Six Plot Lines In Search of a Librettist (and lyricist and director!) (LONG with SPOILERS)

[ChrisBaker]

Posted: 7/10/11 at 3:37pm

There are eight words to describe the multitude of problems of TALES OF THE CITY: THE MUSICAL. And those words are: Jeff Whitty, Scissor Sisters, Jason Moore, Armistead Maupin.

Spoilers abound so read at your own peril.

I will confess I am a TALES junkie- going all the way back to having read the original columns (which I still have Xeroxes of) when I lived on Telegraph Hill as they originally appeared. I was very nervous about the first TALES mini-series- I worried it would never do justice to Armistead’s enduring time capsule with the timeless thread of the search for belonging and finding home that goes back at least to THE WIZARD OF OZ r. The mini-series was perfection- dead on casting, attention to detail and honest performances that did not rely on surface jokes doing the work. I was excited about the musical and left feeling I had run into an old love who had undergone horrible and unnecessary plastic surgery. If I squinted hard enough I could see the traces of a former love but it wasn’t the same and it wasn’t right and I was vaguely embarrassed at what had become of it.

Mr. Whitty had his work cut out for him- reducing so many threads into a coherent whole. Somewhere along the way he decided to “improve” the story and dialogue with additions that stick out like a pair of Payless shoes with vintage couture. Some story lines have been dropped and others inserted from the second book. Any time there is a chance to go for something emotional to involve the audience with the characters, he runs the other way and opts for cheap and obvious sitcomy laughs.

Characters do things without motivation- perhaps this is the result of much cutting and pasting and stitching as they tried to create a musical. All conflict between Mouse and Dr. Jon seems it could be cribbed from a Finn and Rachel scene in GLEE. Brian’s sexual exploits are missing. Mother Mucca is brought in- presumably to tie up the family reunion toward the end of the show- but the scene where Anna and Mrs. Madrigal are reunited has zero impact and is laughably tied together with all the depth of the denouement of a COSBY SHOW episode with a hug. Really? Mother Mucca sees her son for the first time in years- as a woman! - and 5 lines of dialogue is all it takes to make it work and all to be resolved happily ever after.

There are a smattering of lines from the characters as a prologue- I would say someone was cribbing from KENNEDY’S CHILDREN but that would imply the collaborators knew theatre.

The decision was made to move up Michael’s coming out letter to his mother brought on by Anita Bryant. This happened historically in 1977- yet it has been moved up to the fall of 1976. Dr. Jon has been made an African American- presumably to add some “color” to the proceedings with the deletion of the whole D’Orothea storyline- which frankly had a better pay off for Mona…not to mention its loss led to the deletion of one my favorite lines from the book “She’s in Oakland. With her parents. Having a white Christmas.” Jon being black is not addressed- and really- would the A- Gays not only have a black friend (when much was made in the book of them having a black butler and the fact one of them prowled the streets looking for black tricks) but also have as one of their fraternity an Asian? In the book a comment is made that one of the A Gays is a “rice queen”- good for sex but nothing else. Jeff Whitty may have read the books but did he understand them?

Having Mary Ann end up with Brian at the end is as trite as everyone pairing up at the end of a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta. And toward the end of the final “Kum Bah Ya” number- a line is hastily thrown in to let the audience know Edgar has died- shoddy storytelling and a way to bring down an audience all in one badly constructed piece of “writing”.

Connie is shown as a Scientologist at the top of Act Two and then appears later as Brian’s date for Christmas- really? And does it show growth for Brian to be hitting on Mary Ann while Connie’s his date?

One of the problems with the show is that there is no throughline- and it should be Mary Ann’s story. The columns/novels/mini-series all began with Mary Ann’s arrival- she is the Dorothy arriving in the California Oz and all the characters are met initially through her eyes and through her interactions with them. That is not the case here- after establishing her as the protagonist, she fades into the background and her interactions with the majority of the characters is never established. More shoddy storytelling from Mr. Whitty.

