Theatreboy33's Wedding Singer Review

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 2:51pm

Sorry if there are other reviews already posted out there, but i rarely make my own threads, so I'll try to be very thorough here.

After reading a plethora of mixed opinions on the show here, I decided to head out to see the show (STILL IN PREVIEWS) for myself last night. Essentially, the Wedding Singer in its current incarnation is one half of a very enjoyable musical. The curtain excitedly comes up on an in-progress wedding, introducing us to the band, fronted by Robbie--a very charismatic and enjoyable Stephen Lynch now sporting a much shorter haircut than in the ads--and backed up by bandmates George and Sammy. The opening (and closing) number "It's Your Wedding Day" is undeniably contagious, if not poorly lyricized. But then again, one can say as much for just about any "original" song written by a second-rate wedding band. And this is essentially a point where the show both soars and falls. The music of this whole piece is absolutely 80's. And yet, the music of the 80's (at least the most popular fare that clearly serves as inspiration here) ,as I seem to recall, was quite awesomely awful for the most part. So the question of intention must be constantly begged throughout TWS of whether or not the music is supposed to be good, intentionally bad, awesomely bad, or any combination thereof. In any case, at least during act one, it is quite toe-tapping and catchy, if not overly memorable.

Now, as I've said before, the first half of TWS undeniably works. The relationships onstage are at first a bit confusing, though later, much better defined. Laura Benati's opening number as Julia, "Right on Time" is probably the best character number in the piece; a catchy, upbeat, clear "I want" number that nicely introduces the audience to Julia's struggles as an engaged waitress at the banquet hall where Robbie plays. Sidenote--Benati is now sporting what appears to be a shorter, dirty-blonde wig for the role, a beneficial enhancement that both makes her more youthful/80's and less like a female character out of Dick Tracy, as she appeared to me in the ads outside. Any massive complaints about her acting in the show that I've heard I'm afraid cannot be echoed after last evening's performance. Not to say that she was anything mesmerizing--the role simply is not layered enough to achieve that--but she is surely capable and charming enough. It is not until Julia's fiancee, Glen comes into the picture that the show starts to stem off into a less enjoyable area of forced 80's kitch and pop culture references. In fact, the Glen character as I see it, is probably the biggest downfall for TWS at present. As opposed to nearly everyone else onstage, who are presented as real, three-dimensional, mutli-faceted characters, Glenn, the villainous boyfriend is an entirely two-dimentional foil of a character, set up to be knocked down without a question or doubt in the audience's mind. As of now, he is merely a device for presenting many a bad joke in reference to 80's materialism, constantly pulling out "new" technology as a sort of giant "remember this???" to the audience. The gags are fine on some level, but by the end, become cheap and unnecessary. What IS necessary is a serious fleshing out of Glen to make him not entirely despicable in every way, perhaps giving him a character solo about how he feels he has to win a woman with money and gifts because he doesnt know how to otherwise. That is probably the missing song in the show right now that would add a world of humanity and other dimension to Glen.

It is pointless for me to describle the plot here, as the entire evening falls into place in the nearly exact same manner as the film, with one fatal exception. For a show that so closely follows its film source material, a key scene here is left out: the scene in which, after Robbie refuses to play for Julia, the two of them go out shopping for another wedding singer and find John Lovitz's band. The scene may be the film's best, and I'm sure Rando could have worked wonders here if such a scene had been added to act 1 when Robbie and Julia are out together picking out wedding items. Yet, perhaps that would make the act even further unbalanced with its second act counterpart, which is when the show takes a bit of a nosedive.

