The Fantasticks - I didn't get it...

[knicknut]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 11:51am

I saw the Fantasticks for the first time last night. As a show that ran for 42 years and whose alumni read like a who's who of theater history, I expected understated brillance. What I saw was a disjoint production with almost no production value, mediocre performances, and one of the least enjoyable theatrical experiences I've had in a while.

Now, I understand the bare set is part of the quirkiness and mysticism of the production, and you're supposed to use your imagination. But with a ticket price of $76, even for off Broadway, I was expecting more. I didn't feel like it was intentionally minimalist, I felt like I was at a middle school production where the music teacher threw together what she could.

The performances were questionable at best. The old men in the production didn't seem particularly talented, nor did they posess particularly good comedic timing. For a while I couldn't even tell if they were mocking the whole "senile old people who don't know what they're doing on stage," or if they actually were senile old people who don't know what they're doing. The slapstick was far from funny. The Boy and The Girl were understudies, and their voices, in my opinion, were the sole bright spots of the production. El Gallo overacted and was overly breathy in his renditions. And Tom Jones, legend as though he may be, was just not funny.

And what bothered me most was the score/book (which should be timeless regardless of production). While some of the tunes were catchy and the story was sweet, it seemed disjoint, nonsensical at times, and just not timeless and of high quality. It was trying too hard to be poetic with the sun/moon thing IMO, and just didn't draw me.

So, all this leads me to the question: what am I missing? What don't I get? Considering this show was good enough to run for 42 years and attracted the likes of Jerry Orbach, Robert Goulet, and countless others, I'll assume I'm at fault in not appreciating this production. What don't I get?

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 11:55am

Your not on your own, dont worry. One of my least favorite shows ever.

[Jon]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 11:57am

It didn't "attract the likes of Jerry Orbach". Orbach was a young, unknown performer, and The Fantasticks was his big break.

You have to imagine how innovative and exciting this show was back in 1960, in a little hole-in-the-wall theatre in Greenwich Village, with tickets selling for about 5 bucks.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 12:01pm

And the fact that it cost so little to run was a factor in its longevity as well.

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 12:07pm

A pretty expensive and boring movie version flopped drastically at the B.O in 2000 !

Updated On: 2/11/08 at 12:07 PM

[PUPPETMAN]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 12:29pm

One of the best shows ever in the original production. BUT if you don't have an active imagination, you will never really appreciate it. CURIOUS PARADOX is a terrific piece of writing.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 12:40pm

I'm not surprised that the performances might have been flat considering one of their dearest cast members passed away last week.

Bone up on Commedia del'Arte theatre and you might "get it."

[knicknut]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 12:43pm

It didn't "attract the likes of Jerry Orbach". Orbach was a young, unknown performer, and The Fantasticks was his big break.

You have to imagine how innovative and exciting this show was back in 1960, in a little hole-in-the-wall theatre in Greenwich Village, with tickets selling for about 5 bucks.

OK, I didn't necessarily mean just "attract the likes" but also "launched the careers." I'll generalize as "was associated with the likes of."

That's the problem, though. I don't see it as imaginative or innovative. It just seemed sloppy and nonsensical.

BUT if you don't have an active imagination, you will never really appreciate it.
Eh, I thought I was doing a pretty good job imagining the sets and the imagery. Still didn't do anything for me.
Updated On: 2/11/08 at 12:43 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 12:59pm

I saw a production at Queens College in the mid-90s and I had no idea why it was still playing. At that point, I had never seen it off-Broadway. When I saw the revival (with the original cast), I knew why.

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 1:09pm

The passing of a fellow actor should not effect the performance!

[gymdudeva]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 1:13pm

Hmm..it sounds like the performances were mostly at fault. In the right hands, this show should be able to charm the pants off you.

I've seen amateur productions that turned this cynical middle-aged man to jello. But when I saw the off-Broadway production in the Sullivan St. Playhouse about 10 years ago, it sort of left me cold.

It's sort of a delicate little piece that is not as easy to pull off as it seems.

[Elphie3]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 1:33pm

Honestly this production had kind of gotten worse as the run has gone on...

[EganFan2]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 1:48pm

I saw a local production and liked it. Only thing I didn't quite grasp was why the old actor and the Indian were the ones beating up the guy in the second act.

[The_Jackal]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 1:48pm

I saw a local production of it when I was younger, and I remember not liking it very much. Though I don't know, maybe with the right cast it could be better, I just didn't really get it.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 1:55pm

"Only thing I didn't quite grasp was why the old actor and the Indian were the ones beating up the guy in the second act."

'Cause that's all they could afford!

