Tales of the City: The Musical in San Fran- Page 4

[mnmsf2]

Posted: 5/30/11 at 2:40pm

I agree with the San Francisco audience NOT being an easy audience. I have lived here 11 years so I know some of the references and private jokes. I am also very familiar (too familiar) with the books and the mini-series. Because of this and the fact that I now live here, the bar was raised extremely high. The characters, the time, the dialogue. I was very impressed and although I was not thrilled with a couple interpretations, every single actor exuded so much talent... With some tweaking, this musical is destined to mark its place. But as I stated, I believe we are the hardest audience to judge this show.

[Brick]

Posted: 5/30/11 at 4:29pm

The first preview performance people cheered when the house lights went down to start the show. It's a testament to the show that it held them for the initial performance's long runtime, but it was an easy crowd that laughed at references no other audience would.

That said, that was just the first preview. I look forward to going back and seeing what work they've done and how the audiences are now.
Updated On: 5/30/11 at 04:29 PM

Posted: 5/30/11 at 4:35pm

Don't most (out of town) preview audiences do that? Granted I've only ever seen a pre (or in this case maybe) Broadway show before, with Catch Me If You Can, but that was the exact same experiernce. (except I liked the show a whole lot less)

[mnmsf2]

Posted: 5/30/11 at 4:38pm

We gave them a spontaneous standing ovation yesterday 5/29. It still needs a little tweaking and the second act seems to wrap things up fast. There are also a couple easy fixes that I noted - only because I knew what was happening; such as let the audience know that the file that Mary Ann burns is Mrs. Madrigal's file...not the porn pictures and a little clearer that Edgar dies. I also think it has been cut down to 3 hours and 10 minutes vs the 20 minutes. I also would love to see how much more it evolves later in the run.

Posted: 5/30/11 at 4:45pm

"Congrats to all involved....Not only are the books beloved treasures and same may arugue just as loved as the two mini-series - this production not only does the source matieral justice, it does US proud.

Mary Birdsong steels the show as Mona and her storyline connects surprisingly more than Mary Ann's. This doesnt diminsh - at all - the exceptional power and force of this show...the music is BRILLANT. The direction is fluid and exceptional with Moore bringing out the best of his Actors and Production (with the notable exception of some of Mary Ann's costumes...just a note) The Book is equally amazing weaving the various plot points and characters - quite an accomplisment. "
I echo all your sentiments (though I think a lot more work has to be done--especially with costumes, as you implied). I wonder if the show could somehow be built more around Mona--Birdsong is so compelling, and her character is.... I still feel like Mary Ann just fades except for the lame subplot.

Why hasn't Birdsong had a hit Broadway show?? She's astounding to watch.
Updated On: 5/30/11 at 04:45 PM

Posted: 5/30/11 at 4:57pm

mmmf what did you think about the score, and how it connected (and hint--anyone with one please PM me)

[mnmsf2]

Posted: 5/30/11 at 5:30pm

Hey Eric. You know, I really liked it. I do think there needs to be a little tweaking with that too, so the songs flow a little more to encompass the entire show. There were those obligatory monologue songs...which I did like and they did move the story and open up the characters. I was humming a tune at intermission as well as when I left the show; the last time I did that was IN THE HEIGHTS when I saw it in NY. As you mention this, I really do want to see it again. Mona was incredible. You know she has done a little Broadway and won a Theater World Award; although like you I wonder why she hasn't made that notch yet. Maybe this will do it. Her character grew throughout the show. I think I would have liked Mary Ann a bit more if she could have displayed her naivety yet jaded attitude towards "players" and situations such as in the books and the mini series. Her costumes, although I understood what they were trying convey, didn't seem to alter at all as the show progressed. So, at times, they were the sore thumb they should have been ONLY at the very beginning. I was not thrilled with Connie - I always pictured her as a perky little skinny bird. The book was impeccable and I give Jeff and the magic score makers so much credit for placing the show on stage - remaining faithful sprinkled with some great one liners.

