Scherzinger in SUNSET BLVD. Previews- Page 12

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 12:08pm

I think the real divide here is between audience members who require some level of literalism in their theatre, and ones who are on board with experimentation and non-literalism. If you want the original production, watch a bootleg.

Also, if you want to see how a beautiful woman can act like an absolute nut job with little awareness of reality, may I point you in the direction of Kelly Bensimon: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP88JnYyL/

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 12:31pm

Thanks for the update on the score. I see that the album drops on Spotify on October 25th; the title tune is up now, and well sung indeed. And the score is mostly intact, from the preview track listing. I'm excited to be seeing the show on the 21st.

[Bwaygurl2]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 12:40pm

ColorTheHours048 said: "I think the real divide here is between audience members who require some level of literalism in their theatre, and ones who are on board with experimentation and non-literalism. 

THANK YOU. It is so frustrating/disappointing to see theater lovers (here and elsewhere online) say things like "this production doesn't make sense it says 1949 but she has an ipad ...Los Angeles in 49 doesn't look like NYC in 2024!!! It makes no sense!" I would expect this attitude from people who don't like theater but I expect fans to be more literate and understand that theater doesn't have to be literal to be truthful. Y'all accept people singing dialogue but everything else has to be literal? 

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 12:55pm

Mellony said: "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."

I don't disagree with your assessment at all. But what you've outlined is exactly why I think the musical isn't very good. Wilder told Sondheim that Sunset Boulevard couldn't be a musical...it had a to be an opera. And I fully agree with this. If grand singing is the only form of communication within the story, then you lessen the problem of 'when your emotions are too big for speaking you SING' theory of musical theater. As you pointed out, it opens the character up to an empathy that's difficult to reconcile with the actual story being told. 

The reason this production works for me is because it firmly pulls the piece back towards the film. Even if every single choice doesn't support it, I feel like it gets enough right to make it utterly compelling. 

[Mellony]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 12:56pm

ColorTheHours048 said: "I think the real divide here is between audience members who require some level of literalism in their theatre, and ones who are on board with experimentation and non-literalism.”

FWIW, Jamie Lloyd’s Evita was one of my favorite productions of Evita I’ve ever seen. Another show with a largely unlikeable protagonist, but I think his modern style made the character feel more immediate and easier to connect with. She certainly wasn’t likeable, nor should she be, but the symbolism and non-literalism of the direction allowed the audience into her mind. So I’m certainly not against the style, I just feel it had a distancing effect in this particular instance.

 

EDIT: To SonofRobbieJ’s point, that’s an excellent point and I think gets at why people who dislike the musical dislike it. You lose some of the film’s bite and cynicism, and it becomes more sentimental, which the film never was. But that is also not uncommon with musical adaptations: Fosca is far more monstrous in the movie Passion is based on, Sweeney Todd was a mindless murderer but the musical chose to use the version of him with a tragic backstory. Because, again, they need to be able to sing, and that involves having an internally that they can express. Also, like I said, I don’t so much have an issue with Norma returning to her more monstrous roots, but that would necessitate Jamie Lloyd giving the audience a “way in” through one of the other leads, and they seem equally cold and closed off.

 

Updated On: 10/9/24 at 12:56 PM

[EvanstonDad]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 2:55pm

ColorTheHours048 said: "I think the real divide here is between audience members who require some level of literalism in their theatre, and ones who are on board with experimentation and non-literalism.”

FWIW, Jamie Lloyd’s Evita was one of my favorite productions of Evita I’ve ever seen. Another show with a largely unlikeable protagonist, but I think his modern style made the character feel more immediate and easier to connect with. She certainly wasn’t likeable, nor should she be, but the symbolism and non-literalism of the direction allowed the audience into her mind. So I’m certainly not against the style, I just feel it had a distancing effect in this particular instance.

Yeah, I would be careful about making sweeping assumptions that the reason this show is divisive is due to those who like literalism vs. those that don't. Again, haven't seen it, only seen a short segment of it. But if that segment is representative of the show overall, it makes me question whether I would like it. I'm not resistant to non-literal storytelling in any format. It's just that the abstractness of this production just looked silly to me, and didn't seem to be married well to the material. Some ways of telling particular stories just work better than others. But hey, I'm always open to an intriguing experiment, and I'd rather see something that goes for it but crashes and burns any day over something that plays it safe and is dully enjoyable.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 3:19pm

