The Frogs — Page 2

I agree Sam I Am. I prefer to see a show in previews, partly so that I can form my own opinion about a work before the critics weigh in (reviews sometimes have a negative effect on a show) and partly because there's something particularly exciting, almost magical about seeing actors when the material is still fresh and new to them and watch them as they are making discoveries about the work they are performing. I've seen some great performances during previews (Marcia Gay Harden was never better as Harper in "Angels in America" as she was in the first week of previews when her performance was raw) as well as some of terrible ones (as when an actor really hasn't found his character yet). Either way, previews have an electricity that's often missing when you revisit the play months into the run.

---

Wait'll you see the FROGS INSIDE. Dangerous to one Dionysis...but very intersting choreography from what I understand.

---

I've always found that Sondheim gets better and better with repeated listenings. By the way, here's the run down of this new version's songlist as of the first preview:

Invocation and Instructions to the Audience"
"I Love to Travel"
"Dress Big"
"I Love to Travel"
"All Aboard"
"Adriadne"
"The Frogs"
"Hymn to Dionysos"
"Hades"
"It's Only a Play"
"Shaw"
"All Aboard"
"Fear No More" (lyrics from Shakespeare's Cymbeline)
"Hymn to Dionysos"


This compares to the songlist of a 2001 recording of the 1974 score that ran as follows:

"Fanfare"
"Prologue: Invocation and Instructions to the Audience"
"Traveling Music"
"Parados: The Frogs"
"Hymnos: Evoe!"
"Dialogue: 'Pluto!'"
"Parabasis: It's Only a Play"
"Dialogue: 'That Was Some Banquet!'"
"Evoe for the Dead"
"Invocation to the Muses"
"Fear No More"
"Exodos: The Sound of Poets"


http://www.playbill.com/news/article/86980.html

---

ANYTHING can be appreciated with repetition, whether it's Sondheim or Alban Berg. But it either works in the theatre or it doesn't. Period. Broadway cast cds are ancillary to a show and shouldn't be confused with (or substituted for) the actual experience.

Updated On: 6/24/04 at 08:20 PM

For me, MOST scores become far LESS interesting with repeated listenings. Perhaps it's years of music study and training, but it's very rare that I don't "Get" everything a score has to say musically on the first listen, and hearing them again and again only makes me like them less. In contrast, there are certain Sondheim shows I first heard in the theatre and enjoyed at least superficially (Pacific Overtures, Sunday, Woods), but upon repeated listenings I totally fell in love with.

---

"Also, The Frogs is an all new, re-vised version of an existing musical, it defines a "work in progress" and with Sondheim and Lane, how could you not be excited, it should reward in many ways."

I totally feel the same way but must add I am most interested to see the choreography (see member icon/picture)

---

That is very true, but no one is saying that this DOESN'T work in the theater. There are just people who like to be prepared and know some of the score so they can relax and take everything.

Since theater is a sensory experience, I find that if I am at least familiar with some of the music, I can then concentrate on hearing MORE in the music (the nuance and layering that is hopefully there) and on the action, set design, choreography etc. Of course if the music is really simple stuff, getting the CD is not necessary. And as I've said, some people prefer to be surprised.

---

Margo, I too have lots of musical training, but first I think it's just a matter of your approach and some of us really like hearing things repeatedly...some don't. Whether you are a music student or professional or not, we've all had the experience of hearing a song played over and over on the radio until you are SICK TO DEATH of it no matter how much you liked it in the first place.

Some scores do that to me. BUT...as I've said, I do find Sondheim different, in that he puts so much into the music in the way of internal rhyming, complex musical composition, discordance (which many people fault him for) etc. and you just marvel over it if you really get into that stuff. I DO however have to put CDs on the shelf for awhile and come back to them when they start to get stale. But then I remember what I loved about them in the first place the next time I listen to them. Isn't music wonderful?

---

Your opinion may be that it can't be saved, but that is your opinion...in fact, they are making changes every night and that is what previews are for.

If you don't want to see a work in progress, don't go to previews. This run is not long enough for it to have an out of town opening but this is why actors, directors and producers alike hate previews in town because people forget they are not seeing a finished product. In addition the show is not your usual broadway fare and will not be for everyone even after it's fixed...so you may have hated it anyway. That's certainly your perogative. The ONLY problem I have with your post is that you make a definite statement that the show sucks and can't be saved...that is not fact...it is your opinion. Only time will tell

---

Ribbet

---

I saw the show Friday night with a good friend (who's also a theatre professional) and we both had a terrific time. I usually am rather reticent when it comes to critiquing early previews, but Stroman had the physical aspects of the production in great shape, especially for a third preview -- the choreography, staging, and the complicated set and aerial effects all came off without a hitch. Stroman's work here is some of the most inventive and entertaining of her career, with a gorgeous Dionysian bacchanal in the second act and a remarkable "frog ballet" act one closer (featuring eye-poppng aerial effects) being particular standouts.

