Something Rotten Previews- Page 15

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/16/15 at 1:58pm

Saw this on Tuesday night. Appreciated it, but didn't love it. Not exactly my cup of tea, as I am normally more drawn to shows like The Visit and Fun Home. 

It's an energetic and fun production, but the second act is pretty bland. The score has some catchy highlights, but overall it's quite generic. 

The standouts for me were Brian d'Arcy James and the wonderful set.  I was VERY impressed with James, he is the anchor of the show. Borle does Borle. The ladies were great in underwritten roles. 

Overall, not the best, not the worst. 

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/16/15 at 4:32pm

MAMA, Here's a visual from the balcony...looks to be row G

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/16/15 at 9:55pm

Thanks, Robbie!

[RippedMan]

Posted: 4/18/15 at 1:17am

Saw this tonight from the last row of the Mezz. Not a bad seat, but everyone was leaning forward, and I'm 6'2", and I was on the edge of my seat with great posture just to see the edge of the stage. My back was hurting at intermission. 

That said, I thought the show was good, but not great. I think it could have benefitted from an out-of-town tryout or a longer preview period. The first 30mins of the show are brilliant. The songs are fun and catchy and the big "this is a musical" moment is brilliant and hilarious. Then the show sort of retreads on itself. The story is a little muddled, so not sure how this is a shoo-in for Best Book. Most of the jokes are in the music, not the book. And the 2nd is a doozy. There are no good songs, and not really any jokes. There's a few chuckles, but it's all stuff we've already seen. I like Nicholaw as a director, but this all feels like a retread. We get it, there's tapping. And it's your big showstopper moment. But instead of getting it once, we get it like 3 times. And every time it's basically the same costume and basic setup. A show shouldn't have that many "showstopper" moments. And all of the Bard's songs are awful. That "It's hard" song in Act 2 was just plain terrible. They sort of abandoned singing all together in Act 2 and just did this speak-sing-rap type thing. 

James as Nick Bottom was good. I thought he held his own and was in beautiful voice. I wish they had given him more moments to sing. He didn't really have a big "I Want" song or a big 11 o'clock number, which is what I was hoping for. He was good, but I can't imagine he's a shoo-in for a Tony. Ceveris in Fun Home is just remarkable. 

 

John Cariani as Nigel was the stand-out for me. I thought he was hilarious and honest. It didn't feel forced, and his voice is really quite beautiful and fragile. I just thought he was the heart of the show, and really ran with his character. He was "too cute" I'd say. 

 

Borle was fine, but I don't think he was given the best material. None of his stuff really made me laugh. His big songs just got mild applauses like "we appreciate your effort, but eh." I think the idea for the character is quite funny, but I would have liked something more. Maybe a flashback to them when they were first starting out? I don't know. I just didn't care about his character or anything.

 

Blickenstaff is AWEOSME. I mean, she doesn't get much to do. Her and Reinders are kind of given crap material, but her big song is awesome. And she just kills it. Her voice soars and she just makes it all seem so easy. Again, her material felt very like THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE FUNNY, but something was missing. But that said if she recorded the entire score with just her voice I'd buy it. I love her voice. 

 

Ashmanskas was another highlight for me. His actual lines were pretty tired and boring, but his characterization was hilarious. Just the sly little bits he did had me cackling. 

 

The direction felt flat to me. There wasn't any inventive staging. Everything is pretty much down center. There's not a great use of the set or anything. The jokes just felt very .... tired. Like, I feel like we've had the referential Broadway show before. When they brought out the Avenue Q puppets... it felt forced? I don't know. I just feel like he staged essentially every number to be a production number to be performed on a television broadcast. I would have liked a few more numbers of just two people talking or songs that furthered the plot along instead of stopping and doing this big tap routine. Eh. And the choreography felt like just an old bag of tricks. 

 

The book was weakest to me. I feel like if I just sat down and read it, none of it would pop off  the page. It's what the actors brought to their roles and the songs that really help the show. That said, I also feel like for whatever reason none of the actors really define their roles. I could this being done with any number of actors in their places. 

The music is catchy. The opening song, Hedi's big solo, Brian's "I hate Shakespeare" are all highlights. But after about the first 45mins it all kind of felt less inspired. And Act 2 just felt abandoned completely. 

The design was fine. Looked like Spamalot. 

The audience ate it up, but I just wasn't overall that impressed. Granted I was around a lot of younger people, but they were laughing at literally every line. 

 

I'm still on camp Fun Home. I've never seen a show that really made me feel that way or feel so inspired. The writing, the music, the design. It's just a slamdunk, and I hope it gets recognized. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 4/18/15 at 1:17am

Whoops. Double.

Updated On: 4/18/15 at 01:17 AM

[inception]

Posted: 4/18/15 at 2:58am

Thanks for the long review RippedMan.  It will be interesting to see what happens with this (and some of the other shows) over the next couple months.  I'm probably not getting to NY to see Hamilton until autumn and it will be interesting to see what makes it through the summer. So far only King & I seems to be a hit, already extending sales into January.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 4/18/15 at 12:03pm

Good review, RippedMan. I was there the other night and I'll only add that the show was so loud and yet the lyrics were 30% unintelligible. I also wish there weren't so many slant rhymes like "pen" and "in," "genius" and, well, you know.