If you think the clips released of it look silly, I doubt the production itself would make you think otherwise. And I’m not insulting anyone by saying there seems to be a divide between people who prefer literalism vs. not. There’s no right or wrong; it’s a matter of personal preference. But if you want a literal presentation of Sunset Boulevard, or even one that “makes sense” in the context of how the musical is written on the page, you’re not going to get it with this revival. For that, there’s a movie and bootlegs.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 3:52pm

After thinking about it for a week, I think what it comes down to is that I was very intellectually stimulated and interested in this show while watching it but not as much emotionally so.  Of course the caveat is that I was way up in the back of the balcony where it felt a bit removed and that the Jamie Lloyd style of expressionless acting from the ensemble in this show didn't fully work for me (despite thinking it was very effective in Doll's House), so I assume others might've had a higher level of emotional satisfaction.  But while I was watching the show I was feeling like I had to piece together each directorial choice and figure out how it led to the larger vision (and what the larger vision really was).  Which was still fun and an interesting experience to undergo during the show (and a lot more fulfilling than the R+J production I had seen the night before).  But I was able to connect less with the characters overall and while I was able to connect with Norma's desperation in a sense, I didn't *feel* it as much as I was expecting to, and overall I wasn't as blown away by the experience as some of the other people on this thread.

I think it all comes together on paper with some really interesting ideas, but I just felt there was a bit of emotional distance or a disconnect.  I'd definitely want to see it again though, ideally from a closer seat, just to see if maybe I would feel more immersed after getting a better sense of the overall ideas and aesthetics.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 5:58pm

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

Having slept on it after seeing it last night, ‘ve decided that is was both amazing and ridiculous. I honestly can’t stop thinking about it. There are so many gonzo WTF moments that this ended up being one of the most entertaining things I’ve seen in a long time. I need to go back. Maybe several times. 
 

This got at least three mid-show standing ovations, something I have never seen before. From my left mezzanine seat, the orchestra sounded huge and gorgeous, and the leads sing the hell out of it. 
 

I don’t know if the whole minimalist thing would have been my first choice for this and I also do not get the modern costumes for something that is set in the 1940’s, but it is what it is. I thought the video projections were brilliant, and the opening of Act Two is worth the price of admission. 
 

PS to the St. James - If you make a big deal about how the show will start promptly at 8 and there will be no late entries allowed, please do not start the show at 8:15, especially since you make a big deal that if you exit to use the restroom or for any reason, you will not be allowed back until intermission. 

[CreatureKitchen]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 6:15pm

Hey, I'm the one who was complaining about the dates not making sense, and I get I was being annoying and pedantic. The last few commenters have been pretty detailed about what isn't working for them, though, which seems to come down to not connecting emotionally with either the characters or the show. Wanting emotional impact isn't the same as demanding literalism. I've only seen video of the production, so I can't judge it myself, but I think it's fair to point out these criticisms aren't totally random. As I said in the weekly grosses thread, the show got great overall reviews, but there were still a handful of WE critics who noticed the exact things being said in this thread. Spoilering for length:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Variety:
"Scherzinger plays both to the audience and the camera with elaborate knowingness. She’s at least as arch as the character, but since Lloyd rarely lets her relax it’s hard to empathize. That’s a problem too for Francis’s Gillis, who is so busy being sour and hardbitten that it risks monotony. It’s near impossible to see what Grace Hodgett Young’s excellent Betty sees in him."

The Guardian: 
"Meanwhile, characters are inscrutable and we cannot access their emotions. Lloyd employs the same overt non-naturalism as in his revival of The Seagull, so actors often speak directly to us with understated expressions. Where the technique hypnotised us then, it feels distancing now. Joe (Tom Francis) seems like a cypher, deadpan for too long."

iNews:
"Her performance is big on ethereal aura, melodramatic arm gestures and hair-swishing, but she is less skilled at suggesting any interesting interiority for Norma."

CityAM:
But her Desmond struggles to find  emotional depth, instead leaning heavily into the script’s meta tendencies, especially in the first half, too often making a laugh out of a line rather than seeing it through with resonant acting.

The Times:
"At the start of Act Two, we see Tom Francis, as the doomed screenwriter Joe Gillis, make his way from his dressing room to the stage, passing through corridors before he enters the auditorium via a door in the stalls. It’s clever, yes, but to what purpose? And all the little in-jokes...only serve to undercut the show’s tragic aura. It doesn’t help, either, that Scherzinger, who, at 45, cuts a seductive cat-like figure, plays Norma less as a monarch in exile and more like a hyperactive Morticia Addams."

