TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA (Delacorte) -- Reviews

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/28/05 at 8:21pm

TalkinBroadway is positive on the material and Lewis/Goldsberry, negative on Marshall's direction/choreography.

http://www.talkinbroadway.com/allthatchat/d.php?id=166333
Updated On: 8/28/05 at 08:21 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/28/05 at 8:22pm

Broadway.com is positive.

http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=517114&pn=1
Updated On: 8/28/05 at 08:22 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 8/28/05 at 8:33pm

Go Kim Grigsby!

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/29/05 at 12:14am

Theatremania.com -- pretty much echos Talkin Broadway.com

http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/6577






Updated On: 8/29/05 at 12:14 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/29/05 at 12:16am

All of them pretty much agree - Rosario is not a singer.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/29/05 at 8:16am

New York Times (Brantley):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/theater/reviews/29vero.html?hp&ex=1125374400&en=bb46dbe783bcb2d3&ei=5059&partner=AOL

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/29/05 at 8:19am

New York Post:
http://www.nypost.com/theatre/51893.htm

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/29/05 at 8:22am

Linda Winer:
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/ny-etsecw4402678aug29,0,5582237.story

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/29/05 at 8:43am

AP:
http://www.omaha.com/index/toolbox/toolbox/toolbox/toolbox/index.php?u_pg=680&u_sid=1494792

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 8/29/05 at 8:54am

They all agree: The cast (basically Norm Lewis and Renee Goldsberry) is great, the show itself sucks, and Kim Grigsby's swaying with the music is more exciting than Act 1.

[alterego]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 12:13am

I disagree. Most say the show is fine, but the direction/choreography is somewhat lacking. A couple mention the flat finale. Anyone seen this production who can tell me why this is so? As I recall the finale in the original had dance, frisbees, bubbles etc. This is different to the present production?

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 8:10am

New York Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/theater/story/341626p-291715c.html

Posted: 8/30/05 at 9:47am

Ben Brantley -- chief theater critic of the New York Times:

As the seduced and abandoned Julia, Ms. Dawson (of the films "Sin City" and the forthcoming adaptation of "Rent") is so ripely beautiful that it's hard to believe even Proteus could desert her. (Her singing is so-so, but who cares?)

"Her singing is so-so, but who cares"???!!!

Is this what is to be expected from the New York Times' chief theater critic???

Brantley just lost ALL credibility with that statement. What's next? (Insert actor here) can't dance but who cares? (Insert actor here) can't act but who cares? After all, Ben, looks are everything, right?

Ridiculous. Brantley should be ashamed and the NY Times should post a job opening for chief theater critic. Brantley is apparently vying for the job of chief Hollywood panderer where, judging by Dawson's singing, looks ARE indeed everything.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 9:54am

Slacker -- Rosario Dawson isn't attempting to play Christine in PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Julia in THREE GENTLEMEN OF VERONA is very slight musically, and was cast in the original production by Diana Davilla and Stockard Channing, neither of whom are great singers. It's like saying so-and-so isn't a great singer when playing Rizzo in Grease. It doesn't matter.

Posted: 8/30/05 at 10:25am

Sorry MB, but when a performer can't handle the requirements of any role it certainly does matter.

I'd love to see the theater community's reaction if Brantley regularly printed nonsense like that in his reviews. As a matter of fact, I can't recall Brantley EVER giving a pass like that to ANY performer. What possibly could be Brantley's reason for abandoning all standards for Rosario Dawson?

Posted: 8/30/05 at 10:39am

PS MB

They only shuffled Dawson into this role because they needed some theater credit, any theater credit, to justify her role in "Rent" the movie. It looks as though they're really scrambling now. Especially when they can coerce the NY Times chief theater critic into a ludicrous review like that.

And that brings up another point. If Dawson's role is so unimportant, why did Brantley bring her up at all? And since he DID bring her up it was incumbent on him to provide an accurate review of Dawson's performance. Not some useless pandering "WHO CARES!"

Ridiculous.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 10:59am

Slacker writes, "As a matter of fact, I can't recall Brantley EVER giving a pass like that to ANY performer."

How quickly they forget Melanie Griffith...

Posted: 8/30/05 at 11:06am

But she was just across the street keeping an eye on hubby.

Posted: 8/30/05 at 11:15am

"Ms. Griffith's performance in this hit revival of the Kander and Ebb musical, still feisty after more than six years, has to qualify as one of the most bizarrely successful debuts in Broadway history. Ms. Griffith has only minimal command of the skills traditionally associated with musical comedy. She dances very little, and her well-known baby-doll voice has only a casual relationship with melody. Yet Ms. Griffith is a sensational Roxie, possibly the most convincing I have seen…"

You're right MEF. Make that only the second time I can remember.