Cariani and Blickenstaff are the standouts with special mention of "most committed" to Brad Oscar.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 4/18/15 at 12:29pm

Oh yeah, Brad Oscar was quite good too! I was surprised there was no Wicked joke? Unless I missed it? Some of the other jokes seemed a little forced. Like Scar? Although I guess Lion King is a play on Hamlet, so it fits. 

 

Yeah, regardless of what I think, the audience ate it up. Granted I was in the cheap seats and there were a lot of college age kids here on springbreak, etc. So they were loving it. I'd be curious to see what a tourist from Wisconsin thinks. The cast def. works hard to make sure you think it's funny. I just think it could use some trimming and tightening from the book and a few new songs. 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/18/15 at 5:14pm

Just back from the matinee, kind of in awe at what I've seen. Not that it's great, or even that good. But it's an entire musical in tribute to the old-school tired-businessman musical of the 50's and 60's that is somehow rearing up anew. Mel Brooks managed a show or two that swam in the deep end of this sea, and the creators here pay the kindest compliment to Old Mel (and by extension Susan Stroman) by imitating him in nearly every spit take, rubber chicken appearance and tap dance routine.

If only they could have written a score. Ah me. I actually liked the opening number and a couple of the ladies' numbers alot. But the standing ovation that "A Musical" got was simply a standing ovation the audience gave itself for recognizing each snippet of another better musical as the notes sounded out from the orchestra pit. Where's the clever songwriting in that?

Did I laugh? Sure I did, especially at the antics of the adorable John Cariani, and the patented poufery of Peter Bartlett. I laughed when Scott Pask's back-alley set for "A Musical" appeared, full of odes to Jo Mielziner's famous GUYS AND DOLLS set, even before the chasing twinkle lights started to pop on. I laughed at Shakespeare's hot backup boys in leather, although I didn't laugh at Christian Borle's antics as Will himself nearly as much as he clearly wanted us to.

Which I guess was my overarching problem with the bulk of it. Why were they all working so damn hard for every laugh they could get? Why couldn't they just play the show and let the merriment rise up more organically? The play as written is a whole hell of a lot more likable to me than either BOOK OF MORMON or SPAMALOT were (, putting aside the stale whiff of gay panic that kept seeping into the libretto), but somehow they weren't free to trust the humor on its own. Everything had to be hammered home to the rafters, and boy, did that get exhausting. 

Of course, just because I'd rather live in the dreamworlds of AN AMERICAN IN PARIS and ON THE TOWN, doesn't mean that the rest of the ticket buying public will. By the looks of things, this will be the new smash hit on Broadway and will run for years and years, as each new audience compliments itself for recognizing those musical vamps from THE MUSIC MAN and A CHORUS LINE, and wonders why they don't remember any of the NEW tunes from SOMETHING ROTTEN so easily.

 

 

Updated On: 4/18/15 at 05:14 PM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 2:13am

So true.

[Monty12112]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 8:24am

After reading the last couple of messages I thought I would post my comments.  Saw the show on Saturday and I actually LOVED the show.  I thought it was hilarious.  The majority of the crowd seem to be laughing out loud to many of the jokes and it received standing ovations throughout the show after a few of the musical numbers. 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 9:09am

delete

Updated On: 4/19/15 at 09:09 AM

[Play Esq.]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 10:36am

SIAT:

 

I couldnt agree more with your assessment. The self-adulation this show encourages is terribly transparent. 

My one note of disagreement: I wouldn't be so confident that this show will run for years and years.  It lacks so much that musicals similarly situated have to offer (ie BOM) including name brand recognition of the creators and/or product.  Absent incandescent reviews, particularly from the Times (and I don't think that's happening), I would be surprised if this show exceeded a year. 

 

[indytallguy]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 11:14am

"The self-adulation this show encourages is terribly transparent."

Given how pervasive it is throughout the show, seems as if Nicholaw either has encouraged it or at least tolerates it. What do we think the rationale for doing so might be?

The "wink, wink, nod, nod" approach certainly can help extend enthusiasm and laughter and used a bit more judiciously, I probably would have found it a welcome addition to the show. As it is, it felt like being forced to do group hugs endlessly.

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 11:48am

RippedMan I also saw the show last night and must respectfully disagree. I loved it! And everyone in the audience seemed to be eating it up as well. (I was in the orchestra so I did not have the same problems with the view, apologies for your back pain). After "It's a Musical" and the Omlette number the applause just wouldnt stop. There is indeed a bit of Mel Brooks esque absurdity to the whole thing, but I never felt like it was too much. It works as a great love letter to musical theatre. My boyfriend has little knowledge of musicals/shakespeare yet still thoroughly enjoyed himself despite not getting all the references. I supposed Nicholaw didnt do anything new or inspired with the direction, but then again it is supposed to look like a stereotypical musical. And I loved the way he paid winking homage to the art form in his choreography. Ill definitely consider myself a fan. Perhaps not the most wholly original piece, but Id venture to say its by far the most entertaining show this season. I've yet to see Fun Home (If anyone wins that damn impossible lottery and needs a companion, I will drop everything and go with you! TodayTix does not seem to favor me) so I cant compare the two shows. But thus far its my favorite of this seasons new musicals. 

