TUCK EVERLASTING Previews — Page 8

When, five minutes in, you and your companion look at each other and make that face, you know it doesn't bode well. We left at intermission, which, I know ticks some people off (who apparently, have many hours of their lives left to surrender, doing things they dislike). Time is finite.

There is a lot of talent in the show, but the poor cast is given, 'less-than-nothing' to work with. Poor Carolee Carmello. I, just love this woman and wish someone would write her a musical worthy of her talent. The music is beyond atrocious. It is not melodic or pleasant and sometimes, just grates on your eardrums.The set is interesting and I did like the tree, but the madrigal dancers who escaped from the local Renaissance Faire, to form the "clock" were distracting and annoying and looked, at times, like they were doing the robot.

The book is boring and goes on, interminably. Nothing happens in Act One. There is no real conflict. The set up for Act Two is so small and inconsequential, neither of us cared what the resolution was.

I had never heard of Tuck Everlasting, so I was unfamiliar with the story and was rather excited to know very little about a new musical. I am so disappointed that I felt the way I did.

Our conversation, afterward, was spent trying to determine how this made it all the way to Broadway, in the first place.

I truly hope the wonderfully talented cast finds material better suited to their gifts.

I'll echo a lot of what Whizzer said about the first preview. This is overlong (even though it's only 2:15), over-choreographed, and while I haven't read the book, it seems to skim the surface of the material without ever really diving into some of the more interesting ideas about mortality and selfishness that are just begging to be brought to the surface more.



To me, this was a case of everyone doing their job well, but none of the pieces quite sticking. There are too many unnecessary songs. The book meanders. If they want to plunge deeper into the subtext, they could find ways to flesh out an evening at this length. But if they keep it as small and surface level as it currently is, cut some of the songs that lead nowhere and punch through in 90 minutes.



There are so many truly talented people on stage (Carmello and Mann tops among them) but even though they have material, it's so bland that I thought there was little they could do to elevate it. Only Michael Wartella in the tiny role of Hugo stole my heart.



The ballet at the end, though, I will give full marks to. It would be even more effective, as discussed earlier, if there hadn't been so much pointless dance before it (how many times can you circle that silo and jete?) but still, it was lovely.



Nothing about the show is bad. I just also didn't find anything about it especially...special.

It's interesting to me that many of the negative reviews in this thread are people who admittedly don't know or don't like the material. There's only so much they can do to make you like it when you don't like the material.

I think they did a great job with what is there. Should Tuck Everlasting be a 2 hour musical? Probably not.

Jordan Catalano said: "You should really watch the film. It's a really wonderful story that, when told well, is beautiful.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will look for the film, this weekend. It struck me that this could make a sweet small chamber musical. Maybe 90 minutes with no intermission.

Someone mentioned not liking the material. There wasn't really any material to dislike. I'll go along with any story, if it's well-told and engaging and I can see a lot of potential for the 'idea' of this story. It was just the execution that, sadly, didn't work so well, for me.

Whatever its immediate fate -- and in the same season with "Bright Star" (entirely different but I've already heard people confuse them at TKTS), it may be a hard sell -- this show likely has one of the longest lives imaginable in high schools. It can be performed anywhere without offending communities that increasingly parse material. For the creators, the glass arrives half full.

I didn't mean to imply that was your post. Also I totally agree with what you're saying about Nicholaw's direction. You're right.

I saw the show last weekend, and I absolutely loved it. I thought the story was intriguing and beautifully delivered on stage. I have never read the book, so I went in knowing just the basics that I got from their marketing. I liked the songs, some were more memorable than the others, but that's the case for me in all musicals. Personally, I loved the dancing that they incorporated throughout the show, I never thought that it was forced. Also, I liked all the characters, and thought that Andrew Keenan-Bolger and Sarah Charles Lewis made an adorable stage duo. The ending was perfect in my opinion - amazingly staged. Overall, this was one of my favorite musicals that I have seen in the past 3 years or so (I try to see about 8 per year). I definitely think that people should check out this show. But of course, everyone has different tastes, and this one just happened to be mine.

Updated On: 4/12/16 at 08:51 PM

Please forgive me if this has been addressed already, but has anyone rushed this lately? Would love to know how many people were in line, etc. I was planning on rushing Friday morning for the evening perf, and want to have an estimate of when to get there.

Any insight is appreciated!

^like she doesn't have an alternate? I'm not sure if she will be nominated either way. It's a tough category this year.

