VANITIES, A New Musical Reviews

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 3:57pm

The Associated Press is Mixed:

"There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to turn "Vanities," Jack Heifner's sturdy little comedy of female friendship, into a musical.

Tracing the lives of three Texas women from their high school cheerleading days into middle age, the musical, which opened Thursday at off-Broadway's Second Stage Theatre, makes for mild entertainment. It's sweet-tempered and unsurprising but enlivened by a trio of tireless performers, Lauren Kennedy, Sarah Stiles and Anneliese van der Pol, who make the most of the added musical material.

Heifner has adapted his own play, which had a lengthy, three-year New York run in the late 1970s. He's no dummy ? most of the best lines occur when the characters don't sing. Not that composer David Kirshenbaum's score is bad. There are some nice riffs on girl-group music of the early '60s and an homage to some of the more mellow sounds of a decade later..."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGhg7YTno8VHc-3Z2ZEC5Z2EdLDwD99FNN880

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 7:53pm

Variety is Negative:

"Let's hope the long list of associate producers means Second Stage landed a big chunk of enhancement money for 'Vanities, a New Musical,' because someone needs to be getting something out of this flavorless -- though not sugarless -- bubblegum. There's hardly a single original thought in this string of familiar Southern-fried female-friendship cliches, laced with platitudinous life lessons. And while probably nobody was expecting depth from such ultra-light material, would the occasional campy zinger have been too much to ask? Despite the three talented actresses fleshing out the gal-pal stereotypes, the only surprise here is that the show was ever considered for Broadway.

The New York run was originally announced for the Rialto last season, but those plans fell apart after the 2008 Pasadena Playhouse tryout, around the same time the economy began nosediving and a bunch of other ill-considered Broadway hopefuls were pulling the plug. In this Off Broadway fallback position, it's hard to reconcile that such a pedestrian effort is being presented at the same venue that in recent years shepherded distinctive musicals like 'The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee,' 'Next to Normal' and 'Everyday Rapture.'

The show was adapted by Jack Heifner from his nonmusical 1976 play 'Vanities,' a long-running Off Broadway hit that chronicled 11 years in the lives and friendship of a trio of high school cheerleaders from small-town Texas. While the original play (which was filmed for HBO) had some satirical teeth and poignancy in its observation of dreams turned sour and bonds broken, any hint of darker undertones has pretty much faded away. When the bitter resentments that ended the play -- and the friendship -- are aired in the musical, they seem merely a speed bump en route to the uplifting reconnection of a newly conceived coda scene..."

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940691.html?categoryid=33&cs=1

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 8:16pm

Talkin' Broadway is Negative:

"For proof of how dangerously safe and hopelessly uninventive talented musical writers can be if not closely monitored, one needs only look as far as the new Second Stage Theatre production of Vanities, a New Musical. Refashioned by Jack Heifner from his hit 1976 play, this viciously well-meaning musical argues in favor of exactly what Heifner argued against 33 years ago. That Heifner and composer-lyricist David Kirshenbaum have essentially adapted the work by replacing dialogue with songs that say less than the words did is the flavorless icing on an already poorly leavened cake.

That (or some variant of it) is the modus operandi for so many musicals today that theatre lovers should probably give up being surprised. But this abrasively upbeat production, which as directed by Judith Ivey and choreographed by Dan Knechtges started at the Pasadena Playhouse last year and announced a spring Broadway run that never materialized, has shockingly few teeth even for a bubble-gum outing. You would expect at least 32 from a story centering on three small-town Texas girls who live only for popularity in all its forms, but no. By making this everyone's idea of a contemporary musical, Heifner and Kirshenbaum have stripped it of any and all timeless bite..."

http://www.talkinbroadway.com/ob/07_16_09.html

Updated On: 7/16/09 at 08:16 PM

[jordangirl]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 8:41pm

Gotta say I agree with them. This was just not an enjoyable evening of theatre.

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 9:19pm

I saw the show last night and unfortunately I agree as well. Not at all surprised by the negative reviews.

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 11:25pm

The New York Times (Isherwood) is mixed to negative (maybe? I'm not good at making those judgments.):

"Mr. Kirshenbaum?s serviceable pop score, which nods in the direction of chart toppers like Burt Bacharach at some points and the more ruminative melodies of Stephen Sondheim at others, provides little in the way of defining depth for the characters. Too often it reverts to the same musical moods and self-actualization clichés.

