The Critics on Little Women — Page 4

I was struck by how little he says about the woman who delivers the showstopper-McGovern. She deserves better as does the theatre community. Brantley disappoints me once again.

At least he noticed her.

---

She still deserves better-I'm sure you agree.

Hopefully the Tonys will agree...

beacon, I posted a thread about it, which will be a few pages back now probably. I liked most things about the show, with big exception to the bland, unmemorable score. I found Maureen McGovern to be graceful, beautiful, effortless, and heartbreaking.

---

I'm waiting to see Victoria Clark (whom everyone I know who saw Piazza in Chicago swears is gonna walk off with Tony), Sherie Renee Scott and Christina Applegate before I start rooting for anybody. Foster's certainly talented, but I do find her a bit grating and overly earnest at times.

---

Updated On: 1/23/05 at 10:59 PM

A little bit of a threadjack but, Margo, who are some of your favorite performers nowadays?

Not too many, really. I like and respect several, but there are very few I would pay to see in a show JUST to see them. Some exceptions off the top of my head (in terms of musical theatre -- I could list dozens of dramatic actors): Chita Rivera, Elaine Stritch, Donna McKechnie, Jennifer Holliday, Julia Murney, Raul Esparza, Mary Testa, Harvey, Jackie Hoffman, Nathan Lane, Bernadette (in the right role), John Cullum, George Hearn, Angela Lansbury (though she's retired), Tonya Pinkins, Patti Lupone, Liliias White.......

---

I'm drawing a blank; are we still waiting on reviews from any of the big theatre critics?

Brantley's casually dismissive review is exactly what this thoroughly mediocre show deserves.

Updated On: 1/24/05 at 11:49 PM

Theatremania's review is also pretty lukewarm:

"With its deliberate scene-song-scene-song construction, traditional values boldly declared, simple life lessons, and pretty, unadventurous harmonies, you might mistake this show for the work of Rodgers and Hammerstein -- that is, if it were bigger and better."

"Fond as I am of traditional musical theater forms, this show -- for all its beguiling moments -- would have more impact and pungency if it didn't keep posturing and going through such predictable paces. It's almost as if it were in contention to be named the Best Musical of 1958."
http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/5572

---

That confused me too. It's interesting that in both the Millie review and Little Women reviews he expresses a clear distaste for earnestness, "pluckiness" and any hint of an overeagerness on the part of a performer to "please."

Yet he ADORES Kristen Chenoweth in everything? She has all those qualities in spades, but he seems to love it coming from her, but not so much from Ms. Foster. Perhaps, the fact that Chenoweth leavens it with an air of self-possession that he somehow finds more appealing in her? I don't know.

---

That is strange. I personally find Sutton's onstage energy to be refreshing and, for lack of a better phrase, attention-getting. I also appreciate Chenoweth as a very gifted performer and, at times, a comic genius. But I am very confused as to how Brantley can be less than dazzled by these qualities in Foster and yet rave about Chenoweth for paragraph after paragraph.

The big difference, in my opinion, between the energies of Chenoweth and Foster is the following: Foster has a very honest, naive, eager energy while when Chenoweth is onstage, you know that she knows what she's doing. She has a certain control that comes with a perfectly tailored performance. I love both but perhaps Brantley doesn't. Or maybe this is just more confirmation that he has no idea what he's talking about.