The Last Five Years - In Chronological Order?!?

Form a review that I just read.....wouldn't this be considered illegal?!?

"Director ....has messed with the show. Brown's device here is that the musical runs backward and forward. The character of Cathy starts the night as her relationship with Jamie is breaking up and moves backward in time, singing all the way. Jamie moves forward, also singing all the way -- meaning the two only meet in the middle.."

Updated On: 6/2/06 at 02:09 PM

can you post a link to that or the rest of the article? where on earth did someone think that was a good idea?

Here the full article (with names removed to protect the actors)

`Last Five Years' is wasted time

Jason Robert Brown's song-suite "The Last Five Years" is proving a hugely popular title with (name of city) growing cadre of musical-loving little theater troupes. No surprise there -- the show is about two twentysomethings in the arts trying (and failing) to hold together a relationship under all those darn pressures of life in the culture biz. Lots of theater people can relate.

And with only two meaty roles, the show has a plethora of pleasing ditties, in and around which a young actor can both warble and emote. And emote. And emote.

So it goes with the (name of theatre) atypically disappointing new production at the (name of theatre). The piece is sincerely performed by (male actor) and (female actor). And it features a highly proficient musical ensemble, led by (name of conductor). And that's about the sum total of its assets.

(Name of Director) has messed with the show. Brown's device here is that the musical runs backward and forward. The character of Cathy starts the night as her relationship with Jamie is breaking up and moves backward in time, singing all the way. Jamie moves forward, also singing all the way -- meaning the two only meet in the middle.

Not in this version. Here, (name of director) has the pair interact extensively throughout, which muddies the narrative trajectory and kills the show's internal logic. Worse yet, a mute third character (with whom Jamie is having an affair) shows up toward the end, when she's supposed to be merely suggested by song. None of these innovations have any demonstrable payoffs.

All this would be tolerable if the show were carefully sung, but that's not the case with this overblown, overwrought and ill-disciplined affair. (Female actor) has chronic pitch problems, especially early on. She later reveals herself to be a perfectly decent young singer -- just one who currently is not paying sufficient attention to the first order of musical business.

"Goodbye Until Tomorrow" at the beginning? Yuck.
That's so moronic.

~Steven

As far as I know, that production didn't put the songs in chronological order. The director just chose to have the actors interact with each other rather than having them sing alone on stage. Plus, he materialized the character of Elise (is that right?), which the reviewer didn't like. But nothing was done to alter the song order.

You know, I'd actually be very interested to see/hear the songs in chronological order (not in performance, of course). It would definitely put the two stories more in perspective, and give an understanding of what each character was experiencing at a given time. Anyone put in the time to organize the songs in this way?

---

Updated On: 6/2/06 at 02:51 PM

Thez914 is right. It doesn't. That's not what it says, they just have the actors on stage the whole time, instead of just singing out to them.

Still, that really hurts the show almost more than changing the order. And having a girl play the "mute" affair? WHAT!

True--the article does NOT say that the songs are done in chronological order. It simply indicates that the director chose to have Jamie and Cathy interact onstage at points other than "The Last Ten Minutes". Conceivably, this could be OK, although I will have to check out this production myself.

However, I am totally against having an actress actually APPEAR as the girlfriend in "Nobody Needs to Know." This is a TERRIBLE idea, no matter how it's directed. There are too many directors out there that don't realize that their duty is to the play, not to themselves and their desire to be creative.

Yeah. That silent character thing is just upsetting.

---

My guess is she is also the Cathy understudy since they have that listed on their website and no Muted-Cheating-Girl.

But yeah, that's pretty upsetting.

Ridiculous. THe show is perfect as is.

I recently saw a production where the woman Jamie is having an affair with was materialized - she was used mostly as a prop though, scurrying offstage after about a minute.

Didn't ruin anything for me. I thought it worked well.