This is a very fascinating work, overtly political and timely, as well as ruminative on timeless questions of art, love, and humanity. Nathan Lane's revisions to the Shevelove book are successful and well-chosen for the most part -- his political commentary is especially quite pointed and effective (I applaud him for being willing to speak up about corrupt political leaders who lie in order to scare their people and lead their country into war under false pretenses and the need for people to not be complacent in the face of all of that). Several jokes didn't land -- a situation I'm sure he's working on as we speak -- and the book as a whole needs a bit of tightening for clarity (especially in the second act) but, overall the story is a compelling one and quite funny in Lane's hands.

Sondheim's score has some fine moments -- the already well-known "Invocation and Instructions to the Audience," the sinuous melody of Hymn to Dionysus, the lyrically potent choral number "It's Only a Play," the syncopated music for "The Frogs," plus fun and catchy tunes like "I Love To Travel," "Dress Big" and "Hades." The new song "Ariadne" serves a function plot-wise, but perhaps isn't one of Sondheim's stronger ballads. "Fear No More" (with lyrics of "Cymbeline") failed to make much of an impression on me mostly because I could barely make out a word of it as delivered by the actor playing Shakespeare, Michael Sibbery (and I was in the front row -- to be fair, the sound mix needs a bit of fine tuning). Incidentally, the orchestration is very strong and full of musical quotations from "West Side Story" to "My Fair Lady."

With the exception of the sound, all of the physical aspects of the production are first-rate, from William Ivey Long's sublime costumes to Giles Cadle's inventive set design to Kenneth Posner's lighting.

By the way, for those who were concerned about seating, while the extreme sides of the Beaumont aren't ideal -- you get backs of heads sometimes and the sightlines occasionally obscured some of the stage business -- they're totally fine for 99% of the show.

The great debate between Shakespeare and Shaw in the second act is bound to cause a bit of controversy as it is currently presented in the show. The idea is great, but the execution's a bit off. Staged as a part-tennis, part-boxing match, the two go at it, round by round, trading a greatest hits list of their quotations (which feel a bit random in their selection), but the scene goes on a bit long and loses steam. The scene really cries out to be musicalized by Sondheim -- a few verses of them trading quips in a contest, a la Berlin's "Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better," would potentially be a showstopper.

The cast is wonderful for the most part. Nathan is terrific, playing the comedy and pathos of the role with aplomb. John Byner is a pro's pro, deftly handling all of the physical and verbal comedy with absolute precision. Burke Moses is well-cast (and unfortunately underused) as Herakles -- all bluster and muscle, he sings well (and looks great in a loin cloth). Peter Bartlett is less campy than usual (which is a good thing here) and very funny as Pluto. Daniel Davis exudes all the proper pomposity as Shaw. And special kudos to the chorus, which has to be one of the hardest working and most versatile companies around. The sing, they dance, they do acrobatics, they fly, they act, they do comedy -- an extraordinarily talented group of performers.

I didn't think Siberry had quite found his Shakespeare, yet, but he has time to grow in the role. And Chris Kattan seemed to lack a certain chemistry and comraderie in his pairing with Lane (I couldn't help but think of Ernie Sabella who would have made for a terrific Xanthias), but then again it was only the third preview so hopefully their stage partnership will develop over the coming weeks. He's also a bit underused. It struck me that his comedic scene that opens Act Two might be a nice place for a solo musical number for him -- some sort of funny character number. I take it he's not much of a singer, but Sondheim has successfully worked around a performer's vocal limitations many times before.

The show is in very good shape right now. I think that with a bit of editing and fine tuning (and hopefully a new number for the Shakespeare-Shaw scene), I think "The Frogs" will be a worthy addition to the Sondheim canon, as well as a career highlight for Stroman and Lane. I really enjoyed this show a lot and look forward to revisiting it in a month or so to check out what revisions are made.

---

Updated On: 6/28/04 at 01:14 AM

Of course it's my opinion -- everything everyone posts here is an opinion.

I was just bored out of my mind. I thought the lines were delivered way too fast. Chris Kattan was out of his depth but Burke Moses is again perfect in his role. The "tricks" like the boat floating in from the ceiling were annoying. Nathan's bungee-jumping was forced. Enough already of fancy-schmancy staging trying to cover up inadequacies elsewhere.

I found the whole experience tedious and boring. The debate between Shaw and Shakespeare was "eye-crossingly dull." In fact, this is the first show I've been to in New York in years where the audience did not give a standing ovation -- many people actually stood to leave during the bows.

I love Sondheim's earlier songs and love the CD, but I found the newer stuff drab and the sound in the theater is horrendous. Nathan's ballad to his late wife was just awful. Maybe some songs -- taken out of the context of the show -- can be re-worked as winners, as so many of Sondheim's are. The choreography delights in places, and these chorines work hard and look beautiful.

The political commentary was great and extraordinarily timed. I just wished it extended beyond one scene.

In the very lyrics of the first song, Dionysus announces that there is not a lot of plot. And he's right -- why then does the second act stretch on endlessly?

I have more than a few friends in the show and am sorry for them, but quite a few castmembers agree that the show is in trouble and needs a lot of work which they doubt will happen.

But, again, that's one man's opinion. Let's hope it improves and Brantley will be merciful.

---

Repetition can sometimes just make you want to go out and shoot the first puppy you see!

Celine
Bolton

Let me count the examples

---