Posted: 6/2/11 at 1:18am

mnmsf2 I was discussing the show briefly tonight with my friend I dragged to see it (his first experience seeing a musical on stage, believe it or not) now that he's read both of the first two books, and you raised some good comments. He really didn't clearly catch on WHAT Mary was burning or even if Edward had actually died--both points that are pretty important. I guess it wasn't an issue to me as I had read the books and seen the series, albeit quite a few years back now. But obviously that does need to be cleared up. He was also kinda bewildered by the whole D'orothea Wilson plot (posing as Black, etc) and I had to admit, I nearly forgot about it *being* in the musical (it doesn't help that the actress playing her has no credit in the program). Again, a pretty important plot point, although they have to pick and choose what to focus on. I also thought Julie was largely wasted as Connie, but I never think of her as a particularly major character (despite Parker Posey playing her so well on screen) anyway...

I think you have a valid point about the score doing better with character moment/monologue songs than songs that actually advance story, which there could be more of, although only a couple of songs really stopped the story dead, something I hate in musicals.

Will be interesting to hear, now that it officially opened tonight, if any major changes have been made, running times, and read the reviews (even if I've read here that San Fran critics tend to go a lot softer on shows than NYC ones would). I still think they largely did a remarkable job with material that is pretty overwhelming to make into a show and still make the characters and storylines connect with the audience--and despite missing those points my friend thought it was pretty great (I think, not to undermine him whatsoever, but he was still just impressed to see people act and sing *on stage live* too lol).
Updated On: 6/2/11 at 01:18 AM

Posted: 6/2/11 at 5:40pm

QueertyTV (some gay video blog thing) had an interview with Jake Shears and Armistad, which includes the first clips from the show I've seen online. The host is kinda annoying, but they actually ask some interesting questions, and it gives something of a view of the show.
Video Clip

Posted: 6/2/11 at 9:36pm

The SF Chronicle has a pretty fair review I think. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/02/DD5S1JMOKL.DTL

They agreed with some of my concerns--like Mary Ann sorta fading into the background and her relationship with Norman being underplayed (although this was a concern I had in the books and particularly the miniseries as well--I think it's a plot that probably played best when the book was first serialized daily, where the revelations alone are enough to keep interest). I would disagree about Mona/Mary Birdsong--I thought she really held the whole piece together, as an actress but also as a character, and had some of the more touching song moments.

They're right to praise the book, which all things considered does an amazing job of condensing and re-arranging story and character in a way that still makes sense, and more importantly can still be touching. As I mentioned, the friend I went to didn't know the works at all, and had no trouble getting into, and following it (a few plot elements, like the aforementioned Mary Ann/Norman conclusion aside).

I also prob liked the score more than they did--I think it's a pretty great score, fitting character, and plot, and often surprisingly moving. I think it's faulty to call it pastiche, but maybe he's not aware of the Scissor Sisters' music which always does have that 70s (either in disco mode or Elton John's 70s mode) feel to it. Yet, as they claim to have tried to have done and I think they did, the score never really does feel like pastiche (the disco numbers excepted I suppose)--you get a 70s feel, but it also feels, a term I hate, relevent as a modern score. I *do* think they could stand to cut a few of the music moments, and trim some others, in a long show that has a lot of story to tell. Actually, what they call a highlight, the whorehouse anthem "Ride 'Em High" I think could be the first thing to go. Yes, it brought the house down and is a lot of fun, but it stops the show dead, adds nothing to character or plot, and worst of all this all happens near the end of the long play. It's one of those great numbers that could live on in cabaret, but really doesn't ultimately do the show any favours--something you often hear about in out of town previews for classic musicals--and if Jerry Robbins or Bennett had been mythically called in as show doctor, I bet they would have cut it straight away.

Also a little surprised there was no mention of the set.

It's interesting, the creators have stressed that there are no immediate plans to try to bring it to New York--but it's of a high enough caliber that with a bit of tweaking I think it could do very well there, and I'm sure that is their ultimate goal. I would urge anyone in the Bay City area to try to go--as the critic states, the cast alone is first rate--even just some of the people in the ensemble like Pamela Myers.
Updated On: 6/2/11 at 09:36 PM

Posted: 6/2/11 at 9:53pm

San Francisco Examiner gave it a pretty positive review
http://www.sfexaminer.com/entertainment/2011/06/frothy-fun-act-s-tales-city

Variety also gave it a pretty positive review
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117945368?categoryid=33&cs=1&cmpid=RSS%7CNews%7CLatestNews

The Gaurdian (I didn't know UK reviewed regional US theatre) gave it a more mixed review, their main criticism seeming to be that it never directly showed 1970s San Francisco (which reading the program seemed to be on purpose--they didn't wanna just do a period musical, but the critic may have one or two valid points). http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/jun/02/armistead-maupins-tales-of-the-city-review

Posted: 6/3/11 at 4:25am

Another good review (which makes some fair points--particularly about playing up the decadence early on to make Mary Ann's shock a bit more full on--though the warning about nudity is almost unecesary, from what I remember it's literally a blink and you miss it moment, unless that's changed).

