"Side Show" Preview Thread- Page 11

[brucebossa]

Posted: 11/14/14 at 11:11am

The Two Jakes - Norm at SIDE SHOW link
The Two Jakes

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/14/14 at 11:47am

dreaming, I totally agree.

bruce, thanks for that link...made me smile.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 8:29am

I was there yesterday afternoon, and found it enthralling, particularly the incredibly powerful, deeper, more focused new 2nd act. Yes, we miss a couple of Krieger's memorable tunes in act one. But the cumulative emotional impact of this production is devastating. There are additional plot points (notably much more about the threat/possibility of surgery; and Jake's role in the denouement). But the rewriting is more about heightening emotion and clarity -- critically, raising the stakes in every moment. All of the characters' issues which, in comparison, might've felt rushed or shorthanded in the original crisis/denouement have been carefully weighed, more stage time devoted, as the 5 main characters take stands, amend them, falter, rethink options, choose again, and then face the life-altering consequences. The storytelling has sharpened so persuasively, we are left with a far richer experience. The final moments, not spoiled (again) here but already discussed by many, provide the perfect tragic, haunting coda.

The first act is considerably more ambitious, in content and style. If it sometimes overreaches in its stylization of biographical detail to fill in the missing information, everything now told provides a more substantive framework for all that follows.

The performances are superb. The two leads are at once smaller and thus closer to the real Hiltons. If they seem slightly less the focus in the front of the sometimes busy first act, they continue to grow before our eyes. More than ever, they are very different women by the end, and again, as they evolve and handle the blows that befall them in act two, they acquire the needed survivors' resiliency in real time, right there, center stage. To my ears -- fans of the iconic original performers -- they handle the music as persuasively, perhaps even more so. This afternoon, their set pieces were every bit as heartrending. And thrilling. I don't understand the naysayers, who seem to hear more "power" in the prior leads; these women are their match.

In many ways, this is almost a different show, or a different telling of the story, certainly. It's an overwhelming emotional experience for many. I was in the front mezz and there were few dry eyes.

[RaisedOnMusicals]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 8:42am

/ was exactly my reaction after seeing it at The Kennedy Center, with the exception of a comparison to the original which I had never seen. This is a show that moves you emotionally, and I really wish it well.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 9:19am

I saw this the other night, and found it almost completely unengaging -- that first act is a major bore. The book and lyrics are painfully amateurish, the lyrics felt like they were written by some third-grader. A shame, as the story is so very interesting and worthy of attention. It needed Kander & Ebb to really find some energy, and indeed that opening number is a painfully obvious rip-off of CABARET's "Wilkommen," with Robert Joy seeming to do his very best but still not very good Alan Cumming impression.

The performances were fine, nothing more. Why is there a cult around this show? One admittedly memorable tune, the earwig "I Will Never Leave You" but that's about it.

[matineeidol2591]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 10:17am

I saw Side Show this week as well. I knew little about the original production going in. I thought it was a captivating evening, a beautifully integrated and emotional show. Loved everything about it. Erin Davie and Emily Padgett were outstanding. Shocked to hear the negative comments about Hydzik and Silverman. I thought they gave wonderful performances- Silverman in particular.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 10:21am

Startlingly enough, Silverman turns "Private Conversation" into showstopper. It's one of the highlights of the show, and as moving as the number was in the original, it is now an emotional centerpiece of the second act. Beautifully staged with Padgett.

Updated On: 11/16/14 at 10:21 AM

[Up In One]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 10:23am

Interesting perspective Roscoe which I'd love to put in perspective as to your taste - what musicals of the past three years did you find of quality? I for one, not a part of the prior production cult, found Side Show overwhelmingly emotional and the stuff of great musical theater particularly the performances of the leading ladies. Heading back with friends.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 10:30am

It's a show that, like many, one cannot be talked into admiring, or responding to emotionally. It either grabs you by the throat, and touches your heart, or it does not. We had these debates in 1997, though not on theater boards. I leave it there.

Updated On: 11/16/14 at 10:30 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 10:30am

I was very taken with NATASHA PIERRE AND THE GREAT COMET OF 1812, a marvelous work of musical theater, thrilling and alive and profoundly moving in ways that poor old schlocky SIDE SHOW could never approach. I've also been a great admirer of ASSASSINS, SPRING AWAKENING, and AMERICAN IDIOT.

I'm clearly in the minority on this one -- I sat through that obligatory standing ovation, wild horses couldn't have dragged me out of that seat.

Updated On: 11/16/14 at 10:30 AM

[Up In One]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 10:41am

Thanks for the reply Roscoe wish you could've have done it with less insult because when you do you obviously insult the taste of the members of the board who enjoyed the show and you seem perfectly fine with that. We only match up on Spring Awakening but you do have a particular taste which I could see not lining up well with Side Show.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 11:03am

Feeling all insulted because I didn't like SIDE SHOW is as silly as if I were feeling all insulted because others like SIDE SHOW.

Grow up, folks. They're just opinions. If you can't take disagreement without feeling that your taste has been insulted, you're going to waste a lot of time feeling very very wounded.

Are my opinions too strong for your delicate tastes? Feel free to block me.

Updated On: 11/16/14 at 11:03 AM

[Up In One]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 6:07pm

You forgot to add - "and your little dog too!"

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 6:11pm

Why would you block your own dog?!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 8:08pm

Gee, Up In One can't come up with an intelligent response, so responds in a cheap cliched joke. How sadly typical of the kind of folks whose ever so tender feelings are so deeeeeeply wounded by disagreement over such vital issues as a Broadway musical.

