Sweet Smell of Success thoughts?

[loganatorr22]

Posted: 7/19/10 at 10:56pm

I just got the soundtrack from the library and I think I like the score and the plot is very interesting. Does anyone out there have thoughts on it who saw it? I'd be curious in particular about John Lithgow's performance.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/19/10 at 11:20pm

I adore the score. I never got to see the show, but I've read the script and I agree with the general consensus that the shows major flaw was the fact that there was no one on stage to root for. There wasn't a single likable character. It's a musical about a bunch of people trying to get ahead or stay on top, doing whatever it takes to do so, and getting rid of anyone that gets in their way. For some reason, it seems to work on film, but it obviously didn't work in the theatre and I can't tell you why, other than the obvious fact that a musical generally requires the audience to care about someone. But, I still think it was an interesting idea to construct a musical that didn't do that. It was sort of an anti-musical in that respect. Updated On: 7/19/10 at 11:20 PM

[loganatorr22]

Posted: 7/19/10 at 11:49pm

Interesting. What were the critics' reactions like?

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 12:09am

It was a catch 22- writing a noir musical demands that you have the noir sensibility, but a musical typically asks empathy or sympathy from its audience.

With noir, there is no black and white morality or even grey on grey- only black and black. Everyone is corrupt from top to bottom, and there's no one to invest hope in. Sweet Smell of Success depended on the proposition that mainstream Broadway could handle noir. It couldn't- whether it was just a bad time, or if the style doesn't work onstage would be hard to determine.

[loganatorr22]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 1:43am

How were the performances?

[Boq101]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 2:42am

Such a great score. I wouldn't have minded maybe softening Sidney up a bit, I mean I don't see how it would be possible, but somehow not making him so unlikeable.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 6:39am

Never saw it, but that was one cool set.

[Eastwickian]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 9:49am

You might find the following thread interesting....
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.php?page=1&thread=1010074&boardname=bway&boardid=1

[loganatorr22]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 9:56am

Thanks!

[homeimp]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 11:46am

I saw this show. I must admit at the time I was kind of disappointed. ButI kept thinking back on it and purchased the CD when it became available. It is one of the few CD's I own that I liked better each time I played it. It is a great score. Yes, the characters are not a likeable bunch. But are they a likeable bunch in Chicago? SSOS has passion and power. It holds the interest even after the curtain falls. I look forward to a second chance to see this show. I bet it would have been an even better show and recording if John Lithgow were a better singer. He's not at all bad, and won a Tony, but.. Maybe someday Brian d'Arcy James will do a revival and play Lithgow's role??!

[Jon]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 11:51am

Saw the Chicago tryout.

Good: Brian D'Arcy James, Kelli O'Hara, Jack Noseworthy, the set.

Weak: The direction, the book, the score.

John Lithgow played Hunsecker as too likeable. In the film, Burt Lancaster was pure evil.

The character of Sidney's girlfriend (I forget the actress)was extraneous and underdeveloped.Suddenly in Act II, this girl we don't care about has a big solo.

The score sounded like leftovers from City of Angels. I guess all atempts to imitate "film noir" sound alike.
Updated On: 7/20/10 at 11:51 AM

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 11:55am

As was discussed in the post linked above, the show was massively retooled for Broadway after an unsatisfying Chicago tryout, and Lithgow's character became much more sinister. The book was tightened, the score was (mostly) improved, and at the expense of the female lead's best number, the show became a much stronger, nastier animal.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 11:58am

Agreed that it sounds like City-of-Angels-Lite; Hamlisch is talented, but no Coleman; Carnelia has always been fourth-string.

I liked Lithgow, but wished for a better voice. he has star quality and can hold the stage, even with no great material. Kelli O'Hara showed promise, but I was left cold (as I always am) by D'Arcy James, who possesses a fine voice, but is much more a singer than an actor. I see no subtlety, depth, imagination, or surprise in his work. And Jack Noseworthy, reported to have slept his way to the middle, has justifiably disappeared now.

All in all - not the worst idea, but no brilliance to the piece.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 12:16pm

Another Chicago attendee. I couldn't believe Lithgow won anything for that performance. Score was OK but the plot seemed too unfocused- stuff happened but it didn't really build or climax. The "for Susan" number was amazing- one of the great moments I've seen on stage- and so quiet and subtle!!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/20/10 at 12:37pm

I couldn't believe Lithgow won anything for that performance.

Ditto that. I saw the show in Chicago and found it mostly dull. Some good music and wonderful performances by O'Hara and Noseworthy, but ultimately, I could never get invested in the characters or story. I just didn't care what happened and other than the floating skyline, there was not much interesting going on in the staging or lighting, either. Nice costumes, though.