Some Thoughts on "9 to 5"

Some Spoilers are here, so you've been warned.

I had been looking forward to seeing the production for months, having heard much of the score beforehand and being a big fan of the film and the show's cast.

I don't think I've ever been more let down by a Broadway production in my life.

Sure, it's technically excellent and the cast seemed very game, but I've never seen the book of a musical so completely shoot the show in the foot.

In the first place, it's very faithful to the movie, so much so that if the viewer has seen the movie, he/she can see every joke coming, even the ones that weren't so funny in the movie so many years ago (look at the early hat joke recycled from the movie verbatim despite the fact that the hat isn't outlandish and neither actress seemed very excited about the gag).

The characters are underdeveloped and are never given any quirks or depth, which is such a shame since the show has more time to explore them. Stephanie Block has a powerhouse song "Get Out and Stay Out!" that comes out of nowhere. We have met her ex-husband for three minutes, he's been mentioned maybe twice and he has never been outrightly nasty to her. The admittedly great song should have huge emotional resonance for the viewer, but why should we care about Judy's breakthrough when the writer never cared enough to take the time to make it matter?

Or then there's Megan Hilty's spotlight "Backwoods Barbie," which is slightly built up, but fails to move Judy, the character it is sung to, so why should we be any more moved?

The major addition to the show is the worthless character of Joe, played by Andy Karl. Karl is a great actor; he stole so many scenes in "Legally Blonde" with barely a word, but here he seems adrift. The character is set up as a love interest for Allison Janney's Violet, and the major block to the relationship is that Joe is *gasp* a few years younger than Violet. That "problem" is SO important that it is mentioned, at length, twice as much as Judy's cheating husband, even though it isn't a problem at all. When Violet confesses to Joe the drugging, kidnapping and other incredibly illegal things she did, he doesn't even have a reaction other than "okay." I doubt any person, dull or not, would have that little to say before immediately becoming an accessory to the crimes.

Most of the dialogue, when not taken verbatim from the film, relies on obvious laughs that should have been cut during rehearsals. Violet and other secretaries have a two minute conversation about how technology in 1979 was SO cutting edge...and that's funny because we've come so far! Get it!? And the first gag in the show is a man waking up and walking across stage in boxers with a...er...well let's say all of him is awake. Because that's a great way to start a show all about women's empowerment, right!?

It's just so frustrating because "9 to 5" could be such a fantastic show. The music is, for the most part, excellent and the actors are trying their damnest to get the laughs the script just doesn't provide them. The fact that this lazy writing got through previews is beyond me. Is it wrong that I hope the show closes soon, if only so it can reopen in a few years with a revised book worthy of the music?

What a letdown.

Updated On: 5/23/09 at 10:50 PM

As someone who enjoyed the show, I'm sorry you were disappointed. This show gets such split reactions, and understandably so. I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, but I am trying to understand this comment:

"And the first gag in the show is a man waking up and walking across stage in boxers with a...er...well let's say all of him is awake. Because that's a great way to start a show all about women's empowerment, right!?"

I find this comment puzzling because I truly don't see how the gag undermines "women's empowerment." Whether one finds it funny or not is a different story, but is it offensive in that way? One could argue sexual objectification, which was a major point feminism fought against, but isn't the gag a natural phenomenon? And no one in the show is leering at him; he is just one of many getting ready to go to work in the morning. Whatever reaction the audience has is theirs, but I don't see how the message is undermined by the gag by itself.

I have seen several similar comments that trouble me because they don't seem to be based on a grasp of feminist thought or rather are too simplified. For example, one review mentioned they were put-off by the portrayal of Roz because the show is about women's empowerment and yet she helps Hart and purposefully engages in sexual harrassment/demeaning behavior. But that is the point: in many ways she is an anti-feminist. She wants to maintain the power structures that her colleagues suffer under and which feminism fights against. Her being a woman does not automatically make her a feminist or pro-women's empowerment. Another review found 'Get Out and Stay Out' to be "man-hating." These just make me wonder about people's perceptions of feminism (ie. "feminazi," etc.) and if people might criticize the show on faulty points. Of course, these are faulty in my view, but perhaps other arguments could be made for these or other parts of the show.

It was a major letdown to me as well. Before the show started, I was so excited. After it ended, i was like "Is that it?"

---

I found the show just a slight let-down, only because my expectations were low to start. However, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the three leading ladies and Marc Kudisch, albeit the material was quite weak. Cute, simple, Broadway for the masses, won't remember it next year.

" The other trouble with the song is that she tells him to get out in the number---and she pulls him back in to continue to tell him off."

LOL!

Amaranth9, I just meant that the show sure went to the lowest common denominator in a "Girl Power!" as quickly as possible. The show deserved better than that.

goldenboy, I completely agree and laughed at that in the worst way possible.

Thanks Namo.