Now- about that score. The music is not bad in places. The lyrics are horribly bad throughout- who knew a show could make Frank Wildhorn’s shows appear to have lyrics by Shakespeare? Mary Ann has a big eleven o’clock number called “Paper Faces”- she sings that phrase over a dozen times with no variations on the delivery. Betsy Wolfe has a spectacular voice and the crowd reacts appreciatively- it’s just a shame the lyrics show no growth and give her nothing to play. Similarly, the wonderful Mary Birdsong has a big song for Mona called “Seeds and Stems”- the music sounds right but after 4 lines the audience knows all it’s going to glean as the song goes on and on. Mrs. Madrigal throws a huge party for Mary Ann and she and her dozens of guests sing a song called “Atlantis”- imagine if John Denver had been asked to write a song for HAIR 2 and told it should serve the same function as “It’s Today” from MAME. There is a horrid number called “Mary Ann” toward the end of the first act -it would seem the Scissor Sisters decided the show needed a Jerry Herman-esque title song. It is dramatically inept and jarringly out of style with the era and the characters singing it. DeDe’s “Plus One” has a great joke as a button- but sadly, it makes DeDe one dimensional and a joke as well.

Michael’s “Dear Mama” song is horrific. Instead of reworking Maupin’s exquisite and iconic coming out letter into a lyric that rhymes, it has been shoved into a “melody” that meanders as words awkwardly lie on top of the music in a jarringly bad setting. Yes, audience members sniffle because of the power of the original words but the music does not add anything and what could/should be a transcendent moment is missed. Again, the power of Maupin’s storytelling is thwarted by the ineptitude of his creative team.

Two songs stop the show- one sung by the A Gays and one sung by Mother Mucca and her girls. They are funny but do not advance the story or let us know anything about the characters we should know- yes, they get laughs. But so do fart jokes or pratfalls. The 9-10 minutes spent on these songs could be better used to help us connect to the core characters. Brian, anyone? More on that later. The A Gays are basically a gay minstrel show and if a straight production team had written it, people would be up in arms. It is offensive and trading in on every stereotype about gay men that make fly over states wary of either coast, it is a crowd pleaser but leaves an unpleasant after taste. Ha ha ha- those silly queens are planning for a retirement- when ha ha ha- the joke’s on them since the AIDS crisis will wipe them all out. Ha ha ha the creators seem to be saying. It’s a horrid misstep- like having Hoke do a Step and Fetchit routing from a minstrel show in DRIVING MISS DAISY. Had it appeared in THE PRODUCERS, it might work because no one is safe from mockery in that universe but here, in Maupin’s world it is jarringly out of place. The piece is “tone” dead in so many ways.

Ms. Wolfe is a fantastic vocalist- with luck and given good material in future shows, she could be her generation’s Patti LuPone or Liz Callaway or Idina Menzel. But would Mary Ann, the sheltered little bourgeois Future Homemaker of America, really sound like a Motown diva when she first arrives in San Francisco? She is belting in the stratosphere and riffing like an American Idol contestant before she has “found her voice”? Where is the development? The growth? The character arc? Shouldn't she sound like Karen Carpenter or Helen Reddy at that point? And that leads us to….

The direction (or lack thereof) that is this show’s biggest problem. Mr. Moore had the good fortune to be attached to AVENUE Q- one of the most surefire ideas ever for a musical. Anyone could have directed it and it would have been a hit. Subsequently, he managed on Broadway to kill a fool-proof property like STEEL MAGNOLIAS and was so inept in his work on SHREK: THE MUSICAL that he was replaced. He was replaced on THE BOOK OF MORMON, which is probably the best thing that ever happened to that show- check out the many thanks given to Casey Nickolaw at the Tonys- they were smart to jettison Mr. Moore (and if Broadway rumors are to be believed he was responsible for the demise of the original run of LES MIS because of his myriad of poor casting choices while working as resident director there).