Brantley is obviously enamored of anyone or anything Hollywood. The Times should make him chief movie critic and give his current job to someone who can actually handle it.

It's enough to make one long for Frank Rich. But Mr. Rich is doing such a splendid job editorializing that I'd rather see him stay where he is even if that means more of Brantley.


Updated On: 8/30/05 at 11:15 AM

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 11:16am

She was reviewed by every major critic and received very positive notices from most of them, especially Brantley. Everyone said that she couldn't sing or dance, but she still got great reviews. So, her reasons for doing the show are irrelevant.

Posted: 8/30/05 at 11:22am

Whatever the reasons or reviews I do not subscribe to the notion that anyone with movie credits can just waltz onto Broadway and get a pass no matter how lackin they are in talent or training.

We hold our own to much higher standards. We shouldn't relax those standards for anyone, particularly just because they come from Hollywood. That's the point I'm trying to make.

People here insist on nothing short of perfection on Broadway but they settle for absolute neophytes when Hollywood tells them to. That is an afront to authentic Broadway actors who are held to quthentic Broadway standards.

Not "her singing is so-so but who cares".


*edit*

So the requirements for Broadway now are -- a pretty face (and let's not forget that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.)

So if someone opens a show with a cast full of pretty but wholly untalented faces it's bound to be a hit, right? I mean, you'd all buy tickets to see all those beautiful non-singers, non-actors, and non-dancers, right?

Wake up people, Broadway is its own worst enemy.
Updated On: 8/30/05 at 11:22 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 12:02pm

slacker - "her singing is so-so but who cares"

The same could be said of Gwen Verdon, Ann Reinking or Glenn Close. Actually, Dawson's voice is better than that of Diana Davila, who originated the role in the Broadway production of the musical. While I agree that Dawson's voice was weaker than other cast members, it does not mean that the role was written nor requires a strong voice (i.e. Sweet Charity). No one other than you claimed Dawson was nothing but a pretty face. You drew that conclusion on your own from Brantley saying her voice was so-so. Maybe you should see the production and judge for yourself before jumping to conclusions.

"So the requirements for Broadway now are -- a pretty face"

What do you mean "now"? You make it sound like this is something new. That has been one of the requirements (and at times, the only requirement) for over 100 years.

"They only shuffled Dawson into this role because they needed some theater credit, any theater credit, to justify her role in "Rent" the movie."

Uh, she didn't "need" any theatre credit. She already got the role and filmed it. Her role was already justified by those who needed to justify it - the director and the producers. Maybe you need it justified, but apparently not the studio.

Personally, I think everyone should see the show. I can completely understand how it beat Follies for Best Musical. Follies has always been about the score and the divas, but the show itself has never worked. Two Gentlemen of Verona, in the spirit of the musical comedy, absolutely works. The story is as silly as Shakespeare wrote it to be and the diverse score is effervescent and infectious. The clever staging (including the gorgeously lit trees, yet another reason to see it in the park), engaging performances, and political satire (relevant then and now) make this show a winner. In my own review, I mentioned that there are only a few moments where the comedy could be punched up and the finale needs a fresh take and the show is ready for a Broadway return. I would recast Dawson's role simply for a better fit with the rest of the cast. Mandy Gonzalez might be free soon....

Updated On: 8/30/05 at 12:02 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 12:31pm

Brantley sucks, I lost respect for him when he raved over Melanie Griffith.

And I don't think it's fair to say it could be said for Gwen Verdon. Because at one time Gwen had a glorious voice. It wasn't her fault feathers got wrapped around her vocal chords during Charity, and her voice was ruined forever. But if you've heard her solo album from the 50's, you would know she had a beautiful voice.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 12:36pm

I heard her recordings of Can-Can, Damn Yankees, Redhead and New Girl in Town and while her voice is certainly unique, I'm not sure I would classify it as glorious. She has never been known for her singing quality, but for her dancing and her actiing, which have always made up for her local of vocal abilities. And it didn't hurt that she was cast in roles that were suitable for her vocal stylings.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/30/05 at 12:44pm

Most of the critics gave Melanie Griffith terrific reviews, not just Brantley. What a lot of people on this board, particularly those who haven't actually seen these performances live are forgetting is that there is something called stage presence, star quality, whatever you want to call it - that is large part of great legendary stage performances. Was Carol Channing a great singer? How about Gertrude Lawrence? Bea Lillie? Roz Russell? No. But historically, these women collectively gave some of the most legendary Broadway performances of the 20th century.

But greatness is not measured in technical ability alone. There are a lot of us who feel the Sutton Foster and Susan Egans of the world, no matter how techincally good they are, are severely lacking in star quality.

But, bringing it back to the discussion at hand, I think Brantley felt that Dawson had sufficiant stage charm to be won over by her performance. Why does she have to be a great singer?

Updated On: 8/30/05 at 12:44 PM