Posted: 5/2/15 at 9:21am
Re Kelli's wig, I saw the show midway through previews, and I'd say the wig looked mighty wiggy. A shame, too, since the fashion in women's hair in the mid-1860's was generally a small soft bun at the back and halo of curls around the head. Not sure why they went full-on Gibson-Girl for her in this (a style of 30 to 40 years later).
Posted: 5/2/15 at 6:18pm
Iain reviews THE KING AND I and once again it's cute and insightful.
Posted: 5/2/15 at 6:55pm
"Re Kelli's wig, I saw the show midway through previews, and I'd say the wig looked mighty wiggy. A shame, too, since the fashion in women's hair in the mid-1860's was generally a small soft bun at the back and halo of curls around the head. Not sure why they went full-on Gibson-Girl for her in this (a style of 30 to 40 years later)."
Yeah, it really calls attention to itself, doesn't it? When they first released press photos I hardly paid attention to the beautiful costumes and lovely sets because my eyes just locked onto that WIG. I think it's partly structural/design and partly the color. There isn't a particular reason - a line about the color of her hair? - that they had to go with red, is there?
Posted: 5/2/15 at 7:15pm
Wait, you don't suppose Iain is actually Phillypinto, do you?
Posted: 5/2/15 at 7:21pm
No Someone in a Tree2. Iain is smarter and more mature than Phillypinto is, let's not jump to that please.
Posted: 5/3/15 at 12:44pm
I saw this last night, and rather than review it, I'd suggest that you go back one page and read PalJoey's review as I agree with every word he wrote. This was the fourth production of King and I that I've seen, the third on Broadway. (I saw Yul Brynner's very final performance on June 30, 1985, but that's another story, see below for a description of it from his NYT obit) and I'd have to say that the brilliance of both the staging here and the performances were unequaled.
Seriously, it blows my mind that when discussing a show of this magnitude some people focus on Kelli o'Hara's wig.
"Mr. Brynner gave 4,625 performances as the King of Siam over the course of 30 years, taking his final curtain call at the Broadway Theater on June 30 this year as the orchestra and audience serenaded him with 'Auld Lang Syne.' NOTE: There was not a dry eye in the house so far as I could tell.
Posted: 5/3/15 at 5:04pm
That's wonderful to hear RaisedOnMusicals. What did you think of each of the designs (sets, costumes, lighting etc) and what did you think of that boat that everyone's mouth's dropped during the opening?
Posted: 5/3/15 at 6:04pm
The boat was an incredible piece of staging, bringing to mind the boxing ring that slid out into the orchestra for the finale of Rocky. But here, they only had to take out the first two rows of the orchestra, not cut out a large swath of seats. Now we were sitting dead center, clearly an advantage here, and I did wonder about the extent to which people sitting on the sides had views obstructed by the boat. But regardless, it was pretty jaw dropping. I thought the lighting and costumes were teriffic, as was everything associated with the production. Having seen all of the nominees for best musical revival (as well as Side Show which I hoped would receive a nomination), I think I'd have to cast my vote for The King and I in a close contest.
Posted: 5/3/15 at 6:42pm
It takes a lot to make me gasp nowadays in reaction to a show's set, but that boat made my jaw job. And it is in a sense, good old-fashioned staging.
Posted: 5/3/15 at 7:56pm
With Michael Yeargan creating a jaw dropping set piece that will be ingrained into everyone's memories (The Ship), I can't help but to think of what that talented set designer could do for the LOVELAND sets for a future revival of FOLLIES.
Posted: 5/3/15 at 8:09pm
Be careful what you wish for. You might get the Loveland designed by the Michael Yeargen who designed that wonderful ship.
Or you might get the Loveland designed by the Michael Yeargen who designed that stupid garden for "We Kiss in the Shadow". Or the boring sliding columns and plaster alley wall that constitute most of the palace scenes.
Or the odd rectangular portals that constituted the title character in THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY. Michael Yeargen can be a minimalist, and minimalism is not what I want in my FOLLIES sets.
I'd personally rather see what a Bob Crowley or Scott Pask could do with the material.
Posted: 5/3/15 at 8:24pm
I might get the LOVELAND designed by the Michael Yeargan who designed every breathtaking sets in LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA. Just because he's a minimalist, doesn't mean he HAS to be restricted as one, he might surprise you yet.
Posted: 5/3/15 at 11:53pm
"Or the odd rectangular portals that constituted the title character in THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY. Michael Yeargen can be a minimalist, and minimalism is not what I want in my FOLLIES sets. "
I for one thought that the Bridges set was GLORIOUS. I thought it was the most underrated set on Broadway last season and should have been recognized by the Tony nominators. It was simple, yes, but incredibly evocative and symbolic.
Posted: 5/4/15 at 1:24am
I agree bjh2114, Michael Yeargan is always clever about simplicity and it turns out beautifully. The problem with some set designers today is that they take the piece a bit to literally, Derek McLane's set design for FOLLIES was... Let's just be nice and call it "weak". Yeargan is a set designer who doesn't believe in being literal whenever he designs either plays or musicals, which is why he is my absolute favorite set designer working on Broadway today; and the sole reason why he is the right set designer to even attempt to work on FOLLIES. After looking at the pictures of Yeargan's set for THE KING AND I, I instantly loved it and I prefer his versions of this and SOUTH PACIFIC over the originals.
Posted: 5/6/15 at 11:46am
Posted: 5/6/15 at 1:51pm
"Update: THE KING AND I has now been turned into an open-run...This is great news. "
Called it!
Posted: 5/6/15 at 1:52pm
You didn't call anything. Everyone knew this was going to happen.
Posted: 5/6/15 at 2:07pm
"You didn't call anything. Everyone knew this was going to happen. "
I didn't post it online, but I knew it was going to happen
Posted: 5/6/15 at 4:19pm
Since they are going to tour, how are they going to pull off the sets? Do you think the boat is going to be downgraded for the tour version or not used at all, like in other countless productions in the past? The re-staging part is easy, it's the set design changes I'm nervous about.
Posted: 5/6/15 at 5:42pm
"I let out a small gasp. . . Stunning moment."
Same here! Actually, you could hear a collective gasp throughout the theater. It was a great moment. At one point, the audience was clapping along to the music. This truly is a wonderful production.
Posted: 5/6/15 at 6:03pm
""I let out a small gasp. . . Stunning moment."
Same here! Actually, you could hear a collective gasp throughout the theater. It was a great moment. At one point, the audience was clapping along to the music. This truly is a wonderful production."
Yes, when we saw it this past Saturday night the audience clapped in time to Shall We Dance.
Posted: 5/6/15 at 6:07pm
I've been been meaning to ask you Raised. What did you think of not only Watanabe but the supporting cast, and does Bartlett Sher give us the same magic that his SOUTH PACIFIC did? I would like to think that he struck lightning in a bottle twice when it comes to musical revivals.
Posted: 5/6/15 at 6:09pm
Since they are going to tour, how are they going to pull off the sets?
Isn't it a very minimal set anyway? I don't see why they would have a problem with it. It looks like the stage is pretty bare for most of the show.
Posted: 5/6/15 at 6:30pm
MusicalMaster, I did see his South Pacific revival, and yes, I think he caught lightening in a bottle twice. The supporting cast was wonderful, and Ruthie Ann Miles will be a strong contender for a Tony (especially as her excellent competitors are all in Fun Home). Ken brought a vulnerability and humanity to the King, and I had very little problem understanding him.