Stylistically, this show is a mess. TOTC resembles an episode of THE LOVE BOAT, another 70s staple (and NOT in a good way). The acting styles are wildly inconsistent- from the genuine “gee shucks” Acting 101 manner of Betsy Wolfe to the cartoony portrayal of DeDe and others to Judy Kaye’s stentorian Greer Garson-ish Mrs. Madrigal to Wesley Taylor’s low key (and mopey and defeated Mouse- where is the innocent optimism Marcus D’Amico brought to the first mini-series?) to the WHAT'S HAPPENING portrayal of Jon Fielding. Only Mary Birdsong as Mona and Richard Poe as Edgar Halcyon truly inhabit their characters. Diane J. Findlay gives a lesson in show biz know how as Mother Mucca- but she is all surface and not given the chance to show the softer side of this crusty old Madam. Frannie Halcyon is played for laughs- which takes away the emotional crisis that leads Edgar to take a chance on life. Dancing bellhops as Mary Ann and Beauchamp check into a motel in Mendocino? Seriously? Moore shows no faith in the material and proves he was a one trick pony, lucky enough to be attached to a project he couldn’t destroy and a “director” who will continue to ruin show after show till people wise up to the fact: The emperor has no shows.

And that leads to the last name on the list, which is the most heartbreaking: Armistead Maupin himself. Maupin’s works are magical- he’s not the greatest writer (and the less said about the ghastly MARY ANN IN AUTUMN the better.) He truly broke ground- at least in the United States- in presenting gays, lesbians, transsexuals and everyone else as people- flawed and ordinary people whose worth was not determined by their sexuality or gender.

He can be rather disingenuous at times. He loves to be quoted saying Hollywood had courted him about making the original TALES columns into a movie and that a “Hollywood Exec” suggested making the gay gynecologist (Dr. Jon Fielding) a serial killer. What he left out of that story is that the original newspaper editions of TALES had a serial killer- “The Tinker Bell.” He was trying to paint homophobia where it did not exist.

Tellingly, he recently posted on Facebook that his “dream of an out Mouse had come true". The entire production team- Whitty, Moore, The Scissor Sisters- are all gay men. Handsome youngish gay men from the circuit scene. It would be fair to say that they were all so enthusiastically embraced by Maupin and each other for that reason alone- they’re gay.

Before people start shrieking that THIS observation is homophobic (at least I did not suggest one of them is a serial killer), read on. The beauty of the original presentation of TALES in the paper and in novel form and on television was that they all included everyone- everyone was welcome to the table if they were not evil. This musical barely touches on heterosexuality (Brian barely registers), bisexuality (Mona is just a drug addled hippie, Beauchamp barely registers and he's bisexual anyway), and the loving relationship so movingly portrayed by Dukakis and Moffet in the mini-series is a blink and you’ll miss it subplot. Norman Neal Williams is shoe horned in quickly and his dirty little secret is laughably revealed. Maupin captured love in all sexualities- the creators of the musical do no. They are the equivalent of the musical's A Gays- seemingly in their world all that matters is a shiny and attractive surface, bitchy quippery and the ability to mock anyone not of their "station"- and that is why this musical is a resounding failure from an artistic standpoint.

Each subsequent mini-series became less effective and the musical is following in their downward trajectory. The original drew such crazy reactions for depicting people of every sexuality as nothing out of the ordinary that it seemed Armistead and crew decided to keep pushing the envelope to be more and more outrageous- to the detriment of the pieces. Armistead seems to be stuck in a world where being gay was exotic- today gay people can be as totally boring and pedestrian as their hetero neighbors (or people in Marin..or Paoli’s). That is not to say the world is warm and welcoming- while New York gave gay rights a major step forward, red and rural states like Tennessee are moving backward and Michelle Bachmann makes Anita Bryant look like a fag hag. The thing about TALES (in novel and televised form) was that it showed an inclusive world where love and families of any configuration based on love and respect were what should be the norm.

