Scherzinger in SUNSET BLVD. Previews — Page 11

PipingHotPiccolo said: "TBFL said: "

Norma Desmond is meant to be 'an aging mess'? That's news to me. Looking at all the others before her, Patti, Glenn, Betty etc, not a single one of them looked an aging mess with all the kaftan, turbans and jewellery they wore.

Also, all the above actresses were mid to late 40's when they played the role, the same as Scherzinger is now.

And Why do people who dislike a show always have to put down those that enjoyed it? It's some weird superioty complex. The need to be seen as more knowledgeable about it than anyone else. Weird."

We can agree to disagree on the first point- i dont know whether youre suggesting Norma isnt supposed to be "aging" or isnt supposed to be a "mess" but i think shes absolutely meant to be both, and certainly thats how Glenn Close played her in the clips I have seen. But I admit my unfamiliarity with the work prior to last night, so if Normas not meant to be a delusional recluse who is past her Hollywood prime, chalk my confusion up to yet another plot point that got muddled.

As for the final point- i certainly did not mean to criticize anyone for enjoying this show- in fact, I thought I had made clear that I enjoyed quite a bit of it. And i definitely did not intend to appear more knowledgeable than anyone, in fact, my point was the opposite- i didnt know what was going on because i went in with less knowledge that the other posters on this board. Thepost above mine stated that some people will "get it" and some of us won't- I guess I didn't."

Dude. The point of the story and musical, and especially this production, is that women over the age of 40 (and probably younger now) are getting pushed aside for more youthful women. The internet and social media has only made that worse. I mean, women have been getting this forever but it's not getting any better as the age of "feminine desirability" in all things gets younger and younger.

(Not that the musical touches this, but the difference now is that men are being somewhat subjected to it as well).

I appreciate the discussion about the various meanings of Lloyd’s choices, however my takeaway is that Lloyd didn’t apply much logic to his decisions but went with feelings. Yes, there were moments that made me scratch my head whenever I thought about them logically. And yet, for me, even with those moments, the evening added up to a spectacular whole. The more I start to think about the piece, the more I tried to focus on the feelings and the emotions of each beat and less about the logic. Doing this has helped me appreciate it more.


I don’t believe Lloyd set out to apply a specific technique or framework to the piece. I think he tried to open up its rawness and desperation. All of these characters are in a lot of pain.


Lastly, at the end of the show — the final scene — I saw Max as Dr. Frankenstein and Norma as his monster. It was as though Joe was one more victim for Norma to feed upon. Perhaps Max knew this was how it would turn out and that he didn’t care and knew he could still protect Norma in this secluded mansion. We never saw reporters or police nor were there any references to them beyond the body bag at the start of the show.

HasBeen1947 said: "When I saw this in London, during the final scene I noticed Max standing upstage weeping. My interpretation was that he was horrified bythe "monster" he had created and was taking blame for her madness. Interesting to read other interpretations."

Long time Lurking... I saw the show twice in London and the first Broadway preview. Big fan.

There is also an important issue about the weeping and it parallels Salomé/Herodes relationship (at least in Strauss' opera) and that is molestation. Watching JLL's version, the hint of molestation is very present (the young Norma, especially) throughout the musical. Norma is a monster created by some trauma, the way she behaves when a camera starts rolling is a clear indication that there is something there more than just a has been diva. I think the use of young Norma is very unsettling throughout the musical (and genius).

Going later this month. What's cut besides "The Lady's Paying"? It's the most expendable number, but I do like the score as a whole, and hope it hasn't been too diluted. It's a vivid piece of world building, capturing mid-century L.A. and the Havisham-like sealed off lair of Desmond.

I'm also not completely convinced the title song sequence is necessary, but it's fun andI just can't help imagining how thrilling it would be if they put up the show at the Pantages in LA (that sits on Hollywood Boulevard), though I doubt this would tour (unless Nicole feels like doing a stint in LA)."

It's been rumored the current leads will be taking SUNSET to Los Angeles after NYC.

I just got out

PSA DO NOT SIT REAR CENTER BALCONY YOU WILL BE CONSTANTLY LOOKING AROUND SOMEONE’S HEAD. EVERYONE NEAR ME WAS HAVING THE SAME EXPERIENCE AND WE BONDED OVER IT AT INTERMISSION. TRULY ONE OF THE WORST BROADWAY SEATS IVE SAT IN.

