The Blue Flower- Page 2

[sskeats2]

Posted: 10/25/11 at 2:34pm

Clearly, this show is very polarizing. If you like to see a little ground being busted and being done well IMHO in your musical theater, you'll see it here.

And it's an exaggeration that the strange language is used though out. Maybe 10 minutes of it spread throughout the show. And sometimes it's very emotionally effective. Watching Kudisch communicate sometimes with it was a tour de force.

Other times, especially in the beginning, it was very distancing.

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/25/11 at 3:44pm

"And it's an exaggeration that the strange language is used though out. Maybe 10 minutes of it spread throughout the show."

Perhaps, but it sure seemed a lot longer than that. It was excruciating to listen to, excruciating and obnoxious. And completely unnecessary.

There's a whole scene n which the character gives a lecture in it, and it is AWFUL! That scene should be the first to be cut.

[sskeats2]

Posted: 10/25/11 at 3:46pm

It may have been cut. I can't recall a lecture.

[whatever2]

Posted: 10/25/11 at 4:32pm

the mega-bass makes me nervous ... i'm supposed to see this in two weeks, but my other half will crucify me if i drag him to another ear-splitting show (i'm still hearing about how painful american idiot was, aurally at least).

[mybigsplash]

Posted: 10/25/11 at 5:16pm

The lecture was at least 10 minutes of nonsense. Could have been cut in half if each line wasn't recited twice, first in made up language, second in english.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/25/11 at 6:35pm

I actually really liked that lecture, which I'm sure was not 10 minutes when I saw it (either it was cut down or you're being hyperbolic; either is equally possible). It didn't matter that you couldn't understand it without reading -- "Maxperanto" is based enough in Esperanto/other Latin-based languages to figure it out. And then there's the performance. Big props to Aaron Serotsky.

Updated On: 10/25/11 at 06:35 PM

[singtome8]

Posted: 10/25/11 at 7:55pm

I haven't seen this show in New York yet, but I did see it in Boston last winter and I absolutely loved it. I left wanting to see it again, and I am beyond thrilled that it has come to New York with such a talented cast.

I do agree it is like a piece of modern art- which I think could be one of the most exciting concepts for theatre I've seen in a long time. I disagree that the made up language was unnecessary- Dada artists really did go to the extreme and not speak in a language, so in reality the writers were being true to their inspiration.

There were no walk outs when I saw it in Boston, but I think patrons who frequent the ART sometimes expect unconventional pieces of theatre like this. However I could see how it isn't for everyone, but I think that it's worth a visit. It may not be your favorite, but if you go in with an open mind its worth taking in.

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/25/11 at 8:14pm

" I disagree that the made up language was unnecessary- Dada artists really did go to the extreme and not speak in a language, so in reality the writers were being true to their inspiration."

But the translations the show provides are at odds with the anarchic language of Dada, for they are perfectly logical in their syntax and meaning, which is not the case with surrealist expression. So if you're going to give us entirely understandable translations, then you may as well have them spoken by the character himself instead of exasperating us with babble.

[April Saul]

Posted: 10/25/11 at 11:12pm

Unfortunately, I caught the third performance at 2 hours and forty-five minutes long, with a talkback during which audience members were asked, with good reason, which stuff they understood and which stuff they did not. I'm not sure, but there may be a lovely 100-minute musical in there somewhere...

For me, though, the worst thing about the made-up language was listening to the poor elderly man behind me read every single English subtitle aloud to his wife...yikes!

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/30/11 at 12:07am

I saw this tonight, and I'm not totally sure how I feel about it. There were moment of beauty and moments of just utter boredom. I feel like the direction made up for a lot of missing material. A lot of the actors gave meaningful looks instead of saying something to clarify what was going on.

The set, lighting, and sound design were brilliant and top notch. I love a show where the set just gets dirty and messy. I love that.

I found the performances to be pretty great. I'm def. a new found fan of Teal Wicks. I just really found her captivating. I don't see why Sebastian A. is such a sought-after actor, but to each their own I guess.

I just wish the story had been more captivating. I just didn't really care about the characters. It needs CLARITY more than anything else. Just someone needs to come in and structure a book because as it stands it's just hard to follow. I found people whispering around me all the time asking their partners plot questions.

[stevenycguy]

Posted: 10/31/11 at 12:28am

Was very pleasantly surprised and would definitely recommend it. This show is a winner!! [Disliked it at Prospect Theater a few years back (almost three hours, amateur cast, confusing plot).]

But this is a totally different show and that's what made it so great: it's currently 2 hours 26 minutes, has a huge Broadway-studded very talented cast (especially the always great Mark Kudisch), some of the most gorgeous music I've heard in a long time, and very easy plot to follow via dialogue and supplemented via on-screen projections. Was tempted to even purchase the $20 cast album for sale in the refreshment lounge. Nobody walked out at all, very enthusiastic applause, and quite a few people even gave it a standing ovation.

Two minor quibbles: There are some very bright lights (bright blue and bright white) shining throughout much of Act II which were really hurting my eyes. Also, some audience members (seated up front on the far sides) were craning their necks to read some projections when cast members were blocking their view of the screen (the "blocking" needs to be worked on). The words should be higher up on the screen and/or there should be additional monitors to show the words.

Overall a winner and definitely recommended. (Very glad I saw the 2 hour 26 minute version, and not the 2 hour 45 minute version. These 20 minutes of cuts made a HUGE difference!!)

