Broadway Legend Joined: 11/9/04
ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "WOAH, that brassy score sounded stellar in a theatre built for jazz. Kicking myself that I didn’t accidentallyturn on my voice memos app ;)
It's an unevenly written show with lots more good than bad, and Iliked it much better than two of the other "forgotten musicals" recently onstage, Baker's Wife and Bat Boy (haven't seen Chess yet).I know the choir is a “thing” for Mastervoices, but maybe Guareneeds to look at slimming down the cast (but not the band!!!!) if they actually want a future life for the show, thegreek chorus-style commentary might be unnecessary. This also felt much more professionally mounted than other things I’ve seen by Mastervoices (their STRIKE UP THE BAND at Carnegie Hall was one of the worst things I saw on stage last year).
Esparza was predictably sublime, and brought way more to the role vocally than John Lithgow. You just love to hate him, and he appeared to be having a blast as the villain. High kicks at 55!! Ali Louis Bourzgui is a special talent.Noah Ricketts vocally was also a vast improvement over Jack Noseworthy on the cast album. Maybe Lizzy McAlpine is only good with a few months of prep? I didn’t like her at all the first time I saw Floyd Collins in previews, but saw it later in the run and was really taken by her performance.
The JJ and Sydney relationship kept making me think about Mamdani’s chummy press conference with Trump.
The ending felt a little toothless. Maybe too optimistic for the two hours that came before it.
"
I think Sidney should die. And honestly, I thought we were about to get Susan pulling the trigger. Now THAT is an ending I'd like.
I was there Saturday, and the score was so stunningly executed, the sharp staging made a persuasive case. I found it part Loesser - the lush stuff between Susan and Dallas but also part Cy Coleman, the edgier midcentury urbanity. A friend felt the engendered emotion was slightly oppositional to the musical's goals: when the melodic lines underscore earnest intention in characters, satire and brittle sheen in the story can disappear. Of course, that's often true in musicals: as soon as a heart is worn on a sleeve melodically, intellectual distance is harder to produce in an audience. The jazzy score is atypical for this tunesmith, though I did chuckle to myself at "Dirt," which builds like a certain one word finale in Hamlisch's best known work. Has anyone else noticed that the hook in the haunting "At the Fountain" is eerily the same as "Momma, Look Sharp"?
On the plot: If JJ can be reduced to an organized crime syndicate capo, the whole point of the piece implodes. His venom is in the pen, in his MO: Williams' famous intentional cruelty. Once he crosses the blurred line into pure evil, the story loses its teeth. If a columnist with almost absolute power needs to kill to sustain his grip on the culture, melodrama takes over. It cheapens a satire, which to be relevant to today - and these creatives want that - skewers the basis of social media: instant cancellation. If murder is required, everyone in the audience can say: "Hey, that's not me on Instagram or Facebook (or Broadway World dot com)." Isn't the eerie timelessness applicable to 2025 only by holding a mirror up to our ability to destroy lives on these sites, sans weaponry other than a laptop?
The homoerotic dominance and submission in both the original film and the Broadway production were often remarked on; I think I read somewhere that a scene in which it's implied JJ forced Sidney to perform sexual services on him was written and cut, and they got as close as they could in the screenplay to at least implying it happened.
It's the sort of thing that might play as homophobic in a show today... except that similar debate is happening in the news as we speak about what happened with somebody called Bubba. Not to mention that Succession, commonly considered one of the greatest television shows of all time, spent YEARS dancing around the question of whether Tom was using sex as part of his domination of Cousin Greg (before ultimately revealing in a throwaway line that yes, Greg was subjected to sexual torture and humiliation at the hands of both Tom and foreign investors).
My two companions and I all thought the homoerotic element in JJ and Sidney was front and center with this cast's interpretation, if not always illustrated in the staging (an unfair ask, since nailing the plot is tricky enough with this piece with 2 weeks of rehearsal; subtext would have to be mined in performance). The emotional incest angle certainly makes JJ a bit of a damaged puppy, and "For Susan," a scary stalker paean, nails how pervasive the obsession has become. In Esparza's hands, JJ is like Roy Cohn in Angels, a man whose internal self-loathing is projected outward. It was a great performance, and if the show were remounted with him - unlikely - he'd get some of the best notices of his career. Now in his mid-50s, Esparza blends character actor and leading man effortlessly, and here his charisma was absolute.
When I saw the musical (via bootleg), my biggest questions were “Is Susan JJ’s illegitimate daughter, and is he sleeping with her/outright molesting her?”
I was surprised neither one had a last minute reveal.
Broadway Star Joined: 4/13/13
The homoerotic aspect with JJ and Sidney definitely felt present in this version. Pretty early on too.
For the ending, I don’t think it’s as sentimental or optimistic at it sounds on paper. It’s made pretty clear that Sidney getting the column will destroy him in the end. Still felt true to the noir genre. Everyone’s destroyed by what they want.
Maybe not Susan but Dallas is at least scarred for life if not killed ?
Glad to hear this has been well received. Man, I want to hear this newly included material. Auggie nailed it for me describing the score as sounding like Coleman at his jazziest with Loesser. I hope plans to license this version come to fruition (though I can’t imagine it being done often, I think it still could work with a smaller chorus as I know a university production did.)
EricMontreal22 said: "I think it still could work with a smaller chorus as I know a university production did.)"
To be clear the chorus element was only for this production...the original had 21 in the onstage cast, which is fairly normal.
Kind of surprised at the lack of publicity this got. There haven’t even been photos or videos shared to the theatre news sites.
EricMontreal22 said: "Man, I want to hear this newly included material."
Taking all the creators' talk at face value that the material performed here was closer to what got initially workshopped, the musical's demo recording theoretically should (at least textually) get you within kissing distance.
We enjoyed Raul, Ali and especially Lizzie. It was well produced. It would be great to see a full production with Raul and Lizzie but with different direction and choreography. The final evening the backing chorus was a beat before or after the beat at times - we couldn't tell if they could not see the conductor/director.
Updated On: 11/26/25 at 12:52 AM
Wonder if this is a show that would hypothetically benefit from a Jamie Lloyd-style treatment? Or a more period-specific “Sam Gold emulating Ivo” thing. It’s a much better musical than SUNSET imo, but without the “slay diva” moments.
Reading through this thread and I'm disappointed that I didn't go. I had advance casting intel but even with that had to weigh purchasing a not very discounted ticket or using that $$ towards an espresso machine and the espresso machine won out and is being delivered today. I'll be well caffeinated for Ali's next gig now at least.
Videos