Sondheim and Ives' HERE WE ARE at The Shed- Page 50

[ardiem]

Posted: 10/26/23 at 9:35am

Can anyone comment on the gunshots the program notes warn about? Are they recorded? Live props? Are they telegraphed enough to cover ones ears in time?

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 10/26/23 at 12:54pm

henrikegerman said: "Act 1 is a delightful surprise, hilarious, beautiful to look at, charming, spirited, fresh and fun. It is a great free adaptation fully in the spirit of Discreet Charm.

In Act 2 not only is Buñuel's subtle atmospheric tone in Exterminating Angel barely recognizable, but, though there are some lovely scenelets (Bay Jones and Hyde Pierce have a quet, funny, lyrical and poignant moment together), the show too often gets bogged down in the tritest most cliché strewn been-there seen-that way too many times tropes of class conflict. This is all the sadder because Ives's first act writing is first rate.

As for the Sondheim in the Sondheim, the score is charming and the lyrics as endearing as they are spot surreal. The sets are brilliant throughout. The cast could not be better. Though odd that Tracie Bennett, so damn good in act 1, has practically zilch in Act 2. Her counterpart, Dennis O'Hare, is equally brilliant in Act 1 and troops on valiantly from there but his character suffers the most from Act 2's flaws."

I so agree that it was not a great adaptation of Exterminating Angel. It's a much eerier Twilight Zone of a film and I was hoping for a really REALLY drastic tonal shift and if Sondheim had more of his score we could've had an Into the Woods Act Two darkness easily.

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 10/26/23 at 1:09pm

The gunshots are recorded, and not very loud. I'm very sensitive to loud sounds, and I wasn't bothered.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I can't remember if there are 2 or 3, but there's only 1 in act 1, which is a surprise offstage, so kind of impossible to prepare for that one. The other(s) happen in act 2 when there's a gun clearly visible (which is often in act 2), so it's difficult to prepare for the moment they actually happen.

Honestly, Francoise Battiste blowing a whistle, twice, was much harder on my ears.

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 10/26/23 at 1:33pm

Just found out the Met had done a really frightening somewhat Sondheimesque opera of Exterminating Angel several years ago,

 

could it be they were trying to steer in the other direction so as not to invite comparison?

[bear88]

Posted: 10/26/23 at 11:55pm

henrikegerman said: "Act 1 is a delightful surprise, hilarious, beautiful to look at, charming, spirited, fresh and fun. It is a great free adaptation fully in the spirit of Discreet Charm.

In Act 2 not only is Buñuel's subtle atmospheric tone in Exterminating Angel barely recognizable, but, though there are some lovely scenelets (Bay Jones and Hyde Pierce have a quet, funny, lyrical and poignant moment together), the show too often gets bogged down in the tritest most cliché strewn been-there seen-that way too many times tropes of class conflict. This is all the sadder because Ives's first act writing is first rate.

As for the Sondheim in the Sondheim, the score is charming and the lyrics as endearing as they are spot surreal. The sets are brilliant throughout. The cast could not be better. Though odd that Tracie Bennett, so damn good in act 1, has practically zilch in Act 2. Her counterpart, Dennis O'Hare, is equally brilliant in Act 1 and troops on valiantly from there but his character suffers the most from Act 2's flaws."

I enjoyed the second act more than you did, but this is a fair critique. I think the internal logic of the film would have led the show into some pretty dark places, and I sensed Ives, Mantello and - whatever his role - Sondheim shying away from that. It’s a softer show as a result. The second act had a surprising sweetness that was capped by the scene with Rachel Bay Jones and David Hyde Pierce. Jones, in particular, sold me on the humanity - as hers in such a central and pivotal character.

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 10/27/23 at 1:40pm

FYI, they released more rush seats on TodayTix for tonight, and I have C 14, 6th row center, in my cart for the next 4 minutes. Can't find a friend to use it, so, if you're interested, head over and grab it. Looks like the give out all the partial views at 9 a.m., then they start going through the unsold premiums later in the day.

Updated On: 10/27/23 at 01:40 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/27/23 at 2:40pm

bear88 said: "henrikegerman said: "Act 1 is a delightful surprise, hilarious, beautiful to look at, charming, spirited, fresh and fun. It is a great free adaptation fully in the spirit of Discreet Charm.

In Act 2 not only is Buñuel's subtle atmospheric tone in Exterminating Angel barely recognizable, but, though there are some lovely scenelets (Bay Jones and Hyde Pierce have a quet, funny, lyrical and poignant moment together), the show too often gets bogged down in the tritest most cliché strewn been-there seen-that way too many times tropes of class conflict. This is all the sadder because Ives's first act writing is first rate.

As for the Sondheim in the Sondheim, the score is charming and the lyrics as endearing as they are spot surreal. The sets are brilliant throughout. The cast could not be better. Though odd that Tracie Bennett, so damn good in act 1, has practically zilch in Act 2. Her counterpart, Dennis O'Hare, is equally brilliant in Act 1 and troops on valiantly from there but his character suffers the most from Act 2's flaws."

