Side Show

[JoizeyActor]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 9:05pm

Well, I had spoken about my interest in this show, and I go the CD for Christmas and I'm very impressed. I want to see this production very badly, though I'm afraid of seeing a community theatre production of it in case its horrible or something. I don't want the show to be ruined for me! How long ago was this show on Broadway?

Emily Skinner and Alice Ripley are amazing on the CD, and I'm in love with "Who Will Love Me as I Am?" They are both powerful singers, and the song itself is very touching.

All of the songs are great. I also enjoy listening to "You Should Be Loved", and I'm thrilled to see that this song is in this Musical Theatre Anthology book I got in NY, so when my range increases by about 2 notes, I'll be able to sing this song no problem. I'll be waiting for it!

These songs are very emotional and I love every one of them. Let's bring Side Show around NJ, soon!

[wickedfan]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 9:08pm

I think the show was produced in about 97 or 98

[Musetta1957]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 9:15pm

http://www.theatredb.com/QShow.php?sid=s0039

[cbrown828]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 9:31pm

SIDE SHOW OPEN AT THE RICHARD RODGERS THEATER IN THE FALL OF 1997 AND CLOSED THE FIRST WEEK OF 1998. I IT WAS AN AMAZING SHOW, I WAS VERY GLAS TO SEE IT GET A BEST MUSICAL NOMINATION IN 1998 EVEN THOUGH IT CLOSED EARLY IN THE SEASON. ( IT LOST TO THE LION KING)

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 9:46pm

I have a soft spot for this show. I loved it dearly. When I first joined this board -- my first week -- I had a stirring if slightly contentious debate with MusicMan about Mr. Krieger's score (which I cherish, to a point). I now have nostalgia for the show, and the debate(s) that heated up at this very site. One learns a lot about one's tastes, when called upon to defend them--a kind of MO for posting here.

SIDE SHOW seems to provoke deeply subjective responses. People went on the journey, and empathized, via Russell's somewhat overly-stylized lyrics (check out "Tunnel of Love"), or they found it all maudlin and treacly and over-stated. The division is best summed up in the divisive reactions to the penultimate song by the twins, "I will never leave you." Some of us found the idea of these conjoined sisters singing about the subtext betneath the obvious -- theses women would always be there, emotionally, for one another -- ironic in a v. sweet way--endearing, a deeply felt paean to unconditional love and bonds. Other people thought it cheap and silly beyond belief. See where you stand, and it may tell you how you feel about the show as a whole.

I still recall with great affection the organic feel and simplicity to the point of minimalism (lots of black, film noir pools of light) of Longbottom's staging, which could be comedic one moment, and heart-wrenching the next. The humor, sure, was just this side of camp at times, but never at the expense of character. Overall, the production was elegant and powerful because it was precise, focused and eschewed technology and cheap effects (even the Siamese-ness was done by the two gals, not the costumes.) To me, it worked. But if the fans are legion, so are the naysayers. If it ever comes back, I dare say, it would be hard to top the high style/emotional undercurrents of the original. Or as Ben Brantley said -- a man I almost never agree with -- the way the two star performances connected with our hearts.

Updated On: 1/26/04 at 09:46 PM

[ShineOn]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 9:47pm

I think I just had heart failure!


:)


It opened in fall of 97.. closed in January of 98. It was open for three months. Po' Side Show. They were supposed to reopen, but that didn't happen.


Emily and Alice deserved the Tony!!!! Hmph.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 9:57pm

PS: I have this secret (but unsubstantiated) belief that SS affected Stephen Schwartz consciously or un. As Paul W. at Broadway.com says, "For Good" in WICKED is "Side-Show-esque." Indeed it is. The number -- in lyrics, melody and tone -- is a kind of quiet homage to the SS two-joined-women dynamic. Anyone else agree? The imagery, the boulder/water, sky bird/seed -- very typical of the more esoteric flavor of Russell's poetic words. I think it delivers, for performers and for the story crescendo, the same way the better Krieger numbers worked.

[JoizeyActor]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 10:00pm

I really want to see a production of it. The story sounds so enchanting and I really think I could fall in love with a show like this. The music itself is worth an admission to see a production like this.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 10:03pm

That's the sort of imagery Schwartz always uses, though. He has a strong folk influence which is where, I think, a lot of that comes from in his work.

[JoizeyActor]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 10:08pm

I noticed that while I was listening to the cast recording, Auggie. I thought to myself: "The comparisons he makes in his music is strikingly similar to 'For Good' in Wicked." Yes, those exact words. Haha. I love the lyrics, they are a key part to the song besides the AMAZING harmonizing belts.

ex:

"Like a fish plucked from the ocean, tossed in a foreign stream..."

"Like an odd exotic creature, on display inside a zoo..."

