WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN begins previews TONIGHT!- Page 13

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 12:43am

This thread is giving me a headache.

[dshnookie]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 12:43am

Bettyboy72, I agree with you with respect to what you said about subscribers. I'm sure it must have been very frustrating to have purchased tickets for the first couple of previews, and then having to scramble to rebook tickets only to have seen something that is very work-in-progress and sub par from the reviews that have been posted.

Perhaps the creative team got a little bit in over their heads and were/are under a lot of pressure to deliver, and there may have been some unforeseen setbacks.

I'm not making excuses for them but it's a risk one takes when purchasing preview tickets - patrons dont know what's going on behind the scenes and what the problems are that may affect the quality of performances during previews.

I make it a point to see shows after they've opened, not because I have anything against previews but I know myself well enough that if I see a show in previews, I'll still want to see it after it opens to see what has changed, what the final product is - so I'd rather save the cash and see it when it's ready to be reviewed.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 12:46am

DSHNOOKIE, I agree with you. I think something got away from the folks at the helm. I believe Bart said on Saturday, "this is only the second time the cast is running the show." I think that is pretty bad planning and pretty unprofessional, preview or not for $130 bucks.

[dshnookie]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 12:53am

And statements like that [from Bart] are what I cant support.

He really shouldn't have said anything, because it makes one think throughout the entire show "Well what is this really supposed to be like if the actors werent tired? etc."

At that moment, you feel that you're already being cheated out of something and regardless of what you think of the piece, you'll still feel duped out of your money a little.

I understand the actors must have changes being thrown at them left and right, which are difficult to remember much less produce on stage but there really isn't any need to make apologies for them. Let them perform and let those performances speak for themselves.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 12:59am

The most terrifying example of under-rehearsing I remember in recent history was during MATCH (Langella, Liotta). I don't remember EXACTLY, but this was a 3 character play and one night the director came out and apologized profusely that the understudy for the female role was not rehearsed and had to go on with book, blah, blah, blah....surprisingly enough, I don't remember any audience member leaving, but the poor girl was absolutely like a deer in the headlights for about 10 minutes, and then settled in a bit, but it was awful to watch The asst. director was sitting first row center actually feeding her lines. OMG. I can't imagine anything worse for an actor. (or an audience, for that matter)

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 1:02am

As many people have stated, I can live with stops and kinks in a preview. I totally expect them. I would have thought nothing of them stopping of the show for a few minutes on Saturday. I think Bart displayed his Achilles heel to the audience and told them more than they needed to know. Because now instead of the people who saw the Sat matinee saying, "oh they stopped the show once due to a tech malfunction" you have people saying, "it was only the second full run through, the cast was exhausted, they stopped the show, there was no out of town tryout, etc."

[parislover87]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 1:04am

I was there and will give a brief review/run down of all the elements, excusable or not.

the show- act one soars, act two tumbles. The score is not memorable on a first listen but I have a feeling there are going to be a few gems from it. Lovesick, Model Behavior, and On The Verge are all absolutely phenomenal... but you have to sift through a lot of mediocre to get to them.. I wish the production had taken the time to have a tryout out of town to cut through some of the muck and redo some problem numbers. I would cut all the guy songs... they do nothing to further the plot and instead read almost like under the table deals between writers and actors just to make those roles feel more worth while.

I think the show is salvageable... and when it's strong it's amazingly effective... perhaps it is a little ahead of it's time and a little rushed

Patti- her material was weak but her comedic timing was strong. Sometimes her character was used very creatively and sometimes it just felt labored. For the first time it looked like the character was controlling her, she did not seem in control of the character.

Sherie- her songs unfortunately were predominantly slow, deranged ballads and lullabies. The lyrics are phenomenal but hard to grasp especially in Lovesick. She has perfect manorisms and her body language is strikingly similar to that which is in the movie.

Laura- steals the show but feels totally lost and underused in act ii

Justin- strong in voice, average in acting

Brian- If I directed this show it would have been like The Women, I would have kept Brian's cheesy and empty Ivan far away from the stage.

de'Adre- I did not see the supposed sex appeal of this character... and her acting felt forced. also very little material to work with

the set: the set is absolutley phenomenal while the props and elements like the taxi and certain projections make it look considerably cheap. However the constant motion of the set is a throw back to the fast pace of the movie

[alawhat]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 3:21am

Oh ma gawd, looook! Mark Shenton thinks we're all cra-zay!

http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/shenton/2010/10/trial-by-preview/index.html

[dshnookie]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 3:47am

I'm famous, y'all!

"texted me a partial curtain" and merchandise round up, is yours truly.

[Cosmic Explorer]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 7:56am

I must say that the majority of reviews on here while negative have not been all that mean spirited or sensational.

The nastiest posts in this thread are from the people who haven't seen the show attacking the opinions of those who have.

I didn't open the thread until after I saw the show for myself, so I wasn't influenced by anyone, but when I did open it the first 2 people who posted substantial reviews (the poster with all the falsetto names and Michael Bennett) were pretty fair in their assessments. They didn't seem to be over the top or "hater-ish" to me.

That blog someone just linked, is that person someone we should know of? Is he someone whose opinion is more valid than anyone else's. That's not sarcastic, I've never heard of him before and don't known if he's a respected theater critic.