[sskeats2]

Posted: 10/31/11 at 9:07am

I saw a version that was about 2 hrs and 40. And I believed a few cuts would make it only better. The music is gorgeous for my money,

And I had a friend who just saw it and loved it. 4th row smack in the middle, Paid only 40 without handling charges. He either called the box office or did it in person. Can't remember. The code I believe was jgbf

[xyz17]

Posted: 10/31/11 at 12:40pm

I loved this! Saw it on Saturday night. Amazing performances and staging. Very entertaining and easy to follow. Much less confusing than MAMMA MIA... At intermission, I overheard a lady complaining she didn’t know what was going on, but really she just seemed mystified by the title. What’s the “blue flower”? –she kept asking, as if she were thereby missing the gist of the plot. (Maybe that could be better addressed at the very outset.) Marc Kudisch’s ‘rise of Hitler’ speech or non-speech was beyond brilliant. Haunting score. Can’t stop listening to the CD.

A few years ago, I was thrilled by Kusturica’s punk-opera production of THE TIME OF THE GYPSIES [Le temps des gitans]. Not the same thing at all, of course, but THE BLUE FLOWER seems to offer its own mixed-up, multimedia hommage to “gypsy music” (among other things); and it’s equally pitch-perfect. Or more pitch-perfect!

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 10:45am

I caught this last night and I'm in the camp of people who weren't fans. What it does have going for it are the performances. Everyone is very committed to the material, and Kudisch is certainly doing fine work, but I just didn't care about his character. Horrible things were happening to the characters, but the events just washed over me without eliciting a single emotional response.

I did enjoy some of the music, and certainly found it interesting, but the lyrics were near dreadful. I felt they neither propelled the story nor character development. It was like each song stopped what little momentum the show had dead in its tracks.

The ambitious projections obviously were made with much care and attention to detail, but I often found myself more wrapped up with them than the action on stage.

I left the theater with my friends saying more WTF than, "wow, that was amazing!" (The audience as a whole was cold as ice. No applause or reaction to anything nearly the whole show.)

At the end of the day I want to ask the creators the question they posed to the audience at the top of the production: why? Why are you telling us this story? It has to be more than a bizarre history lesson. I'm sure in a few weeks this will merely be a cobwebbed memory: floof it's gone.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 11:01am

This may be the kind of show that critics love and audiences loathe.

I am prepared for good reviews, but all this very perceptive commentary on The Blue Flower has yet to change my opinion which is that it is incomprehensible.

I love all the postings here - even if I disagree - because no one has written "you silly twit...", for instance.

Congratulations all.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 12:23pm

Don't make fun of me, but is this show actual history or just a made-up character?

I liked the structure of the story a lot. How they'd stop the action and introduce a character. It was very whimsical and different for a musical. I just wish the plot were cleaner. Is it a character story or a love triangle? Where is it all going?

I think the lyrics are probably the worst of the show. They were descriptive, but did nothing to propel the plot. I remember one song where the character was just saying things like "window, doors..." And I was so confused.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 12:29pm

It's a WEIRD show. I saw it last week (sadly Kudisch was out so I'll need to go back) and have no idea what to make of it. The first thirty minutes are, I think, the shows biggest problem because it's not even really a musical at first. You almost forget that's what you're seeing so around a half hour into it when people start singing it's almost a little shocking. My friend left at intermission but I was intrigued and wanted to stay, and I'm glad I did. Some of the music is really beautiful and I have a feeling that if the show is recorded it's the type of musical that's going to play SO much better on disc than it does in the theater.

The other day someone asked me what it was about and I said I think it's like SUNDAY IN THE PARK meets WARHORSE meets the end of SPRING AWAKENING meets THE GLORIOUS ONES.

[RippedMan]

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

I think the story is really interesting and different, but it just needs a clearer through-line. I don't think we need to keep seeing the Solider at war. Maybe it would be better if we just saw him sorta of hanging around the exterior of the playing space instead of having a song, and dialogue, etc. Also the French lady's numbers are all a bit bizaare. And the whole "rape" thing is a bit off.

[sskeats2]

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

Want to confirm after speaking with my friend that the discount code I mentioned above is

JGBF

$40. best seats available without handling charges if you phone or visit the box office.

Don't have the number handy

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 12:53am

I saw the show tonight, and it was...interesting. Still don't really know how I feel about it, but I didn't have a bad time. I found the music to be mostly gorgeous, and I absolutely loved the orchestrations. I mean, who makes a unique combination of piano, guitar, bass, drums, pedal steel guitar, accordion, cello, and bassoon (of all instruments) to work so wonderfully and effectively? In fact, I think if the storytelling were up to par with the music and the orchestrations, it would be a much better show than it currently is.

I found the story and the way it's told very distancing. And you definitely have to connect the dots on your own; it lacks any kind of clarity (lyrics too were hard to understand).

I found three of the four leads to be wonderful. While Sebastian Arcelus sings the score well, he seemed so pedestrian and almost boring.

The show ran around 2 hours and 15 minutes tonight. Started about five minutes late and it was 10:20 when curtain call was over.

I think it's an interesting show and worth seeing. I wish the story itself were clearer and more engaging. There is some fun and innovative staging, but I think it's a case of the-book-needs-work. But the music, orchestrations, and design are great.

"Eiffel Tower" should become a musical theatre standard. At least in this song, the lyrics are beautiful.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 1:28am

Thanks, sskeats2!