"Side Show" Preview Thread- Page 9

[ddrourr]

Posted: 11/8/14 at 9:52am

OK gang, this is my first post after reading the boards for quite a while. Saw this last nite and here's my input. Never saw the original, but knew the score. I've been reading all your comments so Im fairly familiar with the changes that have been made. First off, I loved it! But..... On the plus side are 2 incredible performances and a versatile, polished ensemble. I thought the direction was very good, especially for a first time Broadway outing by a seasoned film director. I thought the opening was outstanding and set the tone beautifully. The score has more stand outs than most shows these days and the 2 powerhouse ballads stopped the show, as did the expanded 1+1=3, which many of you did not Iike. Hey, it's a big Vaudeville production number that Dmitri Weismann would be proud of. The old rule of thumb for a musical had three rules: knock their socks off with the opening. Check. Blow them away with the first act curtain. Check. Send them home humming a powerhouse 11 O'clock number. Check. And now the weak points. The pace was mostly good, but slowed with many of the added back story scenes. The remaining original songs were far better than the new ones. I did like the added dimension the back stories gave the girls. It humanized them more. But let's face it, how many musicals have a book without flaws? I wish the show could end with I Will Never Leave You, but it can't. We need to see where they ended up and what they gave up for what they perceived as happiness. At the end of the night, I enjoyed it and recommend it.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/8/14 at 10:16am

What did you think of "Ready to Play," still the addition to the show I don't quite grasp. Does it work? It's in a critical spot in act one, and replaces a known showstopper, "We Share Everything." One reason "Who Will Love Me" always worked: it followed a huge, successful production number. The juxtaposition of the comedy and production values against the somber mood post press conference gave the first act a powerful one-two punch. Does "Ready to Play" serve as well?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/9/14 at 12:29am

I saw this tonight and have been avoiding this thread ever since I bought tickets, but I did just skim the past couple of pages.

I've only seen Side Show once before, at TheaterWorks in Mountain View, California, which as far as I know was the first licensed production after Broadway. I've wanted to see it again ever since. This production is wonderful.

After I saw Side Show in Mountain View, I became fascinated with the twins and rented "Freaks." When that rental store went out of business, I bought the VHS tape for like $2. So during the final scene in this production, I probably started hyperventilating. I had no idea they were going to recreate Schlitzy, Hans and Frieda, Johnny Eck, etc... WOW.

I appreciated that they made Terry more of an anti-hero. Before he was just kind of a bland, showy guy with flaws.

I'm surprised David St. Louis is so polarizing. I thought he was fine, but his diction was a little rough.

The only thing I didn't like was all the gold lamé. It felt a bit Xanadu.

[ddrourr]

Posted: 11/9/14 at 9:50am

Not having seen the dramatic context in which we Shared Everything appeared in the original, its tough to say. No question it was a great song, but so were a couple of others that are now gone. But Ready to Play transitioned well into the Interview and did not make me wish plot moved better. There will always be two groups: those who saw both versions and those who only saw the new, revised version. I think opinions will be split among the two. For what its worth, all the critics in DC (including the NYT)thought the revised book served the show better and made it clearer and cleaner. Being in the latter group, I can't make the comparison. As far as the missing musical gems from the original are concerned, every musical dumps some gems during the creative process for various reasons and they end up in the "trunk". We never heard them so we don't complain. In this case, they reinvented the entire show and we know what's missing, making it quite different from most other revivals.

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/10/14 at 7:50am

I prefer "We share everything" over "Ready to Play", but it works. No matter how many times I hear "it just didn't fit with the show" I miss "Tunnel of Love".

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/10/14 at 9:05am

Someone said "Ready to Play" is more like "The Story of Lucy and Jesse." Intriguing idea. I am hoping Krieger -- a man who has a true gift for melody -- has supplied a catchy tune for "Ready to Play." The one on the original Ripley-Skinner album (if memory serves) was pleasant but didn't seem to belong in that place in act one. Apparently, they kept most of the lyric from the trunk song and added a new melody.