The show has been wildly successful in San Francisco because it celebrates (in theory) the city. I know the producers and “creatives” and cast will have a rude awakening when they go elsewhere with it. They think they have a hit but the SF audiences support is no different than one of the parents on Toddlers and Tiaras telling their baby Jon Benets that they are the PRETTIEST in the WORLD and going to be A STAR! There is no way for San Franciscans to be objective of the magic city in which we live. I had hoped this show would be like Rice-A-Roni, a San Francisco treat. Instead, it’s not unlike the Obama presidency- a disappointment on every level despite hopes for something wonderful. I'm proud to claim San Francisco as "Nobody's City But My Own"; however, the musical? Not even close.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/10/11 at 4:33pm

... welcome?

[temms]

Posted: 7/11/11 at 8:03am

Thanks for that. I've been curious, as I'm a slightly younger "Tales" fan who fell in love with the books in college in the mid-'90s, right around when the first miniseries came out.

While I would love for a wonderful musicalization of "Tales", I've always thought it would be particularly difficult to pull off simply because of the scale and the way it relies on so many little details to paint the characters and the time/place - I always assumed that the 3-hour-max run-time of a musical plus the fact that it takes longer to sing something than say it would mean that it would have to be severely trunctated to be shoehorned into that format, and it would lose much of what makes it wonderful. It sadly sounds like that has been the case, which is too bad. But I have to say that I have a very hard time imagining what a successful musical version that really honored the spirit of the books would be like. I've always just kind of felt like TOTC fell into the Ken Mandelbaum category of "Don't musicalize something that doesn't need to be musicalized" from "Not Since Carrie".

On the other hand, I do have to say that I enjoyed "Mary Ann In Autumn", moreso than "Michael Tolliver Lives" (which I didn't dislike at all.) But can you say more about "The Tinker Bell"? I had no idea that the original columns were different, I assumed the books were just a reprint. Is there more from the columns that didn't make it into the books?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/11/11 at 8:59am

I would think that it would have been near impossible to make you happy. I say that not as a criticism but to someone that is THAT into the source material, another's creative bent on the material could never live up to your vision. This is the very reason I almost never see movies made from beloved novels. Unless I were to adapt and direct, it couldn't possibly live up to the way the story flows in my own imagination.

I'm not saying I disagree with your thoughts....I have no opinion about the production at all.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/11/11 at 9:50am

Thanks for the most detailed writing about the piece. I had hopes for it, but it sounds (from newspaper accounts as well) that this show may be DOA. If the best producers on Broadway dropped it, who would be foolhardy enough to invest in it now, after the bad reviews? It really needed to be a wow, I think, to hope for further life.

[ReggieonBway]

Posted: 7/11/11 at 9:50am

tl;dr

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 7/11/11 at 7:18pm

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed summary. (But how, how, how could you neglect to mention the legendary Pam Myers in the ensemble and understudying Judy Kaye?!)

In many ways, your account reminds me of the musical version of "Gone With the Wind." This doesn't sound like a disaster of the same level, but there is a problem with adapting beloved, epic novels, given the time restraints of musical theater.

Cut too much and the faithful don't recognize the story they paid to see. Cut too little and you end up with a "Headline" show, i.e., one that keeps announcing what you should feel along with what is happening, because it doesn't have time to move you honestly.

[ChrisBaker]

Posted: 7/11/11 at 11:33pm

SPOILERS ABOUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As to some of the major differences between the original TALES columns and published books, read on. It’s been a while since I read them as they are faded and almost 40! years old but these are the ones I can remember….

In “Book One” Connie Bradshaw was killed by the “Tinkerbell” killer and Brian was a suspect. The Tinkerbell stangled people with Panty Hose- the Adorable line. He also sprinkled their corpses with glitter.

(Maupin had some kind of weird interactions in real life with a reporter- Dave Toschi who was investigating the Zodiac killer- it got VERY weird.. touched on briefly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac_Killer)

Vincent from the Crisis Switchboard was also killed by the Tinkerbell killer and did not commit suicide as in the published book.

