The Hunchback of Notre Dame at Paper Mill — Page 3

I saw it last night and loved it. I agree that it did not have any "Disney magic" but I did not go in expecting it - this is definitely not the Disney movie just put on stage - this is a very unique take on the story with some subtle, artistic choices that elevate it beyond some of the more recent Disney shows.
This was my first show at Paper Mill and if anyone is going to buy tickets know that the orchestra is long and the mezzanine is pretty far back from the stage. We were seated in Orchestra Left Row J and had a great view of everything - I would not suggest front row for this show since the stage is pretty high and everyone in that row seemed to be craning their necks.
The show itself is very spooky and honestly reminds me of mass. I was immediately struck by the use of ensemble to help tell the story - the movement and narration at points reminded me of Curious Incident and its use of the cast. I was worried that with so many moving people involved in narration that there would be mic issues but the sound quality was great with the exception of a few crackling moments.
Renee, Page, and Arden all gave very strong performances. The two weakest parts of the cast were definitely Samonsky and Liberman - partially their performance and partially weakly developed characters. The entire Phoebus storyline is the most weakly developed in the show. My only other criticism of the show is that the first act drags a little too long while the second act rushes through the action a little too quickly.
The set design is definitely a highlight but I can't wait to see it on a Broadway stage where it will hopefully not feel as cramped. I disagree with some of the previous posts on here - if Aladdin was ready for Broadway, this definitely is.

You think the ensemble doing random awkaward poses as gargoyles is "ready for Broadway?!" And that Tavern song that is a good melody but goes nowhere and says nothing. And the dancing that is so amateur? And the brothers acting in the beginning was beyond awkard. Maybe I just have higher standards but this was a fail.

And sorry but if she's not comfortable in the part after having another run of the show then she's not the one for the part. Vocally she's there, she just doesn't give the impression of a gypsy. I kept thinking how great Karen Olivio would be in the part. You need someone who feels earthy, but with her Crest White strips smile she felt a little too Broadway-white washed for this character. (And that's not a racial thing, just mean they glamorized her too much.)

Updated On: 3/7/15 at 09:43 AM

I agree, ads.
And I see a very similar trend in the reviews from Paper Mill that we saw here in La Jolla. Some love it; some hate it.
It comes down to personal perspective in how people wanted to see this staged. Some needed it to be big, brash, and flashy…a la Aladdin.
Some are more open-minded about the way they have chosen to stage it, more as a passion play.
Can I understand the opinion of the former? Sure. I would have been fine with it being staged huge.
I wasn't off put by the way they chose to do it though.
The first time I saw it I was surprised that it wasn't bigger and more assertive in the way it was being presented. Because I was expecting it too.
When I went back a couple of weeks later to see it with another friend, I opened my mind to what it was offering through the story, music and performances, and found myself more entranced by the production and open to their take on it.
This musical is not Aladdin. It is darker, and has a more intense, intimate story that I felt worked well confined to a less flashy experience. I agree that the music is bold and for some it could clash with such intimacy.
I didn't feel it though.
If people are open, and it does make it to Broadway and does well, I'll be happy for those involved. If it doesn't, I will count it a shame, but still be glad I had the chance to see it.

I just want to defend this production in saying that this narrative is far from epic... It's one of Hugo's most intimate stories. Have you read Les Miserables? The musical isn't even as epic as the novel. This is an intimate, coming of age story in many ways. The music and characters are brought to the forefront in Scwartz's production. I am in no way affiliated with this company nor do I have any desire to comment on most of these boards, but I truly believe this piece yields a discussion.