Tailing the uninspired, general closing of Act 1, "Saturday Night in the City" (the title says it all), which features a secondary character oddly at center stage performing yet another iconic 80's move (i wont say as to surprise), we open on act 2 in an entirely new and uninteresting setting, introducing a brand new problem. Act 2 opens in Glen's wall street office, where Robbie attempts to break into the corporate world in order to win over Julia. The song perfromed here is "All About the Green" a very general, cliched number featuring Glen and a chorus of brokers, characters which, at this point, we've already learned to hate. Therefore, the number has no dramatic pull or affect on the audience. Now, I dont pretend to be an expert of musical structure, but to open act 2 on such a number, featuring a new dillema, sung by a cartoonish villian, in order to convince Robbie of something we know he'll never be "suited" to (pardon the pun), just seems...well...incorrect. I'm not saying I know entirely how to fix this, but this number cannot open act 2. It just does not bring us back onto the edge of our seats in any way. Act 2's best number, "Right in Front of Your Eyes" sung by Holly follows the wall street number and feautures Rando's most clever direction of the night, as Holly sings about varioous dream men in tuxedos as they dance around her, while Sammy, her ex, attempts to keep up with the graceful dancing of the tuxedoed men. In general I should say, Rando's direction is extremely clever and unique, and makes some numbers much more exciting than they probably should be. Funnily enough, he makes absolutely no mention of Dance of the Vampires anywhere in his bio. But the real problem with act 2 is the simple inevitability of everything. Act 2, more than 1, attempts to steer down the exact path of the film, and in doing so, feautres a far-too-long sequence in which Robbie attempts to stop Julia's ill-fated marragie to Glenn in Vegas by gaining the help of Vegas impersonators "fake" Billy Idol, "fake" Mr. T, "fake Cindy Lauper", "fake" Tina Turner, "fake Ronald Regan" and a slew of others as I recall. Clearly, here is where the musical revels a little too much in the defining characteristic of the 1980's: excess. The overwhelming 80s references thrown at the audience during the "PLEASE LOVE ME!" final scenes of TWS are ineffective at best, distracting at worst. The audience's attention is incorrectly strained between attempting to catch every reference and apprecitate the blooming, sweet love story between Robbie and Julia. It is clear which of these two must go before the show opens: the 80s schtick. Deep down, TWS, regardless of time period needs to be about love. As of now, the advertisements ousdie feature the tagline "Love is what I do" in much smaller print than "We're gonna party like it's 1985!" Thost font sizes need be switched, and the show accordingly. If that happens, they'll have a real, sweet hit on their hands.

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 3:24pm

So you want the Wedding Singer without the 80's referneces? Don't see how thats gonna work. I posted a much less detailed, less nitpicky review so you can see there that I respectfully disagree. The show was a blast!

[bjivie2]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 3:31pm

I think Theatreboy is saying that it relies to strongly on jokes referencing the 80's instead of jokes coming out of character and plot.

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 3:41pm

Everything--you are mistaking the word "nitpicky" for "detailed." I hardly gave this thing a bad review. Just noted areas of needed work during previews. Thanks, bjivie2 for clarifying.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 4:00pm

I'd say a fair review. You brought up some good points. I had a blast and I cannot wait for the cast recording and to see their performance :hopefully: on the Tony awards. Seems like you still had a good time though. And I have to agree with you about Holly's Act 2 song, it had me in stitches when he was trying to keep up with the dancing - ha.

[My Name in Lights]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 6:41pm

Very good review, theatreboy. I also saw TWS and felt that it could be a lot more than it is right now. Too much 80's schtick (sic), and not enough charm and romance. It's not bad, and is definitely fixable; and that's why they have previews. Needless to say, I am looking forward to seeing it again after it is frozen, hoping it reaches its full potential.

[MrBundles]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 6:48pm

most people dont know is that the imposter characters change depending on which understudies are on. For Ex. when I saw the show, Rosie's understudy was on. This is the same actress who plays Cyndi Lauper, but since she was playing Rosie, we had another actress playing a completely different imposter character in place of Cyndi.

Updated On: 4/9/06 at 06:48 PM

[Katurian2]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 6:51pm

Wow- Thank you for the review. I am gussing I wouldn't fully enjoy it, as I was not even born in the 80's....

[jimnysf]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 6:55pm

The best actor/singer in the show is Richard H Blake who plays Glenn. How can you suggest they take away his song? He should be playing the role of "The Wedding Singer"!

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 7:08pm

I did not suggest that his song be taken away. I said it should not open act 2. If you read carefully, youll see that I even requested that he sing another song to further develop his character.

[kyguy78]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 7:11pm

I agree with a lot of your review, Theatreboy. But I think there's one thing you have to keep in mind when you see a show like this: I don't think "The Wedding Singer" is too concerned about character development or anything like that; I think it's just concerned with entertaining the audience and it does that with some catchy songs, cheesy jokes, and a likeable cast. It's mindless, cheesy, harmless fun that a lot of people will eat up like it's ice cream!

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 7:28pm

No matter how simple or basic a story is, character development or "anything like that" is still an essential element. To excuse a show for easily fixable mistakes because they just didnt care about basic story elements demonstrates plain ignorance on the creator's parts. I'd like to imagine, that underneath all the 80s jokes, the creators of this shows still DO care about those things.

[kyguy78]

Posted: 4/9/06 at 7:39pm

I think they do, but I would compare "The Wedding Singer" on Broadway to one of your standard issue comedies or summer blockbusters that Hollywood pumps out at the movies. Yes, some of them are deep, though provoking pieces, but most of them place more concern on entertainment value over plot and character development.