Some thoughts on Shrek..

[Kad]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 6:06pm

Two friends and I rushed the Sunday matinee performance (decidedly last minute, about 40 minutes before the show), since we were all curious about it.

First thought: $36.50 for student rush tickets? Geez. The seats were alright- Right Orchestra, row R- very last seat (my two friends had the last two seats in Row Q). It was marked as obstructed, but there were no sight line issues.

Second thought: Being a misanthrope, Shrek was not the best show for me to attend in terms of audience. Particularly a Sunday matinee.

Onto the show itself:

Shrek arguably has the strongest set of leads on Broadway. D'Arcy James, Foster, Sieber, and Breaker are all wonderful and for the most part are able to transcend material that only has fitful bursts of wit and creativity. The real standout is certainly Christopher Sieber. He completely steals the show, and whenever he was not onstage my level of engagement was significantly decreased. He hams it up and certainly works those little legs.

Sutton Foster was enjoyable, though her performance is nothing I'd canonize her for. Brian D'Arcy James has a gorgeous voice and does manage to imbue Shrek with some humanity, despite the fact the prosthetics he's been saddled with make it virtually impossible for any emotion to cross his face. Daniel Breaker manages to avoid becoming an Eddie Murphy impression, and has a great voice, but is stuck with some of the show's least impressive songs.

Despite the aforementioned strong leads, I could not shake the notion that the majority of the rest of the cast seemed to be going through the motions for this performance. Perhaps because the audience had a large amount of grandparents taking their young grandchildren. Perhaps because the show's fate looks bleak. Or perhaps it's because they're in Shrek the Musical. Maybe it's because they're stuck with pedestrian choreography. There were some standouts, in particular Jen Cody and Haven Burton (amusing as the masculine-voiced Sugar Plum Fairy, an underutilized gag, and the Gingerbread Man).

I believe Caroline, or Change is one of the best modern American musical theatre scores, so I was looking forward to hearing Jeanine Tesori's work. My reaction was similar to what I imagine it would be if I followed up a 5-star dinner with a Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich. Sure, the latter's alright but why the hell would you eat one after something so sumptuous? The score feels just as mass-produced as the Wendy's sandwich too, for the most part. The only songs that stuck with me after the show were "Big Bright Beautiful World", "Who I'd Be", and "Morning Person". "Who I'd Be" is arguably the strongest ballad in the show, with lyrics and music working perfectly. "Morning Person" is fun, and marks a change in the show- when everything starts working consistently. Also noteworthy are "What's Up, Duloc?" and "Ballad of Farquaad", not only because I would love for Christopher Sieber to rock me gently to sleep, but because these songs are genuinely charming, expand a little on the source material, and contain some wit. The section of "..Duloc" dealing with Duloc's conformity in particular stood out, or perhaps I'm the only one that thinks a chorus exclaiming "We're all the same!" is funny (and perhaps a little tragically ironic).

So the score is fairly bland- the lyrics following suit. So what about the costly tech elements? It's strange. The most elaborate parts of the story came out looking the worst. I speak, of course, of the lava bridge and Dragon. The Vaguely Threatening Lava Bridge slowly trundles out, safely suspending Shrek and Donkey a harrowing 4 feet or so above dangerous smoke effects. It's just not impressive or believable. It looks like a boardwalk nature trail in Hawaii that no one has gone on for a while.

The Dragon herself is just a mess. Apparently the one-voiced Dragon in Seattle didn't work. But I don't see how the three-voiced Dragon currently in the production is any better- particular when the Dragon is given spoken dialogue that is alternated between the three women. It's like the Dragon has multiple personalities that always agree. It simply doesn't work- and the people making up the Dragon's scales were an artsy idea that just didn't work. Considering all the literal-minded adaptations made of the movie material, it's just odd they chose this route. Admittedly, it is a very difficult thing to stage, and I am pressed to think of anything different. However, it's not my job to do that.