[philcrosby]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 2:02pm

I haven't seen the production you did, so I cannot speak to that. I know the loss of Robert Oliver so suddenly that week must have been difficult, especially for Mr. Jones, who performed almost all of this scenes with him.

That said, the FANTASTICKS is an innocent, magical piece. It is totally non-ironic, non-reflexive, and relies on the fact that imagination, wonder, and romance still exist. I find it absolutely beautiful and charming ... but I have also performed in it.

And I think it's score is top-rank, Harvey Schmidt being one of the truly great theater composers. Not only in the evergreens "Try to Remember," "Much More," or "Soon It's Gonna Rain," but in the jazzy syncopations of "This Plum is too Ripe."

I hope you will give it a try in another production someday. (I don't really "get" RENT either, but it's a huge hit too!)

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 2:07pm

"Considering this show was good enough to run for 42 years..."

Just because a show runs for a long time doesn't mean it's good. It just means it is well produced.

The original had a very small overhead. The original home of The Fantasticks was the Sullivan Street Playhouse. The theater had about 40 seats. It had very little set and simple costumes. The actors were paid off-Broadway scale.

The initial production introduced the song "Try to Remember" which everyone at the time recorded bringing free publicity for the show.

Since the show ran for so long, original audience members were able to revisit the show with their children and grandchildren.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 2:10pm

The Sullivan Street Theater had 150 seats. I know, I was the house manager for a number of years.

They were able to stay open for 42 years because they had a "run of show" lease and ultimately one of the producers owned the building.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 2:20pm

"The Sullivan Street Theater had 150 seats. I know, I was the house manager for a number of years."

Are you sure? It didn't look like it. There were only about 4 rows in the theater.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 2:30pm

153 to be exact. Four rows in the center, but each side had 6 or 8 rows.

The Snapple theater has 200+ seats.

In order to be classified as an Off-Broadway house, it has to have at least 100 seats.

[Craig]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 2:36pm

"should not effect the performance!"

I agree. But it may AFFECT the performance :)

That being said - The Fantasticks is one of those small intimate musicals that serves as a healthy antidote to the overproduced musicals. It's a very intimate show where the characters are first priority. I can see how some people don't enjoy it for the same reason some people don't respond well to those little low budget sweet movies that just tell a nice story with or without high drama or conflict.

I liken it a bit to how today's audiences would never sit through the original cut of star wars now and think it was any good. Times are different and we have all been spoiled by incredible special effects. But at the time, it was groundbreaking.

The Fantasticks - is still relevant and a solid piece of musical theater. It just doesn't have bells and whistles so many expect these days.

[knicknut]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 2:58pm

The Fantasticks - is still relevant and a solid piece of musical theater. It just doesn't have bells and whistles so many expect these days.

I was trying to make it clear that it was NOT the minimalism and intimacy of it that was the turnoff. I mentioned the lack of production value not because it was minimalist, but because it seemed amateurish and haphazard.

I don't need bells and whistles and I enjoy being challenged with subtlety and complexity. This production (and as far as I could tell, this musical) provides me with neither.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 3:04pm

I saw it awhile ago and didn't enjoy it at all. I just found it to be incredibly trite, and trying too hard, and I didn't like any of the music either. Just...really didn't get it. That's okay though, clearly other people appreciate it.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 3:11pm

The Fantasticks is a charming little American Commedia del'Arte piece whose book and score were very much products of their time. The show itself also had the pleasure of being caught in the middle of the huge Off-Broadway movement, which focused on artistric construction and content rather than exorbitant production values. Its universal story, popular score (Try to Remember hit the carts) and clever staging made the original show a hit. Word of mouth, reputation and low overhead kept it running. Meanwhile, the show gained enormous success overseas in international productions namely Japan, where it is considered a classic.

I saw the Sullivan Street production in 1996 and 1997 and fell in love with the show. I took my boyfriend to see it last summer at the Snapple and found it to be just as good if not better. Out of the 13 shows we saw, it was my boyfriend's favorite. So, like every show ever written, opinions will vary and be subjective. But if you question its longevity, there have been numerous books on the subject and virtually any textbook that covers Off-Broadway or American Musical Theatre (not just Broadway) will either mention the show or dedicate a chapter to it.

I saw a local production and liked it. Only thing I didn't quite grasp was why the old actor and the Indian were the ones beating up the guy in the second act.

Sounds like it was a bad production. It's not literally the old actor and Mortimer beating up Matt, they are just portraying the visions Luisa has while touring with El Gallo.

[knicknut]

Posted: 2/11/08 at 6:00pm

I asked, "what was I missing," and the consensus answer is "it's a product of its time, you either like it or you don't." I wasn't asking why it was successful (although that is interesting), I was curious if there's some overarching theme or layer of depth I failed to notice. I guess not? It's just an acquired taste?