 

[bwayobsessed]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 7:17pm

This is going back a few conversations. I’ve always felt like Joe is the real monster of the show. Norma is incredibly manipulative, vain and delusional but also very mentally ill. Max’s taking care of her and hollywoods rejection of her don’t help. Joe however is so blinded by the idea of wealth that he can’t bear to say what Norma or Betty need to hear and doing it in such a way that is kind to both of them, leaving both broken—Norma so broken she breaks him but alas.

Now to the current conversation, I really like the current direction. I wouldn’t have done the people looking forward instead of at each other thing but I think it does show how disconnected people are, how no one on the lot actually cares about each other just their own goals.

I went into the production expecting the camera usage to be somewhat a figment of Norma’s delusion and Hollywood and at times it was. However it all seemed at times it was used as a crutch to amplify the more boring scenes

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 10:23pm

I have a question. The program lists 49 co-producers. This is in addition to the lead producers and Paramount. Is this normal? 

[jkcohen626]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 10:52pm

Matt Rogers said: "I have a question. The program lists 49 co-producers. This is in addition to the lead producers and Paramount. Is this normal?"

Nowadays that's towards the upper end, but not by that much. 40+ is normal now. Cabaret has 45 NOT counting a ton of producers sharing a credit ("Reddy Edmayne Productions/TheGrayJoel"). Stereophonic has 44. 

[jkcohen626]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 10:59pm

bwayobsessed said: "I’ve always felt like Joe is the real monster of the show. Norma is incredibly manipulative, vain and delusional but also very mentally ill. Max’s taking care of her and hollywoods rejection of her don’t help."

IDK if I wasn't paying close enough attention or if it's this production, but I really didn't get that until the very end when he kicks out Betty before he's shot. He certainly accepted her gifts, but I felt like he took pity on her and was drawn in by fascination of her, not by the wealth. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/9/24 at 11:09pm

OHIO had approx 80 'producer' entities billed last season (some entities being comprised of multiple people), which may be the record.

That doesn't mean the show was more expensive than others, though: they just had a ton of small-level co-producers, and they probably had a lower financial threshold for billing than most shows. (protocols can vary wildly from show to show)

When names are separated by a slash symbol, each side is a unique entity that puts up half the amount needed (for example, $125,000 each, totaling $250K between the two).

[binau]

Posted: 10/10/24 at 5:30am

I once met one of these types of producers who has two tony awards on their mantle. Speaking to them they literally just pay their way in they don’t have any producing control. Crazy! 

[OhHiii]

Posted: 10/10/24 at 6:53am

EvanstonDad said: "Yeah, I would be careful about making sweeping assumptions that the reason this show is divisive is due to those who like literalism vs. those that don't. "

It’s not a sweeping generalization when the vast majority complaining are complaining there’s no set or about anachronism (something that is quite literally employed in theatre ALL the time) and not believing Nicole is a faded silent movie star when it’s clear literal is not the intention. And it’s been the same people crowing about it since the first reports came out from London. 

[bwayobsessed]

Posted: 10/10/24 at 8:01am

jkcohen626 said: "bwayobsessed said: "I’ve always felt like Joe is the real monster of the show. Norma is incredibly manipulative, vain and delusional but also very mentally ill. Max’s taking care of her and hollywoods rejection of her don’t help."

IDK if I wasn't paying close enough attention or if it's this production, but I really didn't get that until the very end when he kicks out Betty before he's shot. He certainly accepted her gifts, but I felt like he took pity on her and was drawn in by fascination of her, not by the wealth."

I think in this production it feels less so. I really felt this way in the Glenn Close revival tho. Like he knows she’s completely out of it right away. He repeatedly “tries to leave” despite Max and Norma’s efforts. He isn’t satisfied with material wealth and Norma’s obsession or his partnership and work with Betty

[binau]

Posted: 10/10/24 at 8:30am

My only wish is that people would now only comment on this show if they’ve seen it. We’ve already heard for 10 months the skeptics - please just see the show and come back and tell us what you think afterwards. I don’t blame anyone who can’t get into the production though because yes it doesn’t always make sense but I don’t think that’s the point. 

[Sauja]

Posted: 10/10/24 at 9:49am

I saw this in London and loved it. I found some of the tonal inconsistencies jarring and couldn't quite square them in my brain, but I also felt an incredible rush of new life being injected into a musical that I've always been mixed on. And what really sold me was that Scherzinger gave one of the most thrilling vocal performances I've seen in over 30 years of theater-going.