So "Tunnel of Love" is more missed than "We Share Everything," even though the "tunnel" melody has been recycled?

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/10/14 at 9:28am

For me it is Auggie. It was always one of my top 3 favorite songs from the original production. To me it is a very powerful song truly telling of all their struggles. Not just the sisters, but Terry's and Buddy's as well.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/10/14 at 9:34am

I didn't miss Tunnel of Love or We Share Everything at all. I did love that the melody for Tunnel of Love was kept.

Posted: 11/10/14 at 9:42am

Ready to Play can be heard on one of the Ripley/Skinner Duets CD's. Its catchy

[Auggie27]

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

I read "Ready to Play" has a new melody. No?

[Meap]

Posted: 11/10/14 at 11:23pm

Saw this tonight. I've never seen a previous production and only knew two of the songs before going in so don't have anything to compare it to. I had relatively low expectations due to some comments on here, but I was pretty impressed. I thought the music, performances, direction and design were great. I think the book was pretty good, though I was a little disappointed by the ending. IMHO the weakest link in the show is the lyrics. It felt like he was struggling for clever rhymes so in the end it didn't feel clever, it felt like a stretch. But overall I thought it was a good show.

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/10/14 at 11:43pm

Saw it tonight. I felt the 1st act dragged, which was sad after such a great opening number. For me, most of the songs just sounded the same. Found myself yawning and almost nodded. Got some air and prepared for Act II. Act 2 was much better than act one. Out to lunch on " Private Conversation". I am assuming this is to be a showstooper and the response was good, but I was't crazy about the whole song. Davis St Louis was wonderful and got an instant standing O and screams at curtain call. All in all not a bad show. I just feel the score caused the first act to drag. Also the orchestra was a bit overpowering. We sat house left row F and couldn't hear a lot of lyrics. I mentioned this to the person at the sound board at intermission. I was impressed with the show's Direction. Mr Condon did a good job.

Updated On: 11/13/14 at 11:43 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/10/14 at 11:43pm

Double post

Updated On: 11/10/14 at 11:43 PM

[StageStruckLad]

Posted: 11/11/14 at 12:55pm

I loved the original production, but part of that I'm sure was due to the fact that it was already slated to close, and the audience was filled with die-hard fans who raised the energy level sky-high, both for the performers and the audience members. The audience reaction at the end of Norm Lewis' "You Should be Loved" was an eruption that I've only heard a few times, including the original Encores production of Chicago or Donna Murphy singing "I Happen to Like New York" after 9/11 at an Encores concert.

My thoughts on the new production are that the two leads are excellent, even if they don't quite look alike and don't sing as passionately as Ripley and Skinner. David St. Louis was a major disappointment for me: big, booming voice but no modulation. His "You Should be Loved" was not the showstopper it should be (as it is on the original cast recording). The backstory in the first act is a bit draggy. Buddy's change of heart comes almost out of nowhere (the discreet hint that appears before then isn't really set up very well). And count me as one that thinks the "1+1=3" is a wonderful production number.

Updated On: 11/11/14 at 12:55 PM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/11/14 at 3:19pm

Re: the revised show.
We can nitpick every individual line and change to the script out of context til the cows come home. There will be no right answer, and things that we have all grown fond of since 1997. So I will not dive into that. What I WILL say is that overall, the storytelling is stronger and the music more impactful in its use. My biggest complaint is the story about their childhood could have used more action, less narration. The vaudeville number choice is really arbitrary, but we will always love "We Share Everything" and I could see that as a licensed alternative. I do think there needs to be more clarity and color in some of the storytelling and character transitions, but Condon greatly improved Russell's work.

I thought Padgett and Davie are spectacular and worthy successors. They are very different types from Skinner and Ripley, but equally as valid and give the show a very different tone.

Costumes and make up are wonderful.. Absolutely wonderful.