Anyway from the San Jose Mercury News http://www.mercurynews.com/theater-dance/ci_18183806?IADID

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 8:49am

I think this is going to be a huge hit.

[WDBNYC]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 8:50am

Was down to 2:50, when I saw it. Not sure what they cut.

[mamaleh]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 10:40am

When I traveled to S.F. to see "Hugh Jackman in Performance" at the Curran Theater last month, I noticed that the A.C.T. theater next door was going to house a musical I'd long hoped to see--but unfortunately previews wouldn't start until after I had to return home. I wish the timing had worked out, as I am very fond of the original miniseries as well as its continuation.

Here's hoping it comes to NY soon.

[mnmsf2]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 11:38am

Wow Eric, I am a bit miffed. I, of course (well of course because I know the plots) remember the large part D'orothea Wilson played in the books and movie - Brian hitting on her and all. And one of the comments I made to my friend was how they omitted her in the musical. Am I wrong? That is so funny because neither one of us even remember a mention. And as I think of it right now, maybe when you saw it they added her, tested the plot as an after thought in this production, and that is why she is not in the program. I suppose I should have read your other comments and reviews before I left this, but it was just so odd to read about her character. I suppose now I do need to try to catch it again. I do have one more thing to say - the FIRST musical he has ever seen? How can that be???? How fun though that can be for you to go with your friend to more in the future!

[mnmsf2]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 11:40am

Well good. And I agree about the brief breast shot and the Mouse mooning, which I almost did miss because the focus was on John.

[Brick]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 12:01pm

I think most of these reviews are quite fair. It's an enjoyable evening, but not finished yet. Mary Ann'as storyline being lacking in dramatic focus is the largest problem, and one that is a challenge since the book and miniseries also have a similar one.

I can't imagine they wouldn't do another rewrite if it were to find a producer and go to New York.

Posted: 6/3/11 at 9:30pm

Brick, I think I liked the show more than you, but I agree with all your comments above completely. I also agree that the reviews are largely very fair, a bit to my surprise (I think I expected more full on praise, with no criticism, or else one or two critics who just didn't like it).

The Mary Ann problem was largely solved in the miniseries just because Laura Linney was such a striking on screen presence. Betsy Wolfe is largely very good, but can easily get a bit lost amongst the other characters on stage, and her material after the Beauchamp stuff is, as everyone has said, neither very compelling or given much focus (although I think she does have one of the best songs, with her 11 O'Clock number, Paper Faces). Yes, that's a prob in the books too, but a character like that is easier to make work on the printed page than on stage.

mamaleh - I think it was only a few minutes longer, in all honesty, when I saw it, so it sounds like they just tightened it up slightly, if anything. The program claims that you can buy scripts in the lobby--I didn't see any, but I saw it during previews, I wonder if they've actually printed some now. I'd love to be able to go back over the piece.

mnmsf2 - Funny in regards to the nudity, maybe this is just my prurient nature, but I almost think there could have been more nudity--instead of two extremely brief flashes, if it was done more casually like in the miniseries (with both Mouse and Mona--Mona in particular is someone who prob would have no objections to not covering up). Of course that could limit audiences, but as it stands it's kinda pointless--either commit to the nudity or don't bother and then you have no need for an audience warning, damnit. You can't try to have it both ways. :P

I swear I wasn't eating any of Anna's brownies when seeing the show, but you could be right actually that D'orothea Wilson wasn't in it whatsoever (there isn't a black woman in the cast). Like I said my friend read the books since seeing it, and he remembers her being in briefly, which has made me kinda remember it, but it could just be that I expected her. It's true without her, DeeDee doesn't have a whole lot to do in the second half (although I could see why she was cut, even if it's a fave storyline, the show really doesn't need more story).

(And yeah it not only was his first musical, but his first pro theatre experience period. I know it seems odd to a lot of us, but some people don't come from families who expose their kids to any theatre, and they never discover it on their own. We actually planned the trip months back to see the Kylie Minogue concert and it was his idea to try to see a show while we were in town as well--and I think I'll be taking him to many more now).