Updated On: 3/7/15 at 12:06 PM

I must say that the video here on BWW with the cast is pretty telling. Of course they are selling the musical and are clearly proud to be a part of it. But they also add a lot of insight to how the story is being told in this particular rendition, and it's spot on.
Now will this style appeal to everyone? No.
For others though, it does seem to resonate.
It all comes down to personal opinion.
As far as "big vs. small" is concerned though, I agree that if a play is a stinker, it doesn't matter to what level of grandeur it was produced.
But based on some of the critiques on this board (and on the La Jolla board) it seems very relevant. Clearly there are some who have expressed how they would have liked to see it done on a grander scale. That it fits the music better. It seems to be impacting their impressions. They wanted the Disney movie on stage.
Others are saying they enjoyed it as it is.
I, too, am a sucker for emotion in plays, and I did feel something. So again, personal impressions.
The friend who I saw it with the second time is hugely critical of musicals. Between the two of us we've probably seen 100 plays/musicals on Broadway.
Is this the best we've seen? No. But we both enjoyed it.
I asked her what she thought of the narration (because that was one of the few sticking points with me), and she was fine with it. As critical as she is, I was kind of surprised. The play resonated with her though and she, too, was entranced by Arden's performance. And she liked the intimacy of it, as well.
We'll have to agree to disagree when it comes things Broadway though, because what works for some people isn't always going to work for others.
My opinion of probably 90% of the shows I've seen on Broadway have jibed (for the most part) with the opinions of others (and critics, as well). 5% of the shows I liked, but they somehow didn't resonate with others, including critics (such as Bullets Over Broadway). The other 5%, the critics and audiences seemed to like, and I didn't at all, such as Urinetown (left at intermission) and Jekyll and Hyde (loved the music and the performances of Cuccioli and Eder but didn't connect with the characters at all).

Updated On: 3/7/15 at 01:31 PM

Not sure if this was answered (didn't see it) but what's the current running time?

---

I was at the matinee today overall wasn't impressed, although I do think there's a good show trying to break out. At the moment it simply doesn't cut the mustard.

I was not taken Michael Arden's imitation of Bradley Cooper in The Elephant Man. Did he get some bootleg video of Cooper's performance and carefully learn how to mimic his every movement and vocal inflection? Also why did that all go away when he was singing? The staging of him walking out normally, attaching the hump and morphing into the hunchback was once again just seen at The Booth. He sounded fine singing his songs, but I couldn't get over how much this felt like what I saw Cooper do (more effectively) a few months prior. When not strictly going for the elephant man, Arden channels Gollum instead.

(What is the logic for showing us him transforming into the hunchback? It certainly destroys the illusion for the kids, and this is a pretty straightforward telling of the story otherwise. The technique not only felt lifted, but out of place.)

Page, as others have mentioned, is wonderful. It doesn't hurt that he has the most developed character on paper, but he adds so much more to it.

Renée surprised me here. I didn't care for her witch in Big Fish at all. She over sang the song, which stunk to begin with. In hunchback she showed a lot of restraint, especially with God Help the Outcasts. I was so worried it was going to turn into an American Idol power ballad performance, and I was thrilled it didn't go that route. Sure her characterization isn't perfect, but she's also given absolutely nothing to work with. There is no backstory for her character AT ALL.

Samonsky does register much as Phoebus. I usually like him, so maybe he had an off day?

Hunchback plays like the anti-Aladdin. The latter was full of groan worthy Borscht Belt humor. Hunchback is essentially devoid of any laughs. This is serious stuff, damn it! I'm glad I wasn't rolling my eyes, but the lack of any comic relief makes for a slow and sluggish day at the theater. Act one desperately needs trimming and the gypsies/Clopin need to be funnier.

I didn't mind the ensemble narrating when they were talk to Quasimodo, but I HATED them narrating the story when they were the townspeople telling the audience what was about to happen immediately before actually watching it happen!! "The guards began to pound down the door" (guards begin to pound down the door). "It wouldn't budge so they had to try again" (the door doesn't budge and they try to pound it down again). "Finally they were able to breakdown the door" (on the third attempt the door breaks open). Oh for god's sake!

The choral singing was excellent and often very stirring. I got chills several times. Every time the story would stall it was like, bring in the chorus! They'll save the day!

The set was very attractive, but also constricting. The whole play must now take place in the cathedral.

The final sequence needs to be restaged. Have Quasimodo swing down on a fricking rope. Action. Excitement. Come on.

I know this still a try-out, and I'm not familiar with the state of the show in CA, but I expected some of this stuff to be worked out by this go around.

---

If you think I wanted big, splashy tap dance numbers, you're wrong. I love weird dark musicals. But this wasn't it. I completely agree with Whizzer.

By Disney Magic, I just mean more production values or creativity. There's none of that here. Like I said, we get a sheet and some silk acting as melted metal. Stupid.