The Freak Show set was great, but lacking after they left. I respect the concept, which was great, but the execution was faulty.. Especially when we get to the New Years party and the stadium.

The lighting design was painfully bad and exactly what Fisher and Eisenhauer offer every time they work.. Awkward, badly cued isolating pools of light for 85% percent of the show.

Van Laast's choreography left much to be desired. This show begs for someone like Columbo or Bergasse who find great steps, but with wit and creativity.

Nevertheless, it was a wonderfully exciting night of theatre for me that ultimately moved me and I thought Condon made an incredibly strong case for this show. Some will be persuaded, some where not. He won me over and Padgett and Davie helped handily. I hope to go back.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/11/14 at 3:21pm

(And as far as 1+1=3 goes, the bed routine and the dancing cherubs were incredibly tacky... Not in an entertaining way. The cast put it over the top like gang busters though... And it is always a treat to see Brandon Beiber dance.)

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/11/14 at 5:14pm

Well, Broadwayguy's precise take is the first review that sounds like what I expect mine to be, awkward as that comes out. (I'm going Saturday.) What I now really glean: Longbottom's lean n'mean version was almost "Encores" in comparison, i.e. in tone and style more like the "Chicago" revival, to a point, evocative but in its stylization never quite period-specific. I remember how much I always appreciated the stunning MacDevitt lighting plot, each time I saw it. Now we have a more literal (though that's not pejorative) take on the actual Hiltons' story, with license taken. The story is such a rich one, it makes good sense to mine its oddities and ups/downs. A question I have: why didn't they make "We Share Everything" an earlier number, so we wouldn't lose it entirely. But never mind. Like many, I'm obsessed with that excision, though I now understand why the sexually suggestive "Ready to Play" is better positioned, so the performance songs have an arc. "We Share Everything" is clever but asexual. The show positions a more glammed up version of the sisters, singing about "...playing" with provocative innuendo, correct? "We Share Everything" couldn't quite manage that, as it went on to underscore the duality of existence metaphor already hit hard earlier in the show.

But thank you, Broadwayguy. Your review is the one that has set me up for the ... adjustments ... more than any other.

[Hum a tune]

Posted: 11/11/14 at 5:37pm

Has anyone watched Hannah Shankman during 1+1=3? Is she still doing the hilarious bit of acting like a bored former Vaudeville headliner reduced to doing this campy number? I loved watching her in DC. But only noticed it during my second viewing.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/11/14 at 6:01pm

I think it always is wonderful to remember that many a wonderful number is lost out of town to better the whole of the show.

You are welcome, Auggie.
If you go in as someone who enjoys the whole of Side show and don't want to obsess over specific individual lines, you should really enjoy it. It is a very different light on the show... Even the girls here, who are less the steamrollers of Skinner and Ripley style and WOMEN, but here are seen as young sheltered girls who grown and come into their own, providing a very different but no less rich journey.

There is a number that gives the idea of "We Share Everything", but a more appropriately playful way for how they initially want to market the twins in Vaudeville. "Ready to Play" does a lot more to distinguish the ladies as very different, but complimentary, individuals and establish the dynamics at play in how they view men.

Updated On: 11/11/14 at 06:01 PM

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/12/14 at 9:46am

We were there last night, having seen the show in DC, and the original twice (including closing night) and the show was very well received. I'm sure that's due to all of the fans of the original, for the most part. The big numbers landed solidly.

I think the ladies are doing a great job, particularly Padgett, who has great timing with her lines. Vocally, she is a wonder. Able to belt like Ripley, but has a lovely soprano as well, which she needs when she has to back off to blend with Davie, which was mentioned in the article on the two of them in the Times on Sunday.

I'll reiterate what I wrote regarding their would-be suitors. The roles of Buddy and Terry are not great, but both actors do a great job in humanizing them. Silverman is very good and is able to make Terry a huckster, who really does care about the girls as much as making money. He is an antihero rather than a true villain. Mr. Hydzik's Buddy is greatly helped by the changes in the book, giving Buddy an internal struggle that makes more sense than in the original. Both roles are still stick figures, however.

