
Posted: 11/2/16 at 11:41pm
Thanks, Whizzer. I figured that might be the case. So nothing spectacular, even given the small space. Bergasse often hires cute chorus boys! 
Posted: 11/2/16 at 11:43pm
But is it worth it to see Sutton. She has not been on broadway for a while too?
Posted: 11/2/16 at 11:48pm
Ha, I found it very moving! Plus, Sutton really knows how to have the rug pulled out from under her and go from happy-go-lucky to lost and bewildered. For once she's not the bravest individual and taps into some real vulnerability. She wisely doesn't oversell the moment (tears and all that crap), which only makes it more emotional.
Posted: 11/2/16 at 11:51pm
The ending sounds thrilling. I'd also love to hear more about Emily Padgett!
Posted: 11/2/16 at 11:57pm
Hensley was good. I don't think he'll ever be the funniest Oscar, but he killed the final scene with Charity. His singing of the title song was heartfelt.
Padgett was a riot and sounded terrific. I strongly disliked the Side Show revival (through no fault of her), but enjoyed her a lot in Bright Star and think she's even better here.
Posted: 11/3/16 at 12:00am
Thanks for answering all of our questions, Whizzer! Was the Soliloquy bossa nova style like the original with choreography or like Applegate's revival sung alone backstage?
Posted: 11/3/16 at 12:06am
The Soliloquy was performed on the ballroom dance floor with all the other girls and customers dancing with Charity and each other. This revival isn't taking any cues from the Applegate revival. I think it's trying to pay tribute to the original, but in a stripped down setting.
Posted: 11/3/16 at 12:08am
Great to hear that you liked Padgett. She's one of my favorite actresses, I'm thrilled she's getting all of this exciting work.
That's interesting. And it seems like the goal is to transfer? What available theatre do you think it would work best in?
Posted: 11/3/16 at 12:11am
This seems promising! I love how it sounds pretty true to the original production.
Updated On: 11/3/16 at 12:11 AM
Posted: 11/3/16 at 12:12am
CindersGolightly said: "Great to hear that you liked Padgett. She's one of my favorite actresses, I'm thrilled she's getting all of this exciting work.
That's interesting. And it seems like the goal is to transfer? What available theatre do you think it would work best in?
"
Circle!!!
Posted: 11/3/16 at 12:21am
How's the use of the space? I mean, are set pieces moved on and off, or is it all done with just chairs?
Posted: 11/3/16 at 8:11am
^ I am wondering the same thing in regards to the set. I am going on Sunday night, and I can't wait!
Posted: 11/3/16 at 9:49am
I'm very excited about this!
Were any understudies listed on the playbill?
Posted: 11/3/16 at 9:49am
That "new" ending gets me thinking...many folks hear "Big Spender" or "If My Friends Could See Me Now" and assume Sweet Charity is a feel-good musical comedy, you know...but it's actually a pretty sad story! I wonder how many other shows have this same issue.
Posted: 11/3/16 at 9:50am
"No brass. Sweet Charity with no brass. "
I wish we had emojis here so I could share the face I just made. YIKES.
Posted: 11/3/16 at 12:09pm
I liked the short reprise of "You should see yourself" added to the end. It gives a little more of a clear arc to Charity. When we hear the full song at the beginning, it's Charity telling this jerk how fabulous he is. After everything she's gone through, I felt like that last reprise goes from her finally calling out the men who have treated her so badly ("You should SEE yourself, hey, get a mirror, man"
to--maybe this sounds corny--her "seeing" herself, standing up for herself, looking for something in herself and not in all these guys. That's what was communicated to me in Sutton's performance, anyway.
Posted: 11/3/16 at 2:06pm
That's not cheesy at all. It's actually very beautiful, and it sounds like Sutton is already so fully realized as Charity. What a treat.
Posted: 11/3/16 at 2:40pm
So is Shuler's Oscar a bumbling, sweet but neurotic nerd? Or something else? I'm really curious.
Posted: 11/3/16 at 3:03pm
His Oscar (by default) reads differently from others I've seen; older and, well, more physically different from the other guys Charity's been around with. He's sadder, in a way. There's a different kind of loneliness. In other versions of Sweet Charity, I've found Oscar's obsession with purity less interesting as just another of his neurotic tendencies than it is as a larger social factor that ends up ruining the relationship. Charity is stuck in the old virgin/slut dichotomy, and even with this seemingly sweet man, she can't just be seen as neither--can't be seen as just herself.
But Shuler's Oscar definitely seems like a man who has lived a long time with being very mentally troubled. It makes you wonder what has happened in his life that has made him so frightened of so many things; that won't let him connect. He's an older guy who seems very badly to want to find something he lost, or something to do with childhood. Just the feeling I got.
I don't mean to say he's not funny; he got plenty of laughs in the elevator scene. And he is very sweet when he sings the title song. But he feels less like a simple lovable nerd in the mold of, say, handsome John McMartin in the movie. It felt a bit darker to me. I was more aware of how possessive the character is, and how much he's inventing HIS version of this girl. This is aided by the staging of his final scene and the moment when Charity falls into the pond a second time, which really needs to be clarified, but is done in a non-literal way that feels quite sinister and sad.
Updated On: 11/3/16 at 03:03 PM
Posted: 11/3/16 at 3:15pm
I like this description of Hensley's performance. The character has sometimes felt a little undercooked- is he a white-knighting misogynist "nice guy?" Mentally ill in a way we hadn't quite named in the 1960s? Just an awkward nerd?
It seems they're making a brave choice allowing a realistically, well, disturbed Oscar.
Posted: 11/3/16 at 3:23pm
I hasten to say that a lot of this might just be me really leaning in looking for the Downtown touch, but the production is more interesting the more I think about it.
I had seen a production where all of Charity's beaus were played by the same guy, which I thought worked very well. Like she keeps doing the same thing. Here, I was confused because Joel Perez is cast in many male roles, including Charlie and Big Daddy and Vittorio and Herman, but NOT Oscar. Maybe the idea is that it really feels like Oscar is going to be different from all the other men who come into her life, romantically or not. He looks different in her eyes. And then, when that doesn't work out--when he breaks her heart while insisting he's "saving" her-- it's even worse. Thinking about how their last moment together is staged again.
Man, wish I could see this a second time!
Updated On: 11/3/16 at 03:23 PM
Posted: 11/3/16 at 3:28pm
I'm glad they aren't trying to ignore Bob Fosse and his imprortant contributions to the piece. The last revival had many thinking Charity was a bad show in general, which really peeved me at the time. It's one of my favorite musicals and this production seems the be getting so much right. Maybe the brass would simply be too overwhelming in that small space? Though much of the score relies heavily on it and gives it a pulse.
