Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
Talkin Broadway is first, as usual - it's pretty bad (McGovern is the only thing he likes):
There are two surprising things about the new musicalization of Little Women that just opened. The first is that a musical of Louisa May Alcott's classic story took so long to reach Broadway; other stage incarnations and operatic settings have been around for years. The second is that the resulting adaptation of the universally admired novel will now only appeal to little girls who can't get tickets to Wicked.
But chances are even they would be frustrated by the bloated, charm-deprived show that's been created from Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel. Writers Allan Knee (book), Mindi Dickstein (lyrics), and Jason Howland (music) have ignored almost all the warm and winsome coming-of-age qualities of Alcott's original and created a forced and false musical that amply demonstrates why "good enough" is never good enough, even when a well-known title guarantees it an audience.
This is the kind of show that must end its first act with Sutton Foster standing downstage center and belting out a song called "Astonishing," which is so full of generic sentiment ("I will blaze until I find my time and place") that you may wonder whether she's playing aspiring writer Jo March or the plucky Kansas-born Millie Dillmount she won a Tony for in 2002. Precisely why the authors opted for such run-of-the-mill writing to bring to life such a flavorful book is never clear.
************************************************************
What's present isn't likely to be too attractive to those familiar with the novel, though they're probably the only ones who'll be able to follow the meandering plot and make sense of the sketchy characterizations. Those not armed with such foreknowledge will still be able to discern the sisters - the feisty Jo, the romantic Meg (Jenny Powers), the easily hurt Amy (Amy McAlexander), and the kindly Beth (Megan McGinnis) - but will feel little emotional connection to them.
This is because Knee's book so exaggerates the episodic nature of Alcott's story that you may feel you're watching an ABC sitcom or an After-School Special.
*********************************************************
McGovern is the production's sole transcendent element; she's wonderful, but not enough. By the time the show ends, we're supposed to be charmed and moved by how these women have learned and grown from their experiences, but how can we when we know so little about them beyond their names and basic traits? At least this allows us to feel some kinship with Little Women's creators: It's painfully obvious they never got to know their title characters very well, either.
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/LittleWomen.html
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
Broadway.com is positive:
"The level of commitment by the actors and writers, in addition to the goodwill extended by a receptive audience, is by no means exclusive to this scene. That doesn't turn Little Women into a great show, but it does result in a comfortable, honest, highly satisfying night at the theater."
http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=505709
Margo, I actually started a thread a minute before you. Just put up the Talkin Broadway review though.
My Thread
Ouch.
I'm very curious to see the rest of the reviews come in tonight (although I'm not looking forward to Brantley's inevitable four paragraph gush for Ms. Foster).
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
Brantley LOVES his divas. Probably three paragraphs on Foster and two on McGovern.
Pretty much the way I saw it from the beginning. I know the show went through a lot of changes during previews but the weaknesses just seemed too great to overcome by opening.
I agree that Maureen was WONDERFUL and painfully underutilized. Sutton was as wonderful as she could be with what was given to her. Unfortunately it just wasn't enough. Both actors deserved much more.
God, I miss Ken Mandelbaum's reviews.
Grode isn't a terrible critic, but he's not in Mandelbaum's league, as far as I'm concerned.
Even though McGovern deserves more words, we know Foster will walk away with it.
I just hope he doesn't crucify the remainder of the production.
"A refreshing realization that Broadway audiences don't always need to be wowed."~Broadway.com
Lowered Expectaaaaations.
Didn't Brantley give Foster a fairly negative review for TMM?
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
He's hard to predict. It'll probably be one of those meandering lukewarm jobs he does where after you read 20 paragraphs you still have no idea whether he liked the show or not.
Why does everyone feel the need to worship Sutton?
I would love to hear Rich's thoughts on the show.
Can they fire Brantley and bring him back already?
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
His Millie review was a CLASSIC pan -- RobbieJ and I affectionately call it the CIRCUS PONIES review.
"It'll probably be one of those meandering lukewarm jobs he does where after you read 20 paragraphs you still have no idea whether he liked the show or not."
Margo, part of me hopes that's what he does, rather than ripping it to shreds.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
From Brantley's Millie review:
"Watching this aggressively eager show is like being stampeded by circus ponies. It's all whinnying and clomping and brightly decorated bouncing heads, and it never lets up for a second. You'll leave either grinning like an idiot or with a migraine the size of Alaska."
Why do people listen to those gasbags like Brantley & other "critics" ?
How about people thinking for themselves? If the idea of a show & the people in it & the creative team are to your liking, why not see a show no matter what they say ?
My wife wants to see it & will not give a flying rats behind what the critics say
That's such a bizarre paragraph, Margo. Who hired this guy? The same one that hired Jayson Blair and Margo Jefferson, I assume.
Yikes! I hope it gets some more positive reviews. I really hope it does well. BTW~ I love that first picture of Sutton in the bway.com review.
Well, as much as I dislike Brantley, I do find that TMM excerpt quite funny. And I understand what he is saying completely.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
>>"A refreshing realization that Broadway audiences don't always need to be wowed."~Broadway.com
Lowered Expectaaaaations. <<
priest, hard to say out of context (is that from a little women review?), but id assume that the sentence meant a show doesnt have to be all about spectacle? which i dont think has to do with lowered expectations at all and i would agree if thats the meaning. dracula had a lot of cool tricks but still wasnt that great. a show like twelve angry men has very little in terms of dazzling effects but the whole room moving over looks cool and is more than enough. in that show the sets and colors should all just be background and hardly important.
I think Chicago is the ULTIMATE example of an amazing show, where you don't have to be wowed. The performers, music,and choreography WOW you, not the set. It's better that way sometimes.
"Little Women isn't the most sophisticated or rapturously melodic show you'll find on Broadway...a refreshing realization that Broadway audiences don't always need to be wowed"
The quote wasn't referring to spectacle or sets.
I'm all for substance over spectacle any day of the week.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
alrighty then... now it sounds like people were enjoying it even though the music/story wasnt up to par. i dont know why thatd be refreshing.
As much as I want the show to get great reviews, because I loved it so much, I don't think it will make any difference. This show has been selling out and will probably be a hit, no matter what the reviews say.
Videos