That said I liked it a lot. Scherzinger is as fantastic as they say. Her voice is unparalleled honestly. I still don’t buy that she’s someone who’s “past her prime.” I know I know Hollywood isn’t kind women over like 30 but still, you don’t cringe with her flirting with Joe. It’s hot. He’s also great, as is Max. Betty had some moments where her Britishness was coming thru…. The camera work makes Artie much more of a presence as above people were saying. I liked that it makes this show really two parallel love triangles.


The title song gimmick was ridiculous but guess what I loved it.

Skip23 said: "Matt Rogers said: "Just saw it. It’s amazing. It’s ridiculous. It’s amazing. It’s ridiculous . I can’t decide!!!!"


Oh I CAN!


Great. What’s your review? Did I miss it?

Yes, the orchestra is large and the arias are incredible. However, the rest of the score is often sung in a brutish fashion - especially the ensemble. It’s fantastic when seen in context, but it’s not “pretty” and a lot of things are cut/trimmed (dance breaks, the two aforementioned songs, and bits here and there). The upcoming recording will be great for Nicole’s songs, but I am relieved we have so many other recordings that capture the beauty of the Webber score.

greensgreens said: "Yes, the orchestra is largeand the arias are incredible. However, the rest of the score is often sung in a brutish fashion - especially the ensemble. It’s fantastic when seen in context, but it’s not “pretty” and a lot of things are cut/trimmed (dance breaks, the two aforementioned songs, and bitshere and there). The upcoming recording will be great for Nicole’s songs, but I am relieved we have so many other recordings that capture the beauty of the Webber score."

To be fair from the OBCR I pretty much only listen to Norma, Max and the title song. I think the score is excellent in context but doesn’t shine as brightly on an album

To me Norma, at the end of the show, is less a monster and more of a trapped animal. And there are multiple reasons for her being trapped including the fact she's doing it to herself. But the evolving world has also trapped her and when her two routes of Escape are abruptly, forever closed off to her, like any trapped animal, she attacks (thus the blood from her mouth to her neck showing that she has torn Joe to pieces).

Here's the thing about Scherzinger supposedly being "miscast" because she's hot and not past her prime: a person can be physically attractive and past their professional prime. Look at Britney Spears: a "hot" woman who is long past her prime as a pop princess. Before she got out of that conservatorship her life was not unlike Norma Desmond: trapped in a mansion and struggling emotionally. Gloria Swanson was a beautiful and youthful looking woman.

The older woman/younger man dynamic looks less grotesque to modern audiences because our culture has changed its attitude towards those relationships. It probably won't play as creepy to us. Norma is not Fosca in Passion, for all her delusions.

The Spears analogy is pretty apt. Who doesn't question whether she might still be struggling mentally with all the nutso stuff she posts on Instagram. .

SonofRobbieJ said: "She may be a pitiable figure, but she's not to be pitied. She is a vampire, sucking the blood out of Gillis (in this case, his writing talent) and when he tries to break the spell, she destroys him."

Yeah, I agree Jamie Lloyd has shifted Norma's characterization back to a modernized version of her movie characterization. But I don't know that that works for the musical? The Norma we see in the movie is not a character that sings. She wouldn't open up about how frightened she is, or how she doesn't want to be alone. She's more of a cautionary tale than a person, whereas I always felt musical Norma was a person. Musicals call for their lead to have some emotional vulnerability and to let us in as the audience through song.

If Norma isn't the "way in" in this production, then it needs to be Joe. Or even Betty. Joe never seems like a young man who's gotten in completely over his head with Norma--he just seems detached and bitter. As others have said, making the visible age gap between Norma and Joe so much less noticeable (and aging down Norma to 40) doesn't help, because the age difference and power dynamic show how unprepared Joe is for the situation he's wandered into and elicits some sympathy. If Betty is the "way in", well, she only seems interested in using Joe for his script and also doesn't elicit much sympathy, and her love for Joe happens so out of the blue it never feels genuine. Artie is a bland nothingburger and a minor character, no matter how much this production tries to emphasize his part and make him the one we can connect with.

TL;DR It's a musical, which inherently demands more emotional vulnerability than a noir film. If this production wants Norma to be a campy monster, then it needs to give the audience someone else to connect to, and it didn't for me.