[mnmsf2]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 9:47pm

What a great response. I am thrilled you started this thread. That is exactly what I was thinking regarding Mary Ann. Laura Linney made the role. She is incredible and gave it such sarcasm, pathos and life. (a bit like Barbara Garrick and her incarnation of DeeDee) I have sent an email to Mary - "Mona" - asking about D'Orothea and will post when I get an answer.Until I have something more substantial to say (other than I have just started reading Mary Ann in Autumn; great price on the internet(s)lol) I did want to say that I would love to share a couple shows with a theatre going novice. I really think that is cool, incredible and a word I hate, "awesome". Good for you and him. Until next I thread....

[Hest882]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 11:07pm

I finally get to see this tomorrow, so I'm curious if I'll end up being disappointed.

After hearing the reviews on this thread, I'm not surprised at the professional reviews. I actually expected they'd be *more* critical given some of the complaints I've been hearing.

I know it seems odd to a lot of us, but some people don't come from families who expose their kids to any theatre, and they never discover it on their own.

Totally OT, but you'd think more choices nowadays would mean people get a chance to be exposed to more in the media. However, I think it's become the opposite. When I was a kid I pretty much *had* to watch the Sound of Music or those Disney musicals on TV if I wanted to watch anything because the channels were so limited. Those were my first exposures to any type of musical and whet my appetite for more as I got older, allowing me to drag various adults to local theater.

Posted: 6/4/11 at 12:35am

Hest, I don't think you'll be disappointed, though I admit I'm kinda happy I got to go so early on before reading anything about it. Overall I still think it was pretty great--and would love to see it again. I look forward to reading what you think!

Re the off topic part--I was the same way, I was so into Oliver and Disney movies and Oz and Pirates of Penzance by the time I was 4, that I practically forced my parents by 6 to take me to a local musical. But my parents had grown up with theatre as well. My friend watched a lot of those as kids too, but for a variety of reasons his parents were just the kind of people who would never ever even consider going to theatre. Neither of my parents were big theatre goers (though I got into ballet because of my mom)--so I largely discovered most musicals, like Sondheim at 10, on my own just from hanging out at the library (ah, the days before Internet), but...

[Hest882]

Posted: 6/4/11 at 12:49am

Thanks Eric. I'm going to keep my expectations...reasonable. I know it won't be Sondheim, but if it manages to capture a bit of the spirit of the books--which I re-read every few years--I'll be content.

Re: your friend. Of course, some people are musical fiends and some aren't. Obviously there are plenty of people in the audience of any show who simply enjoy the occasional musical casually. If your friend even becomes one of those it would be a small triumph.

[Hest882]

Posted: 6/5/11 at 8:14pm

Well, we did see it last night, and I think I give it about a B-. The comic numbers worked the best for me, lyrically as well as musically. Most of the ballads got rather too saccharine for my tastes and their lyrics didn't hit the level of cleverness the comic songs did. I was pleasantly surprised by the choreography. Not incredible, of course, but totally in line with the songs they supported, so perfectly fun enough.

But yes, they stuffed too many plot lines into the musical, giving short shift to other storylines that could have been better fleshed out and made more powerful. I would also hate to lose all the great DeDe bits, but the pregnancy and Beauchamp's bathhouse scene serve no purpose in a work of this length. We could easily find a quicker way to lead up to to the Edgar/Anna twin scene, which is the only purpose for the existence of the baby plot.

Eric, you mentioned D'orothea earlier. She was non-existent in the show I saw so I guess they already realized that there was too much Halcyon-Day stuff? I would rather we get more Brian Hawkins, so we leave with a bit more wrap-up of Mary Ann's storyline. Otherwise, as it stands, she's disillusioned, depressed, singing about 'Paper Faces' but wham-bam, in the last scene she's happy surrounded by her 'family'?

I think it was definitely well-worth seeing, and when I was enjoying myself I was enjoying myself immensely. It's just that I was too often conscious of how *much* better it could have been.

Oh, and how did I miss the fact that Pamela Myers is in it?

[mnmsf2]

Posted: 6/5/11 at 8:26pm

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and opinions. I think they are great and totally agree. Funny, I looked up the cast before I saw it and one of the first things I saw was Pamela, got excited and did a search to see what she has been up to. Pretty cool though.