I enjoyed the second act more than you did, but this is a fair critique. I think the internal logic of the film would have led the show into some pretty dark places, and I sensed Ives, Mantello and - whatever his role - Sondheim shying away from that. It’s a softer show as a result. The second act had a surprising sweetness that was capped by the scene with Rachel Bay Jones and David Hyde Pierce. Jones, in particular, sold me on the humanity - as hers in such a central and pivotal character." 

Appreciate your thoughts, Bear, very much.  But while it's been a while since I saw Exterminating Angel, my impression wasn't that OVERALL Ives tried to lighten Bunuel's film for the stage though, yes, in that wonderful scene between RBJ and DHP, he does just that, beautifully.

Maybe I need to see the film again pronto, but my memories of its tone are far more elegant, mysterious and playful' a sly - wry wink to haut bourg. insularity and excess.  And certainly not the in your face obvious class warfare satire "oh that again" (think The Menu, Triangle of Sadness) Ives pushes here. 

 

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 10/27/23 at 3:53pm

If you listen to the audio version of this article, you can hear some of Denis O'Hare's waiter number: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/23/1207224793/stephen-sondheim-last-musical-here-we-are

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 10/27/23 at 9:51pm

Just got out of the show and... yeah idk.  Some great stuff in the first act and the set is really great.  Would it be crazy if I said that Ives simply isn't an interesting enough writer for this? His book doesn't seem as unhinged and funny as Sondheim's score.  Too much logic in this Bunuel adaptation.

I'll share some more of my thoughts when I make it home.

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 10/27/23 at 11:33pm

It bothers me how ashamed this is of being surrealist. It overexplains everything instead of just letting the weird stuff happen for us to then interpret. A lot of stuff in the book really doesn't work, especially in the second act and it misses the point of the two Bunuel films it pulls from.

It winds up being anti-poor people, pro-rich which really sucks. The satire falls completely flat. Very right-wing, surprisingly. A lot of the cast is very good, but doesn't make the material soar. It needed stronger personality actors who could transcend the caricatures that Ives has written. I really think Nathan Lane and Bernadette Peters would have been great in the Cannavale/Bay Jones couple and could have really fleshed those characters out. I actually thought the whole cast could've been more Vaudevillian, but mainly because I think it would've hidden a lot of the book's huge flaws.

Set, lighting, sound, orchestrations are all great and Sondheim's score is wonderful even if it is obviously incomplete. Mantello's direction is very good.

Very interesting that they went with Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and The Exterminating Angel as the Bunuel films to adapt from because I really do think Belle de Jour is the Bunuel film that really screams musical. Viridiana would also make a great musical as well. I suppose Sondheim wanted a challenge.

Ives' book lets the show down big time, Sondheim's incomplete score is fun, good production, capable but maybe boring cast. It's still an absolute must see.

[bear88]

Posted: 10/28/23 at 2:27am

Double post. Sorry.

Updated On: 10/28/23 at 02:27 AM

[bear88]

Posted: 10/28/23 at 2:30am

henrikegerman said: "Maybe I need to see the film again pronto, but my memories of its tone are far more elegant, mysterious and playful' a sly - wry wink to haut bourg. insularity and excess. And certainly not the in your face obvious class warfare satire 'oh that again' (think The Menu, Triangle of Sadness) Ives pushes here.

Georgeanddot2 said: "It bothers me how ashamed this is of being surrealist. It overexplains everything instead of just letting the weird stuff happen for us to then interpret."

Bunuel, despite his pointed views and experiences, relishes in keeping the audience off-balance in The Exterminating Angel, which contains mysteries that often aren't explained. And one of the flaws in David Ives' book is that most of the talking, once the music stops, is too obvious with its satire - which ends up seeming more sympathetic to its rich characters than its poor or idealistic ones.

One of the best scenes in the second act involves a certain animal. Ives doesn't bother to explain it, and the combination of the weirdness and Sondheim's music and Jones' performance (which I loved throughout the show, and allowed me to forgive the weaknesses in the second act) made it work very well. She's the star of Here We Are, gets the best material, and made it soar - at least from my vantage point. Marianne emerges as a full character, and so her scene with David Hyde Pierce's bishop feels earned.

While I agree with observers who say Sondheim was sort of doing a pastiche of Sondheim (fair enough, given his age), his contribution brought out the best in Ives, which is why the first act is so very funny despite its own imperfections. It replaces the wry humor of The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie with a more traditional musical comedy - but with a blend of book and score that serves both well and gives the actors plenty to do and keeps the audience on its toes.

In his book, Look, I Made a Hat, Sondheim writes that musical theater writers have an advantage over the writers of straight plays because they "need no justification to be surreal, because the form itself is. ... And once you have carte blanche permission to be surreal, you can take any liberties with logic or plausibility that you want."

That's what was missing after the music stopped in the second act. It wasn't the absence of songs per se, which were interrupted a lot anyway. It was - with the exception of the lovely Jones-Pierce scene - that the show became far more conventional and predictable, with Ives and director Joe Mantello trying to bring the show respectably home.