The ensemble does triple duty and works their butts off. I'd love to see what goes on backstage with the complete transformations these folks make.

The structure of the show is hit and miss, as has been mentioned here before. The backstory is helpful, but odd. "Hi girls, tell us your story.", "Okay, here goes...", "And then this happened"...it is awkward, though well performed. Blair Ross is great as Auntie. I love the Houdini bit, but by then you are waiting to get on with the show.

My biggest disappointment, again, was Mr. St. Louis as Jake. I gave him a pass in DC on his vocals, assuming he was ill, but I think he just has bad technique or the numbers are just out of his range. His overacting doesnt help the uncomfortable push he gives every line of his numbers. I thought he was going to give birth he was pushing so hard! I have no idea why he gets the ovations and praise, except that Jake is only sympathetic male role.

I MISS TUNNEL OF LOVE! I think the original did a better job of expressing the uncomfortable idea of sex for the sisters by letting us hear what they are feeling...Buddy and Terry too. Having the "press" discuss it in stead doesnt add anything, imo, except for the line about Buddy to make his backstory clear.

One little change I didnt like from the DC version was the staging of the finale and the reveal of the Browning freaks. They were slowly revealed one by one and on the scaffolding. Last night they were on the stage and all came out together. Maybe they are playing with that during previews.

All in all, the show is still very good, with a great score, even with the changes I didnt like. Go see it everyone! I'm not hopeful the public will go for it, so it may not last too long. I do think the advertising is far better than for the original, (with that dreadful logo).

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/12/14 at 9:47am

A highlight of my evening was being able to speak to Mr. Krieger, who was a few rows behind us. I stopped, took his arm and simply said "Thank you".

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 11/12/14 at 12:08pm

I saw this in the saturday matinee and i had a mixed reaction. I loved the original and i still frequently listen to its cast recording. I miss some of the songs that they cut, and don't like the changes that they made to the remaining songs. However, I did like having the additional backstory. So i guess from my perspective i wouldn't mind if the whole thing were 20 minutes longer and included both old and new material, but i guess some people don't like it when shows approach 3 hours, although it doesn't seem to have hurt Wicked or Les Miserables.

One thing that i really missed from this production was the powerful vocal performances of Norm Lewis as Jake and of Jeff McCarthy as Terry, and in some places i also missed Alice Ripley and Emily Skinner (esp. in Leave Me Alone). You Should Be Loved was for me especially painful to sit through after hearing such a perfect performance of it both in the show and on the cast recording by Norm Lewis. The revival made me long for Norm's singing.

One interesting (to me) and perhaps unintended consequence of getting the backstory of the twins is that it made the Jake character less sympathetic. With the new backstory, Sir came across as even worse than before (i.e. actively and intentionally enslaving the twins rather than just taking advantage of them financially in the same way that an agent would), Terry in this incarnation became more like Sir in the previous one in the sense of financially benefiting from the twins. But Jake's encouraging the twins to stay with Sir in The Devil You Know became less about choosing between two agents who both want to profit off them, and more about encouraging them to literally remain enslaved instead of going off to enter a working contract with a new agent, so it makes his motivations seem much more selfish, and makes him seem like he wants to keep Violet around even knowing that she will be worse off because of it. That makes it harder to have as much sympathy for him during You Should Be Loved as in the previous production.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 11/12/14 at 1:28pm

"You Should Be Loved was for me especially painful to sit through after hearing such a perfect performance of it both in the show and on the cast recording by Norm Lewis. The revival made me long for Norm's singing. "

I said this before but I agree completely.

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/12/14 at 1:35pm

I wish Norm Lewis would just cross the street every night sing "You should be loved" from back stage and make us all happy.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 11/12/14 at 2:06pm

^ I had the same thought! I was thinking "Norm is right across the street" the whole time.