And to say this is an intimate staging is simply stupid. How is this intimate with huge swinging bells and a huge choir? Huh? It's just messy. Quasimodo would yell "Sanctuary, we're in the church" and then run upstage and out the doors and then someone would come and reopen the doors because now we're in the church. Huh? It's like they wanted to be really artsy with some of it but then then some of it was just hit over the head. And I still don't understand what that thing was that fell from the ceiling? And no no no, this does not belong on Broadway in its current state. I'd be super surprised if Disney brings this in. Mind you they don't have their name on any of it at the moment.

I saw the show this afternoon. I am very mixed on the whole affair, but the good news is that this is a fantastic representation of the score. I watched the movie the night before and was reminded of what a gem it was, and how good the music can be.

The best move they made was giving the show a full choir to do the score justice. The opening number is absolutely fantastic and as Whizzer said, whenever the show drags, bringing in the choir definitely goes a long way to save the show.

That said, I kept feeling bored the whole afternoon. There just isn't much tension through the whole piece. The narrators really kill any sense of action. Show us don't tell us about it. By the end of the show especially in the lackluster second act I felt like we were in Disney storytime for 5 year olds. It felt like the director didn't trust the material or the audience, and that was a let down on both accounts.

Ciara Renee is wonderful, and really infuses and underwritten role with such warmth.
Michael Arden belts his face off, but I am with Whizzer on his bizzare characterization of the hunchback. Still he does sing the score well.

Patrick Page is a master of all villains, and really is the only one in the show with a full character to play and does it well. Andrew Samonsky has very little to do.

The set is beautiful, but it does constrict. The one real piece of brightness in the film and musical is Topsy Turvey and here it doesn't play well. It feels claustrophobic and unsatisfying. I'm not saying we need the CGI'd crowd scene, but a bit more ensemble and a brighter set piece would definitely liventhings up.

The end of the show in its current form is a disaster. We don't need Quasimodo to swing all through the theater like Spider-man, but I'm pretty sure he could swing off a ledge for two seconds. The curtain that comes down reminded me of when Spider-man didn't have an ending and they just throw the tie-dye curtain and ended the show.

I HATE the conceit of watching Michael Arden put on and take off his costume. It feels so anti-Disney, and even more odd is to watch him then sing a song without it on.

In its current form maybe I'd rather have everyone just pack it up and head to Carnegie hall for a concert version of the show. Hearing this music live is an incredible experience even with the lackluster staging. I would really hope they bring in someone like Diane Paulus to liven things up before it comes to Broadway,

Why Clopin wasn't the lead narrator I'll never know. He was in the background of most scenes. Heck, I didn't even know who he was for half of the Act. He should have been the lead of Belle of Notre Dame, and I so missed that final note from the film. His high note.

If anyone thinks this is ready for Broadway please see "Hell Fire." He stands in a red pool of light and sings. That's as much imagination as we get?

I don't think it's as bad as Little Mermaid. That was just all kinds of terrible.

And to whoever said this story isn't epic. It's not the scope that's epic. Sure, the scope is fairly small. It's all in one city, etc, but the emotions and actions are pretty epic. Setting fire, a deformed man who rings bells falls for a gypsy, etc. It's all very heightened, and to have it so stifled by the direction and the set is mind numbing. The design should be more Drowsy Chaperon where pieces are flown in or walls turned around, etc. There was just no surprise in the whole thing. Quasimodo has this clunker of a line like "that huge pot is full of super hot lead." And the pot is hanging there in a spotlight. Hm, I wonder if that will come back at a climactic moment to mean something? Stupid. His son is too close to material. They needed a more visionary director. Trust me, I want this to succeed. I love Hunchback and would love to play it. But this production. Oof.

I have tickets to the March 12 performance: I'm a fan of the film and have been wanting to see it staged since the Berlin production. I loved the grandeur of those sets though -- I agree that a story like Hunchback, in such a spectacular setting, should be fairly epic in execution. I do like the idea of making the audience feel like they are watching something they could've seen in the 1400s, though how much more awe-inducing would it have been then to see some more modern effects/flair in the mix... I was surprised to learn that Stephen Schwart'z son was directing the US version... I'm still looking forward to seeing the show though the majority of comments are somewhat disheartening.

I don't think I called anyone stupid? I was merely commenting on the production and their choices. Opinions are opinions.

And it started 7 and I was out the door and walking to the train at like 9:15 I feel like.