Despite my qualms, I thoroughly enjoyed Here We Are and still feel a little envy for those of you in the New York City area who can check it out again. I might feel differently about the show if I saw it a second time.

Updated On: 10/28/23 at 02:30 AM

[binau]

Posted: 10/28/23 at 4:39am

I love this quote from the New Yorker:

"The choice to have the non-singers, like O’Hare and Pierce, deliver solos in the first act, while the generational voices, like Gray and Pasquale, perform only small portions of ensemble numbers. (Hell is being at a Sondheim musical with so many great singers not singing.)"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/11/06/here-we-are-theatre-review

 

[BJR]

Posted: 10/28/23 at 8:33am

Finally caught this last night and over-all, while I agree with some of the critiques of the satire in Act 2, I thought it all really worked as a whole. I think it's a powerful night of theater! Sophisticated, funny, extremely smart.

I truly think the use of songs and then its absence was effective and appropriately jarring. (I was going to say music instead of song, but there is music and it adds to the story immensely.)

My largest critique is the very end:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Those speeches telling us what they learned? Cut em. Go straight from "It's a beautiful day" to "Where are we going to eat?". And boom, done. Also, the final staging of them breaking into groups and walking towards each other is unclear what's happening. So, as it is now, after a thrilling but challenging evening, the end feels both overwritten and vague.

 

[JasonC3]

Posted: 10/28/23 at 10:46am

BJR said: "Finally caught this last night and over-all, while I agree with some of the critiques of the satire in Act 2, I thought it all really worked as a whole. I think it's a powerful night of theater! Sophisticated, funny, extremely smart.

I truly think the use of songs and then its absence was effective and appropriately jarring. (I was going to say music instead of song, but there is music and it adds to the story immensely.)

My largest critique is the very end:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Those speeches telling us what they learned? Cut em. Go straight from "It's a beautiful day" to "Where are we going to eat?". And boom, done. Also, the final staging of them breaking into groups and walking towards each other is unclear what's happening. So, as it is now, after a thrilling but challenging evening, the end feels both overwritten and vague."

I concur, particularly with what you note in your spoiler.  With a bit of tightening I think the second act could metaphorically sing a bit more in how it lands.

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 10/28/23 at 11:07am

Some more thoughts:

Here We Are is such a bad title.  Square One is obviously better suited to the show, especially since it's said in the show several times.

I was also hoping that this would take a much darker, horror tone in the second act and have a much less hopeful ending. Turning The Exterminating Angel into a sort of musical comedy is... a choice.

Very sad how afraid Ives is of really going after the rich. It comes off as a light teasing, which given it's venue and ticket prices is especially abhorrent. Somehow the poor people in the show come off the worst lol.  He literally makes them terrorists. Insane.

Ives does Ostlund instead of Bunuel.

Wrong book writer and it makes me question Sondheim's reasons for dragging his feet with this project.

Updated On: 10/28/23 at 11:07 AM

[Robbie2]

Posted: 10/28/23 at 10:10pm

[Robbie2]

Posted: 10/28/23 at 10:14pm

‘Sondheim Made a Train, and You Just Have to Step On’: Micaela Diamond on Here We Are, the Most Anticipated—And Surreal—Musical of the Year - 

 

https://www.vogue.com/article/here-we-are-micaela-diamond-interview

 

Updated On: 10/28/23 at 10:14 PM

[binau]

Posted: 10/29/23 at 2:55am

I thint the reason they went for ‘here we are’ is it kind of encapsulates the existential theme of the show. It is funny how jarring it is that they keep saying square one but I don’t think the show is really about being back at square one, so I’m happy with the new title. 

[BJR]

Posted: 10/29/23 at 10:02am

Well, you don't necessarily want the title mentioned every 10 minutes. It can be cringe enough when there's one line quoting it, let alone 10.

Though I concede Here We Are feels incidental.

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 10/29/23 at 12:15pm

It wouldn't be the first time that the title of a Sondheim show is mentioned several times IN the show.  It actually seems like a Sondheimy thing to do.  I found the constant repeating of that line jarring next to the pretty random title of Here We Are.  It also seems that Sondheim wished for the title to be Square One.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/29/23 at 12:21pm

Sondheim named it Square One prematurely without Ives and Mantello's approval. They said in the Vulture article that the title "Here We Are" was always in play as well.

I like the title "Square One" - but it sounds too much like an old fashioned musical comedy. "Here We Are" is ominous and more fitting for the overall style of the production and Martello's direction.

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 10/29/23 at 12:23pm

Is the show not a musical comedy? I think Here We Are sounds much more like an old fashioned musical comedy.

Updated On: 10/29/23 at 12:23 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/29/23 at 12:28pm

 Sure, act 1 is a frothy musical comedy, but Square One sounds like a golden age musical to me, which this certainly is not. We have a different opinion. 

[Georgeanddot2]

Posted: 10/29/23 at 12:30pm

Idk I think Here We Are sounds more golden age and Square One sounds a little more modern (and much less random). But anyways...

Rachel Bay Jones Sally Durant Plummer when????