Mary Ann and Mouse had sex on New Year’s Eve at the conclusion of book one.

The Tinkerbell killer was an investigator named Hank Tandy (I think…it’s been a while since I read them). Mary Ann had dated him as she would Norman in the published book.
As for “Book Two”:

Mrs. Madrigal was left Edgar’s diary- she read of a woman he once loved. When she tracks the woman down it turns out the woman and Edgar had had a son: Lionel- the delivery boy father of DeDe’s twins (yes, incest)

While recovering from his illness, Mouse gets a massage from Dave Kopay, famous NFL player who came out

Mouse and Jon almost had a threeway prompting Jon to think Michael wasn’t “the one” which is why they broke up

It was implied Frannie Halcyon had had sex with her dog

It was implied but never followed through that Beauchamp survived the crash and was involved with “The Sharing”- the cult that in book 2 was at Grace Cathedral. DeDe and D’Or joined it and Dede gave birth there- she was told the girl twin died at birth but it was implied she was given to Beauchamp/eaten. The cannibalism happened (I think) in a geodesic dome in the woods.

Mary Ann started at the tv station because the creative director at Halcyon’s wife worked there and hired her after Beauchamp’s “Death”. Both of them belonged to the cannibalistic “Sharing” which DeDe and D’Or had joined. After hottubbing with them, Mary Ann was fed something “special” by them.

D’Or went undercover to investigate the doings of “The Sharing” and was killed- her body was found off a cliff. She and DeDe did not leave together for Jonestown at the end of book two.
Burke was kidnapped by The Sharing…Mary Ann found him in Grace Cathedral and sent home- she did not break the story to put herself on the map.

Connie miraculously came back from the dead…to die of Toxic Shock Syndrome from Tampons Mary Ann gave her from a Halcyon ad campaign at beginning of what would be book three- only to come back to life again and die in child birth in “Babycakes”- I always wanted a tee shirt that said “Armistead killed Connie- you bastard!” (A SOUTH PARK Kenny reference given her multiple deaths)


in response to Gaveston2:

I did not mention Pam Myers because I am a fan of hers. Her work in this is horrifyingly embarrassing- imagine Cheri Oteri doing something by Jane Austen and you will get the picture. I do not blame HER- her mugging and poor choices must be laid at the feet of Jason Moore as I can't imagine her having been this bad in anything else in her distinguished career.

"In many ways, your account reminds me of the musical version of "Gone With the Wind." This doesn't sound like a disaster of the same level, but there is a problem with adapting beloved, epic novels, given the time restraints of musical theater."- GWTW had no chance as it is arguably the greatest film ever made with iconic performances. While the TOTC mini-series was genius, it is not something that almost everyone has seen- and Rome did write some quite good material. LES MIS- love it or hate it- found a way to involve people emotionally while hurtling through thousands of pages. But the team for TOTC is certainly not on a par with Trevor Nunn, John Caird and Company. And at least the horsesh*t onstage in GWTW came from an actual horse and not people who should know better.

"Cut too much and the faithful don't recognize the story they paid to see. Cut too little and you end up with a "Headline" show, i.e., one that keeps announcing what you should feel along with what is happening, because it doesn't have time to move you honestly."- there are many places where the audience should be genuinely moved if the adaptation were good- or even adequate. I will reiterate what I feel is the biggest problem- the "creatives" don't trust the material, don't understand what it is about at the heart (hint: it's NOT about orgasms and drugged out sex from soulless sexual vampires) and as such go for banal, pandering and cheap laughs and by doing so rob the characters or their dignity and universality.

And don't get me started on the BRADY BUNCH costumes of bad wigs....poor Judy Kaye looks like a truck driver in drag trying to do Tyne Daly in GYPSY. I love her but she has been done no favors here....would love to know why Betty Buckley jumped ship. Kaye misses the sly, devilish glint in the eye that Dukakis had and which made Anna so loveable. She was older than her "children" but her spirit was open and loving. Updated On: 7/12/11 at 11:33 PM

Posted: 7/14/11 at 5:13am

First, of all, I genuinely enjoyed reading your detailed thoughts. A hint--maybe you should have put the show title in the name, as I've been following thoughts on the show (I started quite a long thread back in May) and just stumbled on this by chance...