The cartoony pep of Mr. Heifner?s book in the first scenes gives way to a similarly on-the-surface examination of the upheavals and disappointments of the women?s later lives. (Although it?s really not much later: the women are presented as having evolved drastically before they?ve turned 30.)

Material that must have seemed bold in the 1970s ? the discussion of Kathy?s psychological troubles, Mary?s arch frankness about sex, the revelation of the fatal flaws in Joanne?s storybook suburban life ? now feels about as novel and daring as a hula hoop."

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/theater/reviews/17vanities.html

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 11:34pm

"Give me a T for Trite." hahaha ouch.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 12:35am

I heard what was the final song in LA (I don't know if they changed it before it came to NYC) and it was just laughably dreadful. I wish I could find a copy of the HBO telecast. When I was kid I kept trying to watch it every time it was on and my parents would ALWAYS bust me. I must have been five or six.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 12:42am

The final song in Pasadena, "Letting Go," was replaced with a cut song from the Paolo Alto production called "Looking Good" for the Second Stage run.

Updated On: 7/17/09 at 12:42 AM

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 12:43am

It should be noted, I guess, that Isherwood thinks the actresses in this are saddled with material that is below them, espcecially van der Pol.
I guess it was a good thing this never opened on Broadway...it would've likely been another 3-night deal.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 12:44am

Dear America -

It's okay to have unhappy endings.

Very Sincerely,

Mrs. Phyllis Rogers Stone

[Smaxie]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 3:53am

The NY Times sends their own photographer to shoot production photos. She's generally quite good - but one has to wonder if the photo editor had it in for the show by selecting this photo to run with the review...

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 7:13am

I was gonna say...that's a blackmail photo right there.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 7:34am

I am definitely with the reviwers on this one. While the show wasn't wholly unenjoyable, and the performances were excellent, my response to the show was "trite."

Updated On: 7/17/09 at 07:34 AM

[WOSQ]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 10:01am

I felt Vanities to be a case of taking a nearly perfectly made script and dropping songs into it that did nothing to really advance the plot or tell the story better (Young Frankenstein is another far larger example).

Midway I thought perhaps if the characters interacted with words, and the women's inner monologues were all in song it might have been a serviceable concept. The songs that worked best were the inner monologues.

Forget the dvd and buy the script. It is almost all there on the printed page.

Final discussion point: even though it is not addressed in the script, is Joanne, the writer, a lesbian? Many people including me, have said 'yes' over the years. Better yet, it can be a choice of the actress or the director. I think she becomes the most interesting character of the three.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 10:05am

The NY Post is mixed with **1/2 out of **** stars:

"...Typically, the most derivative songs also are the most pleasant: "I Don't Wanna Miss a Thing" brings to mind "Good Morning Baltimore" from "Hairspray," while "Let Life Happen," adorned with a sweetly piping trumpet, owes a big debt to Burt Bacharach.

In the spirit of generosity that infuses "Vanities," most of the numbers are shared, but each woman gets a big solo.

It'd be great to report that they stop the show, but they barely give pause. Except, that is, for Joanne's "The Same Old Music," which Stiles signs, seals and delivers. With her assured comic timing and unconventionally appealing voice, she brings to mind the great Nancy Walker...."


http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172009/entertainment/theater/friends_in_faux_places_179656.htm

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 10:08am

WOSQ, Isn't Kathy the writer? I did wonder if she was a lesbian. Not sure, though.

[mina3]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 10:37am

Totally agree with Isherwood's review. I'd love to see these actresses work with better material - especially Anneliese, the only one of the 3 I hadn't seen onstage before. She ended up being my favorite, though I think that's partly because her character was more interesting. I enjoyed the ambiguity about whether or not Kathy is a lesbian - I wish they had just come out (ha) and SAID it, but I'll take what I can get. Everything else about the three women is so spelled out, and I think they could all have benefited from a bit of mystery - the audience might have become more invested in them.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 10:55am

Why is there no show tonight?

[joanntom]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 2:10pm

I wondered who owned Kathys apartment. Perhaps it was a woman