"Like a clown whose tears cause laugher, trapped inside the center ring..." Updated On: 1/26/04 at 10:08 PM

[Menken Fan]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 10:37pm

Side Show is the perfect example of a show where the songs and performers are much better than the show they're in. I was lucky enough to visit NYC and see it twice during its short run.

I also got to go to the Tony Awards that year and tried to start a standing ovation for Emily and Alice's performance.



Hugh Panaro...mmmm

[JoizeyActor]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 10:39pm

How is the book? Compelling like the music, I hope.

[cbrown828]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 10:41pm

YOUR SO RIGHT MENKEN FAN.

[Menken Fan]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 10:49pm

There were some powerful moments in the book, but overall the storyline was a little disjointed. Too many performance numbers that didn't advance the plot. I still think the book could still be rewritten around the terrific music.

[Sheri]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 11:38pm

It's still one of my all time favorite shows. Sadly I missed it on Broadway, but I've seen it numerous times in LA. My icon photo is the stellar cast of the LA production of Side Show, BTW. :)

[Musetta1957]

Posted: 1/26/04 at 11:50pm

"YOUR SO RIGHT MENKEN FAN."

You with the caps lock key! Come out with your hands up!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/27/04 at 1:24am

Side Show is a show i will always cherish.
I love it so very much.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/27/04 at 6:46am

I understand all the problems found with the book. The show was workshopped to death, and ended up a cobbled together piece, in some ways, oddly underplotted. The outside world vs. the twins is pretty much the overriding theme/action--a point it tends to hit one too many times, perhaps. And as the 2 romatic leads move from suitors/talent agents to obstacles to their personal happiness AND their professional lives, it gets a little small and petty. From "Tunnel of Love" on, it seems to be scrambling to find a catharsis/resolution. It sort of ends 3 times, as the CD reveals. The Hugh Panero character is underdeveloped (leading many to think he rejects Violet because he's gay--bogus, I think), so his decision at the eleven o'clock spot to back away feels too little too late.

As I understand it, in early drafts, the show originally was more epic and ambitious, with little girls cast to play them as kids ("I Will Never Leave You" was their childhood anthem, I understand). As it became streamlined, a lot of interesting detail was probably cut. So some of the rags to riches to rags again story is generic. But the songs, and the use of recitative (much debated as plus/minus) made it possible to overlook the simplified and simplistic book. If Hugh's role was thin and too lacking in substance to drive the ending, Jeff McCarthy and Norm Lewis were as affecting as the girls. Both had great moments in act two. It would be interesting to see them rework the show a bit, and not be afraid to deal with the "siamese-ness"more. In hindsight, it seems as if too much was done to keep the ick factor at bay. But our feelings for the girls are too strong to feel any ick.

Updated On: 1/27/04 at 06:46 AM

[Belter]

Posted: 1/27/04 at 8:58am

I've posted before about how much I love Side Show. I got to see it three times, the night before previews started, during previews and after it opened.

Liza Minelli was in the same audience with me once!

Seeing it at the invited audience the night before previews allowed me to hear a song that was cut the next time I saw it ... "She's Gone" -- sung by Alice Ripley. This song was about Violet's disillusionment, after Buddy decides he can't marry her because she's a Siamese twin. But, I suppose because Buddy DOES marry her, they cut the song.

It's on Alice Ripley's CD however. Don't know which one, but friends had it and played it when I was at their place.

Henry Krieger was upset about cutting it, he told me (saw him at a performance elsewhere) but of course, all songs are babies to composers!

I'd suggest anyone who can, see if it's available on tape at the Performing Arts Library. This is a great resource. Just say you're doing the show in Nebraska or something.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 1/27/04 at 9:03am

You make a good point, Auggie. I thought the entire time I watched the show that the authors were afraid of the subject matter, afraid to really ADDRESS it and the world in which they lived. Thus the whole thing came off vanilla, vague and completely unsatisfying to me.

I've always resented the writers for wasting what I thought was a GREAT idea for a musical.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/27/04 at 9:08am

"She's Gone" is on the ladies 2nd duet album, I believe. It's a real showcase for the Ripley pipes, and is one moment where Violet gets to be angry. Too bad it went.

I think, per my post above about the book, that the show was playing too heavy with twins' epiphanies. It being cut perhaps points up the problem with the ending -- it was tough to find a story resolution that satisfied. The decision of Buddy and Violet to marry anyway worked to a point -- showing the twins could only depend on one another -- but I think both men turning out to be so weak was a let-down, after spending so much time with them.

[StrictlyShowtunes]

Posted: 1/28/04 at 9:44am

I agree with Auggie; the book does have problems and Buddy is underdeveloped. And some of the lyrics just crack me up: "I'm burning for you" "I know you are on fire"--come on! What bothered me most was that the show was very focused on how others saw the twins rather than how the twins saw the world. The show was certainly sympathetic towards the twins, but I felt that everything written from their perspective was colored by outside perceptions. Does anyone agree/disagree?