Also, it's fascinating to hear how different the columns were--I had always assumed they were virtually identical to the original columns (and nearly all literature on the books I can find give this impression too). It sounds like they kinda softened some of the more black, and black humour edges from the original columns - which I guess makes sense to do--the cannibalistic cult story in More seems to be hated by a large amount of fans as is (although I know some who love it), so to remove some of the dark/out there stuff makes sense, at least from a commercial point of view. But it would be great if for some anniversary or something, someone re-published the originals.

I think a lot of your criticism holds some weight--but (and I've been a huge fan of the books and the miniseries since I was 12 or so in the mid 90s) I enjoyed it. I feel like I came into the show from the opposite perspective of you--I was amazed about what they DID manage to include. I thought the direction was solid (but could be improved), I loved nearly the whole cast (maybe I was sitting far enough back not to notice Pam Myers mugging in the chorus). I was impressed with the music, and having listened to it much more since (*coff coff*) I actually think many of the lyrics are pretty surprisingly great, though there are some definite rough parts. Then again, Mary Ann is one of the songs I like the best (but to say it doesn't advance the show, just makes me wonder if you were so horrified by the show at that point you quit paying attention).

In the program Armistad claims that he always wanted the first two books to be combined and published together and liked how some elements of book 2 were added. Of course, I kinda do agree with you (again to a lesser degree) that it's hard to take Armistad's opinion completely at face value.

Apparantly D'or *was* in the early workshops. She was the character from the first book I missed the most. However, I think your comments about John being played by a black man are pretty off. Maybe I just viewed it as colour blind casting (which the directors have said it was--apparently he came in close to oipening to replace another actor who dropped out).

I do, as I said in my initial review, think, as much as audiences love them, the whorehouse number and the A Gays number really stop the show cold and it could be time devoted to more story. I also thought Act II was a mess, as you say Mary Ann gets lost focus wise, and the Norman plot (one I admit I never really bought in the books or miniseries either--interesting if it wasn't in the columns as you say) is horribly shoved in, with a climax that you didn't know whether to laugh or what. But it's quickly followed by Paper Faces (which I thought DOES have a great build--it was a fave), which helps kinda save the moment.

I don't think Mary Ann is paired up with Brian at the end, though they're clearly friends -- however I saw the second preview, so this all could have been changed. I do agree that Jeff's approach to the libretto is more sitcom-y, it worked for me, but it did lose some of what I love about the originals.

Anyway, I still think it has great potential, and an often fabulous score (but I liked that Mouse's letter didn't have new lyrics *shrug*) which I hope gets a pro recording at any rate. I do think, with some revisions, mainly in Act II it has potential. (for the record, the friend I saw it with, as I said in my thread, who's had never been to San Fran before--I had once previously--nor read the books or watched the series, loved it. Not that that means anything, I know, but).

I did honestly like reading such a differing opinion, and one that has some valid points, so I don't want to turn this into an argument. I do get the impression that unless they made a 6 hour musical, you wouldn't even be partially pleased, and maybe that's unfair. But I also see it as quite a seperate thing from the books, and one that had enough in it for me to enjoy.

Newintown--the reviews have actually been better than I expected--Variety was a rave, as was the Guardian in the UK, only one of the local papers was negative (though I admit I view the raves in Bay Area papers with cynicism), and of course NYTimes was decidedly mixed--their only complaint, but a major one, was that you did feel like you neer got to fully know any of the characters.

[ChrisBaker]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 2:00pm

" I don't want to turn this into an argument. I do get the impression that unless they made a 6 hour musical, you wouldn't even be partially pleased, and maybe that's unfair."