 

I went to see it last night on Broadway with a touch of trepidation, wondering if I would love it as much the second time. I came away loving it more. The balance of humor and pathos is wild, and the production leans hard into camp. Scherzinger hurtles over the top, but it works for me. Norma IS camp. She's funny and sexy and weird. And yes, she's a tragic figure, but she's also full of life. She's sincere when she needs to be, but she's also a bit of a clown. David Thaxton's performance has gotten funnier as well. He's leaning harder into the absurdity of Max's position and his willingness to play the fool for his greatest star of all.

 

Balancing them, Tom Francis's Joe and Grace Hodgett Young's Betty are masters of sincerity. A lot has (rightly) been made of Francis's work, but Young is doing incredible work on that stage. Beyond her beautiful, clear voice, she is the very distillation of hope, sincerity, and youth. And she makes the role stand out more than anyone else I've seen in any other productions.

 

There are absolutely people who are going to hate this production. And that's entirely fair. But for those who connect with the weird level it's playing on, this is a thrillingly vital take, and it only elevates the material in my mind.

[TBFL]

Posted: 10/10/24 at 10:28am

Has Sunset ever been a show where you are emotionally invested in the characters? 

You could feel pity for Norma, or in this production, scared of her, but she's obsessive, deluded, possessive, goes crazy and has a breakdown after killing Joe, either because of Betty, or because he has shattered her delusion of still being a star and eventually making a comeback (Return!)

Joe is generally bland or over it all  and is seen as just using Norma for his own gain and cheats with his friends girlfriend/fiancee,l. Betty is underwritten and merely a plot device. 

For me at least, it's never been that type of show to be emotionally invested in. Until this one, and it was because of Max, of all people.  it was seeing Max, who had been so stoic, who had selflessly given his life to be in service to Norma (despite being the one who helped create and maintained her deludsion) cry over Norma's downfall. It touched something in me and i was surprised to find myself welling up over it .i guess he felt it could be managed and contained within the museum that they both lived in., safe from the realities outside. Damn Joe Gillis and his burst tyre!  

 

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 10/10/24 at 10:32am

jkcohen626 said: "IDK if I wasn't paying close enough attention or if it's this production, but I really didn't get that until the very end when he kicks out Betty before he's shot. He certainly accepted her gifts, but I felt like he took pity on her and was drawn in by fascination of her, not by the wealth."

To be fair, in this production they do cut the song where her wealth is most on display

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 10/10/24 at 10:40am

TBFL said: "Has Sunset ever been a show where you are emotionally invested in the characters?

You could feel pity for Norma, or in this production, scared of her, but she'sobsessive, deluded, possessive, goes crazy and has a breakdown after killingJoe, either because of Betty, or because he has shattered her delusion of still being a star and eventually making a comeback (Return!)

Joe is generally bland or over it all and is seen as just using Norma for his own gain and cheats with his friendsgirlfriend/fiancee,l. Betty is underwritten and merely a plot device.

For me at least, it's never beenthat type of show to be emotionally invested in. Until this one, and it was because of Max, of all people.it was seeing Max, who had been so stoic, who had selflessly given his life to be in service to Norma (despite being the one who helped create and maintained her deludsion) cry over Norma's downfall. It touched something in me and i was surprisedto find myself welling up over it .iguess he felt it could be managed and contained within the museum that they both lived in., safe from the realities outside. Damn Joe Gillis and his burst tyre!"

Fully agree. One of the problems I've had with the musical is that it asks us to become emotionally invested in characters who don't deserve it. The film is a cautionary tale with a freak show quality to it. My husband turned to me at the end of the movie and said, 'That was f-ing WEIRD. I loved it.' I'm of the belief that if it's not weird, it's not Sunset Boulevard. How Norma was musicalized by Webber et al sanded down the weirdness to create a...lesser Madame Rose, maybe? Lloyd's use of Brechtian techniques pulls the story back to the weird and I think it creates a very exciting, interesting, entertaining piece of theater. Does it end up at odds with the text? Sometimes...but I can overlook that for the effect of the whole. I'm excited to see it tonight and for my husband to experience a different kind of weirdness. 

[Bwaygurl2]

Posted: 10/10/24 at 12:02pm

Now it seems that the conversation is turning into a question of "what kind of character deserves emotional investment or empathy?" 

A fair question. I don't think any character deserves/doesn't deserve our investment.  I have empathy for very f*cked up characters. Norma is a pitiable monster to me. They made a musical about King Kong, but Sunset is a better version of the beast who is exploited for show business and wreaks havoc story. 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 10/10/24 at 12:30pm

The deep discourse about this show is sucking the life out of me. In my opinion, it's a melodramatic camp-fest that doesn't merit this much scrutiny. I feel like Kristen Johnston before she fell out of a window on Sex and the City..."Whatever happened to fun?"