So this review has been focusing strongly on the negative. I would agree with Ben Brantley that Shrek isn't bad. It's just fiercely mediocre. It adds nothing to the source material (at least Legally Blonde made the noble attempt to try that, despite failing), and adds nothing to the annals of musical theatre. But what is to be expected of an adaptation of a movie that referenced The Matrix? Here, instead, we have "hot tranny mess" worked into the lyrics.

Writers and producers need to be unafraid to REALLY adapt work, as opposed to sticking songs into a screenplay. Cut things that don't work, remove characters, rethink concepts. Hell, I'd argue that musicals that are made into movies are adapted more than the movies made into musicals. There are glimmers of hope in Shrek- glimmers of a musical that could've been. But that's all. Glimmers.

[TheCharleston]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 6:10pm

"Writers and producers need to be unafraid to REALLY adapt work, as opposed to sticking songs into a screenplay. Cut things that don't work, remove characters, rethink concepts. "

Hollywood industry is not into that...

the point is to carry the cinematic "franchise", that's familiar to audiences, on to the stage.

not reinvision or re-imagine it.

I'm not against it and I support what you're saying but we are talking about Universal and Dreamworks and Disney and so on. Their intentions are to stick, as close as possible, to the original material that made that "franchies" a SUCCESS.

it's unrealistic to expect anything different

[Kad]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 6:18pm

I know that it's a completely unreasonable thing to expect from Hollywood. It's just extremely frustrating, and that frustration, for me, will never dissipate.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 6:22pm

Kad, they cut the Robin Hood scene (a highlight of the movie that could have easily been turned into a production number) and added in many elements that were not in the movie and greatly fleshed out the characters (Shrek's past/"Big Bright Beautiful","Who I'd Be", "I Know It's Today", the fairy tale creatures' rebellion, Farqaad's daddy issues) and adapted many high points from the movie into even higher points onstage ("Things Are Looking Up in Duloc", the exploding bird). So, in that respect, I think you're wrong.

And, to boot, they added in many hilarious theatre references.

What do you want them to do? Give Donkey AIDS, Fiona lesbian tendencies and pepper in some curses and sex scenes? Come on. It's SHREK.

Updated On: 1/28/09 at 06:22 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 6:32pm

I do agree that some attempts were made to expand the source material. The success of these attempts varies. I agree, and wrote, that the Duloc number was a highlight, as well as "Morning Person" (though I disagree about the exploding bird- I thought it was rather corny on stage. Loved the deer though).

However, on other elements it just worked much less. "Big Bright Beautiful World" just told us what we already knew and just tweaked what was shown in the movie. Instead of an angry mob attacking adult Shrek, we had an angry mob attacking kid Shrek. If anything, I would argue that the extended "Big Bright Beautiful World" from Seattle and the Broadway previews was more effective. Including Fiona was a nice touch, as well.

The Fairy Tale scene in the first act was fun. In the second act, it just became a way to redundantly shoehorn in the moral of the story and quickly wrap up that plot.

I also enjoyed Farquaad's dad issues. However, including his father in the climax sort of defused that whole thing (the bad voiceover didn't help).

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 6:45pm

Well, obviously having all the creatures rush on during the wedding with his father is a pretty forced way to stall so Sutton can do the makeup change.

I found that scene very awkward - after Shrek confesses his love for her, they basically just stand there on opposite sides of the stage (well, him and the double, anyway). It'd be nice if there were guards holding him back or something like in the movie.

[Paul W. Thompson]

Posted: 2/2/09 at 4:43pm

So, is this show going to last until the summer? These weekly grosses are looking mighty awful. I mean, I know it's in a cavern, but this is really disheartening if you think about it.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/grosses.cfm

I'm sure they were hoping for so much more, but then came the meltdown. And the reviews. Will they make it past the March revival openings, to give parents the time to find them?


Updated On: 2/2/09 at 04:43 PM

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 2/2/09 at 9:46pm

Shrek is backed by a huge conglomerate and this is Broadway's slow season. They'd be stupid to call it quits this early. At least wait for the Tony nominations.