THE GREAT COMET Reviews — Page 2

Updating the thread bc not sure why the previews thread is continuing to be used...

Can I ask a question about this show? So, based on the lyrics and reviews that I've read, it sounds like Pierre is supposed to be middle-aged. I haven't seen the show myself, but I asked a friend who saw it and he agreed that Pierre is depicted as middle-aged. Having read some of War and Peace, I recall that Pierre was in his 20s in the novel. Any idea what age he's supposed to be in the stage show and, if I'm right, why they chose to make him older? I'm just curious because they were so loyal to the book in every other respect.

SporkGoddess said: "Can I ask a question about this show? So, based on the lyrics and reviews that I've read, it sounds like Pierre is supposed to be middle-aged. I haven't seen the show myself, but I asked a friend who saw it and he agreed that Pierre is depicted as middle-aged. Having read some of War and Peace, I recall that Pierre was in his 20s in the novel. Any idea what age he's supposed to be in the stage show and, if I'm right, why they chose to make him older? I'm just curious because they were so loyal to the book in every other respect.



"



Hey Spork, I'm not sure that he is intended to be portrayed as middle-aged in the musical. He's in his late 20s in this part of the book, and nothing in the musical indicates to me that this isn't true there as well. (Josh Groban himself is 36, but plays younger, at least in looks.) Pierre's called "old man" on a number of occasions in the libretto, but I always took that in its 19th-century British meaning, not as a literal describer of his age. As for why reviewers might think he's middle-aged, I wonder if they just figured any existential crisis makes more sense if it's a mid-life one... But I guess I always just assumed Pierre in the musical is still his same age from the novel.

Wow. Just got back from a weekend in NYC and I ended up using some Audience Rewards to get tickets for this show without any expectations or really knowledge of the show, outside that it was based on a small sampling of War and Peace, the unique seating arrangements and that Josh Groban and Denee Benton were the leads. I cannot stress enough how happy I am to have taken a chance on this incredible production. The entire cast, ensemble, and musicians were on fire and I was thrilled and moved throughout the entire piece. I had seen Denee in Lifetime’s Unreal (don’t judge) and was taken by her tender and outspoken character so I was kind of excited to see what she could do on stage and this girl just broke my heart. I felt her portrayal of Natasha was layered and radiant. Her early scenes as an ingénue had me reeled in from the start and as her character grew I found myself more and more enamored by her. Josh was great too, his Dust and Ashes had me in tears and his final encounter with Natasha was tender and chilling. I have to say, I had the pleasure of seeing Lucas Steele’s understudy-Blaine Krauss as Anatole and he stole the show for me. My seats were in the last row of the mezz and the combination of the chorus singing behind me with the images presented before me on the main stage was magnificent. I can’t recommend this show enough. If you don’t know much about it, I would even recommend seeing it without doing any research beforehand. I am also in awe of how fresh those members of the cast who have been performing these roles on and off since 2012 still were in their roles. This is no easy task and you can tell that they really love being a part of this show. I can’t wait for the OBC to be released, until then, I won’t stop listening to the OCR!

I remain struck by Jesse Green's pretty brutal review, and subsequent commentary, which dismisses Great Comet as "morally bankrupt," basically a vapid and repulsive show that glamorizes the wealthy of 19th century Russia while completely missing Tolstoy's scathing view of the characters' trivial preoccupations and downplaying the fact that the story told in the show ends badly for Natasha.

I'm in the midst of reading "War and Peace," which I started because I was going to be going to the show (so I skipped ahead) and am continuing now. It's hard not to read Tolstoy and miss his disapproval, although it's more subtle (so far) than "Anna Karenina." Now it's certainly possible that I'm getting it all wrong, or that the 900 pages I have to go will leave me with a different opinion. But I've read the sections of the novel on which the show was based, and the musical actually seems like it gets the main points right - even if it's deliberately designed to be anachronistic and to keep the audience off balance.

Doesn't all the spectacle help serve the musical's point? Dave Malloy may have done an immersive, fun show because he wanted to do so, but the final product plunges the audience into the world of Natasha - who is as awed as the audience is meant to be by the wealth and fun that surrounds everyone. Her story, and its sad (but not hopeless) conclusion, didn't get lost. And Green only grudgingly acknowledges the character of Pierre and his impact. Pierre is not the most sympathetic character on paper, as he's a ridiculous rich guy, but his story arc works quite well. "Dust and Ashes" may have been added in part for commercial reasons, because of Josh Groban, but it really is quite effective artistically in emphasizing the story of his depression - and his halting efforts to find meaning in his life. By the time you get to the last 20 minutes, Pierre has become the most important character. The poignant but hopeful conclusion was both earned and moving, at least to me.

I respect Jesse Green, who expresses strong views and writes very well. I just strongly disagree with him on this show.

Updated On: 5/18/17 at 04:23 AM

I typically agree with Green too, but his assessment of Comet has been very harsh (and misguided).

And henrik, yes, Green used the phrase "morally bankrupt."

Green doesn't completely ignore the last 20 minutes, but he objects to the musical because he seems to believe that the conclusion is too little, too late for a show that celebrates the decadence while downplaying the tragedy.

I certainly understand people's annoyance with the switches between third-person and first-person narrative. There are times when I think it detracts a bit from the show's overall impact and is a little too clever for its own good. Other folks can certainly find that a lot more bothersome than I did.

But Green's blistering critique of the show goes far beyond the sorts of gripes I've read here. Plenty of people hate the score, or found it unnecessarily confusing, or distancing, or just plain stupid. Green doesn't really have those complaints. He understands the show. He just finds it repugnant. The original review seems to have been influenced a little by the timing, as it just followed Trump's election. But if his comments in the New York Times are any indication, he hasn't softened his view at all.

Green does treat the show seriously, which I appreciate. Major works of theatre should be subject to serious assessments and sharp criticism, and Great Comet has plenty of naysayers. I just found his review and subsequent comments particularly harsh and wrongheaded. The show isn't all pierogis and egg shakers, even if that stuff is a lot of fun.

It's hard to watch the musical and miss the irony and disapproval even as the party rages for the audience's benefit. In the "Prologue," the cast sings, "Chandeliers and caviar, the war can't touch us here." Is that really an unironic celebration of decadence? If anything, it seems more than a little timely, given the United States has been at war since 2001 and most people can and do ignore that entirely. And the whole crazy scene has a major impact on the young Natasha, flattered by the attention in Moscow society and thrown off her bearings. And that's not even counting Pierre's plot, which is basically a study of depression.

The show surprised me, because I was expecting the fun but didn't think I would be so moved.

Updated On: 5/18/17 at 02:30 AM