I think that the character of Jake puts the difficulties of love in perspective, and I love "You Should Be Loved," both for his argument "If I can see past your affliction/Why can't you see past mine," and Violet's fear: "I want to be like everyone else." That felt like one of the most honest moments in the show.

All that said, I adore this show, and I would go anywhere to see it. I missed the B'way production, but I saw the Lyric Stage production in Boston with Maryann Zschau and Susan Molloy, and I thought it was wonderful.

Updated On: 1/28/04 at 09:44 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/28/04 at 10:20am

This is great -- a discussion of the show's problems among die-hard fans. We can nitpick without be defensive! I've never had that opportunity. Stictlyshow and ddtruit, any other thoughts you have, I'd love to read them. ddtruit, any other memories of the workshop? Was the granny character still in it, who raised them/sold them? The idea that the show overlooked the twins' POV on the outside world strikes me as very astute. I remember being moved by the childhood reminiscence, "standing on tiptoes" seeing other children who didn't have their "connection." It's a heartfelt moment that is fleeting, and late, in the final number.

Tunnel of love remains one of the most daring chunks of the show -- one of those songs that pushes the envelope, but is almost embarassing, the degree to which the characters wear their hearts/libidos,etc on their sleeves. I was riveted to it, but could never decide how I felt. I think the staging -- which oddly suggested a ferris wheel, rather than an old fashioned tunnel of love (like they have at Rye Playland, for example), confused thngs. Anyway, I'm intrigued that it was stronger with chairs. The hallmark of Longbottom's staging was its simplicity and use of light, so the ornate T of L piece was at odds.

[StrictlyShowtunes]

Posted: 1/28/04 at 11:21pm

Auggie--you know, you are right about "Tunnel of Love." When I first heard the OBC recording, I loved that song because it has such a great beat--a big, dramatic musical number. But it made me uncomfortable at the theatre. "Daisy" and "Terry" were so intimate that it was embarrassing to watch. However, because the show continually emphasizes the twins' sexuality, particularly in the second act, the whole show kind of leads up to "Tunnel of Love."

As for my comments about the twins' POV--"Come Look at the Freaks" really sets up the dominant POV for the show. As much as we love Daisy and Violet, they remain "freaks" even after they have left the side show, not just because of their unique physical attributes, but because the audience is encouraged to relate to the men who are afraid of marrying them ("Private Conversation," "Tunnel of Love"). It is okay for us to want Jake to be with Violet because Jake is another "freak" from the side show; he has not had a "normal" life like Terry and Buddy. Violet ends up alone because she is too attached to the idea of being "normal."

Auggie, you said, "It would be interesting to see them rework the show a bit, and not be afraid to deal with the "siamese-ness" more. In hindsight, it seems as if too much was done to keep the ick factor at bay. But our feelings for the girls are too strong to feel any ick." What do you mean by "keepig the ick facotr at bay"? Do you mean that the show tip-toed around the twins' sexuality? And how could the show "deal with the 'siamese-ness'" more? I'm excited about this interesting discussion, too!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/29/04 at 8:37am

The ick factor. I think it's partly about seeing how difficult it is to never be truly alone.

To be fair, the Q&A sections of the show, not recorded, have the press asking them basic conjoined lifestyle questions. But it was somewhat minimalized. No, I don't think we have to sese them talk about bodily functions. But in the first act of the show, we rarely saw one of the twins want to do something that the other didn't. The fact that their outfits always matched, perfectly, from overalls through ball gowns, didn't help. If I were designing the show, I'd have them start more disparate, and then HAVE to dress alike to satisfy the "public" desire to be one set of freaks, to to speak. (Couldn't they fight over what's right for both? The way real twins do?) It suggested that they had a designer somewhere. Just a moment where one girl dressed differently because that reflected her mood -- that would've spoken volumes, and given them a visual difference.

I think an early "solo" by one of the girls, while the other had to mark time, might've helped set up the differences. What if one wanted to drink a beer, or smoke a cigarette? And the other didn't? There was something too comfortable about their 24/7 rapport. I'm not suggesting that the show totally avoided this ("Leave Me Alone!" is a fun reveal of contention.) And I'm not suggesting their personalities weren't delineated, because they were. But their individual traits were more "announced" that dramatized. Their "I want" song is sweet, but I think seeing them behave with more longing for separation earlier, might've helped us with the sexual revelations in "Tunnel..." and ultimately made their decision to "stay together" (emotionall) in "I Will Never Leave You" that much more powerful. Because they start out almost TOO connected, the final epiphany that there is no better partner in life than the one God gave them was less a of a revelation.

Again, this is nitpicking.