[Littleshopofcarrie]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 2:21pm

Saw the matinee yesterday and absolutely LOVED it! I agree with what some people on this board are saying, with the rest of Act 1 not living up to the show stopper, "A Musical", but I thought Act 2 definitely got there. Great cast all around, not one weak link. The ensemble was really giving it, too. Also, the score was outstanding. So many catchy tunes! Definitely recommending this show to everyone!

[sctrojan65]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 6:37pm

Interesting question.  

Whether it was intended or not, it didn't really bother me.  IMO, the show is so ridiculous and farcical it seemed like it was being purposely played that way.  Would be interesting though to hear what the director's take really is on it.

Interestingly, when I saw the show last Saturday, there were no midstream standing Os.   The production numbers, and the show, overall, were received with thunderous applause and laughter, but I don't remember seeing anyone standing up…until the end of the show.

Which there in itself must have been kind of weird for the actors on stage that afternoon.  If so many posters on here have attended performances where standing Os were occurring with regularity, that must have been kind of weird for the actors not to see it happen at the performance I was at.

Were the actors hamming it up?  Playing to the audience?  Yes.  But I took that as being part of the experience of this particular show.

I suppose I just took the show for what it was.  When I saw the actors hamming it up, I took it as being part of the show.  A lot of exaggeration.  Playing to the audience.   Responding to audience reaction.  Etc.  Some might not dig that approach, finding it too forced; but I was fine with it.

As for the timing of audience laughter and the motivation behind it…well, the people around me might have thought I was laughing just to show everyone I was "getting" the allusions and references.  But that wasn't the case, so no matter.  Can't worry about what people think.

As a literature major who read a lot of Shakespeare, I did recognize the references.  And having attended theater for almost 50 years now, starting with attending with my family as a kid, I recognized many of those references as well.  I just thought it was clever and fun to see how they were doing it, so I would laugh.  Wouldn't have thought it was being perceived in any other way.  

Certainly there were several bouts of laughter that went by me.  So I enjoyed what I knew; and missed what I didn't.

Personally I liked the show, and I'm glad I saw it.  Was it my fave?  No.  But I liked it.

 

 

""The self-adulation this show encourages is terribly transparent."

Given how pervasive it is throughout the show, seems as if Nicholaw either has encouraged it or at least tolerates it. What do we think the rationale for doing so might be?

The "wink, wink, nod, nod" approach certainly can help extend enthusiasm and laughter and used a bit more judiciously, I probably would have found it a welcome addition to the show. As it is, it felt like being forced to do group hugs endlessly."

 

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 8:10pm

I really can't wait for this one to close and make room for something better in that great space.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 8:52pm

...and put all those people out of a job...great idea.

A lot of people are enjoying it. That should be enough. For those who are not, there are many other shows to choose from. Wishing it to close seems unnecessary at least.

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 9:11pm

If you're looking for job security then stay away from show business, Kathy.

[Cupid Boy2]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 9:28pm

"I really can't wait for this one to close and make room for something better in that great space."

 Oh, yes, because the St. James has been home to so many prosperous runs since The Producers. Who cares if it played to 99% capacity last week? theatregoer3 didn't like it, better find a way to pull the stop clause.

 

Not to say that financial success is a measure of quality, but when a completely original musical seems to be on the path to finding it, I think that's something to celebrate. 

Updated On: 4/19/15 at 09:28 PM

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 9:43pm

I am not looking for job security in show business..but I can't imagine wishing something to close because I don't like it. I don't think my opinion is important enough to put people out of a job.

Does that explain it better?

 

 

 

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 9:50pm

Not to say that financial success is a measure of quality, but when a completely original musical seems to be on the path to finding it, I think that's something to celebrate.

Cupid, I certainly agree with you here and I take your point.

However I think this show is a pretty blatant mix of tired cliches that have been seen in this town too many times over the past couple of years. I wouldn't call this show "completely original". I was excited for something original and left very disappointed when I discovered what it truly was.

This all said, I won't be surprised if it's a financial success.

 

 

 

 

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 9:54pm

If you can't imagine then stay out of show business, Kathy.

[sctrojan65]

Posted: 4/19/15 at 9:55pm

I think there's room for a plethora of different shows on Broadway.  

Those that have resonated with me range from Bullets over Broadway (and we all know what happened to that one) to Fun Home (and look what's happening there tonight!).  

I loved Beautiful and Jersey Boys, but as much as I like ABBA, hearing that Mamma Mia! has been on Broadway for over ten years is remarkable to me because I just didn't get into the musical all that much.  

But there's nothing wrong with it being there….people like it, and it has an audience.  A big one. As long as a show is selling, what the heck.  There's room.

Now if a show isn't selling and doesn't have an audience….then clear the way for something else.   And they will.