Sweet Smell Of Success — Page 2

I saw both the incest and the possibility that Lithgow's character was her father, and not actually her brother. The mother died in childbirth and the father "disappeared" when the daughter was born.

If so, that makes the whole situation MUCH more disturbing and complicated.

It's also like seeing an insanely popular sold out production and thinking it's a bomb.

---

When did Wicked bomb? Even in previews, there was nothing to suggest the show wouldn't be a hit despite personal feelings regarding the material. If you saw Wicked and thought it would bomb on Broadway, then chances are, The Addams Family will do rather well for itself even without changes from the Chicago tryout. It's probably a good thing you're not a producer unless you're fond of filing bankruptcy.

---

I don't think anyoen really pays much attention to what you write P, not since we've all become aware you don't take the trouble to actually watch the shows you review. I guess that's not really a handicap unless you hope to be a professional critic, which I can't imagine you could hope for in even your wildest dreams.

It's the kinda statement that makes you wonder "Did he even SEE this show"?

When I was at a preview of WICKED, the audience ate it up and whooped and hollered like it was a revival meeting. The reviews I had read here and on ATC were largely pans and after seeing the show I thought it was a generally a disaster barely kept afloat by Idina and Kristin. I thought it would be a huge bomb. It wasn't.

Oh, and morosco I wasn't the one that initially pointed out how brilliant the choreography in SSOS was, though I do think it was excellent ON BROADWAY. NOT in ca-ca-ca-cold Chicago, where the show sucked (as all seem to).

I do respect your opinion, Mister Matt, so I'm sorry if I came across catty.

On the other hand, I make no apologizes to trolls that follow me around from thread to thread to disparage/attack/insult me, particularly when it has been weeks since I have replied to any of their protestations, yet they persist (you know who you are). Stalkers are still fans, one way or another, though. Kisses to you both.

P

Surprisingly, I actually thought something similar, darquegk. The whole incest concept was very tangible so it surprises me that some here did not recognize it, so I question if they even saw the show in NY. The concept of JJ actually being Susan's father, or even the result of incest herself (JJ and his mother) makes a very strong case why JJ wants to keep her under his thumb so much (to protect the secret). Well, that and being a f*cg ego-maniacal monster. The whole reason "For Susan" is such an at-first sweet, then slinky, then skeevy sounding song is because of the subtext with JJ/Susan (he made her his sister, then his daughter... now his wife?), made very clear in the increasingly discordant and skittish orchestration of the song/scene.

As Ethan Mordden points out in his book, this show was just too rich a meal for many. I'm so glad I saw it twice and have my memories because shows like this are very, very rare these days. Particularly shows this audacious with scores this good.

P

Yes, Mister Matt, that's why the point darque pointed out is so interesting. The truth is supposed to be that JJ and Susan are brother and sister, but it would actually make much more sense if they were father and daughter. It would be particularly dramatically compelling therefore if Susan is actually the result of incest between JJ and their mother. I think had this been explored in the show it would have been one hell of an ending and surely a better justification for the big ending song Susan sang in the Chicago version. Yes, I suppose JJ killing her boyfriend is reason enough to cut him off and never speak to him again, but this concept is even more interesting now that we are discussing it. At least to me.

I seem to remember there was a song on the demo that went into their backstories a tiny bit more, I'll have to dig it out and see.

P

I'm pretty sure it has been produced regionally at least once as I remember reading about a regional production at some point and being curious about it. Samuel French has the rights.

Updated On: 1/19/10 at 09:24 PM

I feel compelled to dig up this thread after seeing the original film version for the first time.

My thoughts on the sister/daughter/lover incest subtext are only strengthened by having seen the film. In the movie, JJ is played as a man in middle age, and is at least a little bit believable as a much older brother. Lithgow appears a good bit older as JJ, making it much more plausible that Susan is not his sister at all.

Another thing I noticed in the film is the frequent homoerotic subtext between JJ and Sidney, which, as a few people on TVTropes pointed out, strongly implies that Sidney has had dalliances with JJ in exchange for his position of minor power. I'm surprised that the musical doesn't even reference this, especially since one would expect that in a less morally-restricted age of uncensored entertainment, such implications would be referenced, if not expanded upon.

Or is this all other people's subtext, and not in the script?

Did Wheeldon do the choreography out of town as well? I know Hytner has worked with him slightly on non musical plays, but it seems an odd combination.