But in the interest of happy harmony and warm fuzzy unicorn feel-goodness:

SIDE SHOW is the greatest accomplishment in the history of history. The book and lyrics eclipse Shakespeare and Sondheim, and the performances will live forever in eternity as shining examples of greatness that will never ever be surpassed. The aisles of the St. James Theater are littered with crutches and wheelchairs made useless thanks to the all-healing genius of SIDE SHOW!

HAIL SIDE SHOW! HAIL SIDE SHOW!

HAIL!

Updated On: 11/16/14 at 08:08 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 9:50pm

Crutches and wheelchairs? Really?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/16/14 at 11:15pm

Glad you loved the show, Auggie!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/17/14 at 7:06am

Continuing to mull the changes, and how much thought has gone into every decision. In looking at original CD, it's clear the first act was top loaded with songs that unavoidably expressed the same sentiments, always wonderfully ("When I'm By Your Side" and "We Share Everything" really offer similar lyrics). The revision creates an arc in the twins' evolution as performers, taking us from "Typical Girl Next Door," Buddy's song, re-purposed with irony, expressing in performance a yearning to be viewed as sweet ingenues, to "Ready to Play," after their legal and emotional liberation, which voices sophisticated sexual longing. Is "Ready to Play" as strong a number as "We Share Everything"? No. But does it serve the show better, ultimately yes*.

And even the decision to keep the twins in the red dresses used for the number for the press conference and the iconic act-closer lends stylistic cohesiveness to the act's arc. In the original they sang "Who Will Love Me As I Am" in stylized charcoal grey dresses, in a muted wash of light. Now, the scarlet gowns seem to suggest: all dressed up, no where to go, no men to go with them.

One could argue that Longbottom's vision was darker, literally, to serve the emotional texture of their plight. Yet the current production literally presents these beautiful young women as emotionally and sexually stranded. Putting the twins' center stage in red simply pulls all of the threads of the first act together with a theatrical shorthand. We can easily bemoan the loss of one of Russell and Krieger's best songs. But the artistry here is so thoughtful, the work so complete.

The show aims to keep building, layering contention as the show biz and romantic opportunities self-present and stall. To that point, moving "Leave Me Alone" until act two allows the number to better serve the plotting, to dramatize the issues women face with the big question overlooked earlier: surgical separation.

Love it or not, this revisal is a remarkable example of play development, honing and reshaping to create the fullest, most satisfying story. This SIDE SHOW never really treads water, it keeps introducing new complications and reversals, and because of its new intricacy, the second half of the show burrows much deeper into the stakes and the tragic resolution. If I still find the first act challenging, I can fully understand every single creative impulse.

I thank Whizzer, who planted seeds for much of what is discussed above in his many thoughtful posts much earlier. I realize I'm underscoring some of what he already stated, particularly about "Ready to Play." I wanted to sum up and add to his observations.

*SPOILER. My one negative thought: If "Ready to Play" had a fresher visual design in its choreography -- the women line up and dance with the men in the chorus late, cleverly, but little is done to enhance the gimmick -- it might have the showstopping appeal of "We Share Everything." The song is decent, but it needs a kind of Michael Bennett/Ron Field explosion somewhere. It doesn't quite land.

Updated On: 11/17/14 at 07:06 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/17/14 at 7:12am

Auggie, was Buddy's homosexuality an issue in the original production/version of the show?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/17/14 at 7:19am

SPOILER

There was always strong suggestion about Buddy's sexuality, but if memory serves no character ever addressed it outright as Terry, Jake, and a reporter do now, bluntly. It's very clear. Jake's confrontation with Buddy in the penultimate scene before the wedding is especially powerful. And reading about the Hiltons, particularly the comments by the documentary film maker Zemeckis, I learned that both women were attracted to gay men throughout their lives, and the wedding was in fact built on just such a shaky proposal by a closeted gay man. The new show fictionalizes the men to a point, but absolutely tracks with the real story. FYI, many people are shocked to learn that Daisy eventually had a baby, given up for adoption.

Updated On: 11/17/14 at 07:19 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/17/14 at 7:27am

Auggie: "but if memory serves no character ever addressed it outright as Terry, Jake, and a reporter do now, bluntly It's very clear."

Many thanks. Interesting. One of my favorite memories of seeing it the other night came when the reporter has the line about "Of course Buddy's not interested in them: they're GIRLS!" the woman sitting next to me asked aloud, "What does that mean?"

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/17/14 at 7:44am

I don't remember in the original either any suggestion that Buddy was gay. After seeing the documentary and this production do I now question the original scene where they're in the "Tunnel of Love" if that is what was going on with his behavior. I always thought he was just uncomfortable with the whole foursome situation. I guess it was supposed to be more about him struggling with his sexuality. Either way I am glad that they finally make it understood in this production. I love the line where one of the girls says to Buddy, and I paraphrase, you can hide your freak.

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/17/14 at 7:55am

I'll apologize if this was posted already, but it's a not to miss interview with the creators and original cast members. If you have about 55 minutes to watch it may answer some curious questions like...why was Daisy and Violet's positions switched?

http://www.broadway.com/videos/155766/take-two-hear-the-fascinating-history-of-side-show-from-the-original-stars-creators/#play

[dreaming]

Posted: 11/17/14 at 8:16am

The line about Buddy is when Daisy says "Some of us can hide what makes us different".

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/17/14 at 8:24am

That's it! Thanks dreaming.