Yes, a bit unfair. I would be happy with an adaptation that traded in sitcom values for an emotionally engaging piece with good lyrics.And I would love to know how much "Mary Ann" advances the plot- she decides to stay in San Francisco and tells her mother she knows a homosexual. 5 lines of dialogue and done. Not to mention they turn it into a party number and miss that moment so crucial in the book and series- it's where Mouse and Mary Ann actually bond for the first time and she sees the man and not the "gay."

As for Jon Fielding being black- google and check the casting notices- they specifically looked for an African American to play the role. It doesn't make sense given Jon's involvement with the A-Gays and it smacks of tokenism. And no matter how free wheeling SF was back then, society women would not be going to a black OB/GYN. That doesn't make it right (their views) but they were what they were.

No argument here but don't project your "impressions" on to me - my review states my feelings. I wanted this to be a great musical. I'd have settled for good. It's a piece of crap. And for being such a sold out "hit" you can now get $150 tickets for $30 and if they can't really sell out a limited run in the home turf, it's not going to be a hit anywhere else without jettisoning Whitty, Moore and bringing in a great lyricist and dramaturg who gets structure. It might run in London briefly where Armistead/Scissor Sisters would bring in a crowd to begin with- but it is a mess, in my humble opinion. I am glad you enjoyed it. Different strokes.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 2:26pm

Eric, I'm sure your support of the show is admirable from a certain point of view, but it doesn't excuse making things up.

The Variety review, although it does offer some faint praise, can't be called a "rave" by anyone who can read, when it includes comments like:

"Ninety-minute first act takes a little while to find its feet..."

"...pleasantly diverse if infrequently memorable songs..."

"Jason Moore keeps things brisk, fluid and frequently funny, if not particularly stylish..."

"After intermission, progress bogs down a tad as a pileup of less humorous crises ... trigger several more conventional, heavy-handed scenes and songs. It all ends in multiple reunions and hugs, reminding us that a chorus of hugs is never a good way to end a musical."

The most flattering assessment is that the show "...is always diverting and never worse than merely imperfect."

That's, at best, a mixed-to-negative notice; and, as stated earlier, when your commercial producers have publicly dropped you, you probably need REAL raves to move forward.

Posted: 7/14/11 at 6:04pm

Ha, I honestly didn't set out to lie, I haven't looked at the reviews since it opened over a month back, and I suppose I should have before posting. I stand by what I said that the one I most agreed with, although I enjoyed it more, was Isherwood's, which I did re-read before my post. (For some reason I can only access Variety every so often it seems--I guess they have a twice a month free limit now which seems a bit, severe). You do have a valid point that with no producers (although I thought they never had official Broadway producers on board) and so so reviews (I still can't call them negative, but they aren't raves by any means) its chances for New York are slim.

Chris sorry if I offended--I didn't mean to project. I guess I saw the casting of Jon as colour blind casting more or less--since as you said his race was not brought up. But I see your point, even if I'm still not sure it's too relevent for me (while Tales always reflected real events and often satirized them, I don't see it as reality per se, although of course it's a valid point that race plays a big part in the books. I did read somewhere that they wanted a more mixed cast after dropping the D'Or stuff, which makes sense in one way and not in another).

I don't think Mary Ann advances plot or character less than a good number of musical songs. That sounds like a feeble excuse, but it does carry the plot forward, even if I think you have a valid point about missing an important plot point from the books.

I had no idea tickets were being discounted so much--all I was aware of iwas its extension. When I went (perhaps cuz it was previews) no seats were even close to $150 (it surprises me they'd charge that much now), we paid about $45 for very good orchestra seats.

I do stand by what I said, but I appreciate your explanations. I think it's a good show with a lot of potential, and would never classify it as crap (and I've seen a lot of crap)--certainly I found it much more appealing than when I saw Catch Me If You Can in Seattle two years back, to use one example of a show I saw in its early stages. But as you say, different strokes. By no means was I trying to project my impressions on you, but I was pointing out where I disagreed.