Saw the show last night and I went in with extremely low expectations except for a friend who loved it, and was pleasantly suprised. Is it a groundbreaking musical? No, but it is a well staged beautiful production of a classically written American Musical.

After reading through the thread and bumping into Casey Nicholaw in the rear of the orchestra who was actually asking people what they though, you can tell that he really wants to fix this. From seeing the show last night, the show has clearly come a long way, and is almost at the finish line.

I have some updates on point of contention people have had below:

Regarding the background Dancers:

I don't know how heavily they were featured before, but they seem to be toned down, and I thought they actually gave energy to the production. I think Casey's decision to use them is 3 fold. As I said they give a lot of energy to the productions allowing the show to maintain its mommentum especially in the first Act. Also I think they are supposed to be representation of everyone the Tucks have lost along the way. Third is they bring the ending Ballet full circle, as without them the ballet really just comes out of left field.



I think the there are 2 problems the show has in order take take the show from being ok/good to good/great.

The first is is focus. The book is about a Winnie, who has never been able to see the world outside her gate, going on an adventure and loosing her innocence, through her interaction with the Tuck family and not the other way around. The seem to be working on that of ensuring the Tucks are never onstage without Winnie once they meet. I think the problem is that so much time is spent on introudcing the Tucks and their plight, that Winnie's problems become secondary instead of the central focus. The way to fix this in my opinion is have Mother and Nana have a larger presense in the first act. They need a song after "Hugo" to explore why Mother raised Winnie so strictly to keep the plots focus on Winnie running away instead of the Tucks. The second Act although much more uneven uneven does a much better job of this.

The other problem is Andrew Keenan-Bolger, not that he isn't great in the part. but its his chemistry with Sarah Charles Lewis is great to the point of it causing the audience to become distracted. Having read the book back in the day and seen the movie, the greatest critisism of the movie is they made Winnie 15 instead of 11. This created a romance between Winnie and Jesse that is not supposed to exist. The fact that Andrew reads really young and Sarah actually reads older then she is despite actualy being 11, causes the audience to see their relationship as a romance instead of a friendship. This is why Mae is so angry when Winnie says he told her to wait till she is 17, as he is 105 years old creeping on an 11 year old, along with the torturous existence they live. Although Jesse's desire to "marry" Winnie existed in the book, there isn't the explicit sexual reference and easy joke Andrew says regarding why she has to wait. Then again Hugo is also another creeper, so I think they need to get rid of the whole pedofilic element of the plot. But in truth they need to make Winnie and Jesse's relation ship scream friendship and not read as a romance.



Overall though I thought the show was in great shape. Yes the the conflict it quite small to the point of being a deus ex machina with the Man in the Yellow suit, but I think that is addressed in my comments on the focus.. The first Act was almost perfect, and the second act is 80% there. The tree is marvoulous and everyone around me was saying how they wished they could play on it. Everyone gives strong performances and outside of Mother and Nana, each gets their own moment to shine. I do wish "Everlasting" ending on strong big note instead of tappering of into the ballet, but it worked well in showing her internal conflict.



Is the show perfect no, but is is good for what it is yes.

Updated On: 4/13/16 at 02:08 PM

Oh my goodness. I saw a preview this evening and I don't have sufficient words to explain how utterly... Bad it is. I have never seen a show where I couldn't find a single redemptive quality until tonight. I cannot believe that a musical about living forever made me wish for death (I'm kidding, of course, but yes it was that terrible).

Sorry to be so harsh, but if you value your time on earth, see anything else.

I agree with so much said here. It was a pleasant enough show although boring in parts - not awful but not great and definitely needs a lot of work. The book of the show had some complete clunkers that didn't land at all. As much as the end ballet was touching, I wanted it cut in half. I found myself saying, "WE GET IT. SHE AGES AND HAS A LIFE." I felt beat over the head with it. It frustrated me to the point where I lost most of the good feelings I had toward earlier moments in the show. And I say this without having read the book, but I would have liked to have seen the moment she decides not to drink the water or even a moment where she makes the conscious decision to move on with her life. Maybe I missed something, but the only sense I got that she didn't just flat out forget what happened completely was when she pulled the music box out again at the end.

I saw it last night and there were also obvious mistakes that happened (and a couple of things dropped in the wings by the sound of it).

It'll probably tour fairly well - completely inoffensive in every way and fine for entire families to see.