The Critics on Little Women — Page 3

It seems like a list of caveats about the initial statement.

The first sentence says it's not the greatest thing around. The second one backtracks a little, saying what's good about the show- its affection for the material and its "refreshing realization that Broadway audiences don't always need to be wowed."

Now, why would he call that realization "refreshing" if he was referring to mediocrity and lowered expectations rather than the fact that it's a chamber piece rather than an over-the-top spectacle?

Updated On: 1/23/05 at 07:56 PM

Aw, it's no big deal. :) I'm in heavy text-analysis mode because I've been reading constitutional law for the past couple of hours. And I just did my semantics homework.

Updated On: 1/23/05 at 08:00 PM

"About halfway through a sad and very pretty Act II duet for Jo and Beth called "Some Things Are Meant to Be," the woman to my right wrapped a comforting arm around her daughter, a preteen in a sleek winter coat whose shoulders had begun to heave. A quick look and listen around the theater made it clear that dozens of other parents were having just as little success quieting their kids, let alone keeping their own emotions in check."

That is the cutest thing I've ever heard. It makes me wanna see it even more. I'm always up for a good cry!

---

Here's a link for those of you who want to read it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/opinion/opinionspecial/23CIbohjalian.html

I really enjoyed Little Women. It's true; the score isn't incredible or breathtaking. It's not packed with brilliant intricate lyrics like Sondheim or dazzling power ballads like some other scores. It's not a "superlative score". Instead of using words like incredible or thrilling to describe it I would say it's more lovely and honest. And it does have standouts. And it finds beauty in simplicity, something I greatly respect. The book is serviceable, nothing more and nothing less. Also, I never felt bored and I never felt like the show dragged. The cast was, for the most part, wonderful. Both Sutton and Maureen gave wonderful performances although I agree that Maureen should've been given more to work with. Danny Gurwin also does well as Laurie. He's got a great voice and a great energy to him which he appropriately stifles in the second act. The other sisters are good except for Amy, who bothered me. Can't quite explain why. Sets, costumes, and lighting was also good. Orchestrations were beautiful. Overall, a VERY enjoyable evening in the theatre.

On the op-ed page. It's in the Week In Review.

---

Margo-I looked there. Am I somehow missing it?

---

The Times review is up,and it looks like a sequel to his MILLIE pan -- all that's missing is the circus ponies reference:

"Sutton Foster never merely walks when she can scamper in the new musical "Little Women," which opened last night at the Virginia Theater. Playing Jo the tomboy in this perky, sketchy adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's classic novel of a New England girlhood, Ms. Foster creates a dizzyingly hyperkinetic creature who, were she living in the 21st century instead of the 19th, would probably be on heavy doses of Ritalin.

Admirers of Ms. Foster's performance as an ingenuous flapper in "Thoroughly Modern Millie," for which she won a Tony Award, will be pleased to know that her level of pluckiness remains stratospherically high. "I've got a fire in me," announces Jo, an ambitious aspiring writer. Indeed, she glows with a fever that practically scorches. Though Ms. Foster shows winning flashes of a previously undetected gift for fresh comic line readings, theatergoers not enamored of unstinting eagerness may find her energy less infectious than exhausting.

The same can be said of the overall experience of this "Little Women," directed by Susan H. Schulman and featuring a book by Allan Knee, with songs by Jason Howland and Mindi Dickstein. Watching this shorthand account of four sisters growing up poor but honest during the Civil War is like speed reading Alcott's evergreen novel of 1868. You glean the most salient traits of the principal characters, events and moral lessons, but without the shading and detail that made these elements feel true to life in the book. (A more grandiose musical version of another girl's-growing-pains classic, "Jane Eyre," suffered from similar shoehorning.)"
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/theater/reviews/24litt.html

---

Updated On: 1/23/05 at 10:23 PM

AP is pretty mixed:

Yet much of "Little Women" sounds dutiful rather than inspired with the three remaining sisters -- played by Jenny Powers (Meg), Megan McGinnis (Beth) and Amy McAlexander (Amy) -- shortchanged in the melody department.

*****************************

"Little Women" has its heart in the right place and, for some, particularly those looking for family entertainment, its wholesome earnestness could be enough. Others will have to be content to savor the accomplishments of its star, who, indeed, does shine bright.

---

One of the first times that I've agreed with Brantley in a while it seems, if he means what i think he means. Brantley's ambiguity is always present.
Ms. Dickstein's lyrics are largely so generic they could slide right into a variety of different musicals.
I especially agree with that line.

---

Updated On: 1/23/05 at 10:35 PM

All Brantley had to say about McGovern is that she is a "pop balladeer" and "best known for her '70's hits...". He just confirmed his lack of knowledge of the theater, Broadway and otherwise.

I cannot believe he had nothing to say about her performance. I'm storming the Times building -who's with me???

---

It's similar to when he all but forgot to mention Idina Menzel in his Wicked review after writing a five paragraph love letter to Chenoweth -- Menzel got a perfunctory couple of sentences.

---