He seems like just another opinionated person who posts on a blog instead of here.

By far the nastiest person on here is that guy who thinks everyone who didn't like the show is a frustrated actor or something.

For the record, I love my job and have no desire to work in theater. I'm just a patron who sees a lot of shows. I'm not frustrated, nor on unemployment and I still didn't care for the show.

Just wondering why those who have not seen the show are so defensive?

But like I said earlier, it's not that it's a horrible show. It's just not what people who know the previous work of the amazingly talented creative team and cast expected.

WOTV will be a perfectly suitable musical comedy. But what it won't be is a show that captures the organic lunacy and heart of the Almodovar movie.

Here, the whimsy of all the inane coincidences of the movie are by necessity signaled with less subtlety. That is something that I suppose needs to be as a bway house has to make sure that the people in the back rows get the connections (hence the discovery of Carlos' lineage being enlarged for example).

That's not a bad thing necessarily, it's just different. The phrase "lost in translation" comes to mind as an appropriate mantra.

The sweet idiosyncrasies of the movie are now big musical theater character traits.

The best way to enjoy this show if you have seen the movie is to understand that it is a different animal. It remains colorful and frenetic but loses the carefree playfulness of the movie in favor of forced musical theater tropes.

Updated On: 10/11/10 at 07:56 AM

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 7:57am

"Let the rest of us be red-blooded and passionate, even if at times a little crass."

Why do you assume the people who like this show are not red-blooded or passionate? And incidentally, one can be both and still not behave like an immature, hysterical, vituperative boor.

"I think everyone is pretty much unanimous that we love all of the parties involved, we just think the material is bad."

Have you bothered reading this thread? There are people who like this show, so your assessment "everyone is pretty much unanimous" is wrong.

[After Eight]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 8:07am

On the matter of directors coming out to give a speech before a preview explaining to the audience that there may be kinks in the show, etc., I've seen this many, many times. Alan Jay Lerner himself did it before a preview of "Dance a Little Closer."

And yes, I do understand the attitude "I paid full price to see the performance and I deserve a finished performance." My answer is don't go to see an early preview.

And also, let's be frank here. There are certain people who rush to the first preview HOPING to see a disaster, and hoping also to be the first to run back to their computer to trumpet this to the world in all their vainglory.

[Donthatecongratulate]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 8:44am

After Eight-
"And also, let's be frank here. There are certain people who rush to the first preview HOPING to see a disaster, and hoping also to be the first to run back to their computer to trumpet this to the world in all their vainglory. "

YOU ARE SO ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! and those people are called.... HATERS. and most of them are? FRUSTRATED UMEMPLOYED ACTORS SERCING DRINKS to the rich and famous after hours......

Or just cowards, like THE BROADWAY CRITIC who won't let you reply to his hate filled posts without approving your response. Just sad......

I thought all of the actors were wonderful considering the timeline. And if you haven't seen an Almodovar movie, especially this one, you really have no idea how spot on the characters are.

Sherie's character IS lost & confused throughout the film
Patti's character IS loopy and does very little in the film, she doesn't have to sing big huge numbers just cause she's patti lupone if it's not called for for her character.
BSM's character is a cheesy player with horrible pick up lines.
Deandra's character barely does anything in the film and isn't supposed to be sexy, but some tough lawyer.

[Famebroadway2]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 9:01am

I was there Sat night. It was like watching a Dress Rehearsal that is about 4 days from the first public performance. It should not be running right now in the state its in.

The long pauses, set malfunctions, etc. Made the show long, uncomfortable and hard to understand. I know people would have been upset with another delay but, they REALLY should have waited until this week to start.

I had Tix for Sat evening because I wanted to see it after they had some performances under their belt. If I had known it was going to be the 3rd performance I wouldn't have booked it.

Technically it needs A LOT of work. They are going in the spirit of things constantly moving on an off but, with insufficient tech time its turning into a nightmare of a cluttered mess.

The TV rolling across stage in the middle of a scene (after the show had been stopped and started again) was embarrassing.

I wont comment on the material since its ealry in the process and they have time to work on it. There is a good show in there. They just have to find it and flesh it out.

I feel now that its running (and rehearsal time is very limited) they will just start cutting out the scenic elements that are to technical and not working.

R

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 9:09am

Donthatecongratulate your posts are stupid and child like.....please leave

[Luscious]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 9:35am

"btw, notice that Luscious is spewing hate towards Verge, yet is advertising BURLESQUE with CHER & CHRISTINA AGUILERA?????!!! REEEEEALLY???? and you're supposed to be an expert on taste???"

Dear Donthatecongratulate (BWW member since 10/10/10), First of all, I don't in any way propose to be an expert on taste. Never claimed to. Secondly, have you seen BURLESQUE? If not, why are you commenting on something you haven't seen? I find that very close-minded and ignorant. And lastly, for the record, I'm not claiming that the movie is going to be an award winning work of art. I just happen to like the poster... and Cher. Sue me.

As for WOMEN... it's a piece of junk. Plain and simple. I've seen it and I have a right to my opinion. If, for the love of Patti, you want to convince yourself of something different, go to town! I know what it's like to look forward to something with great anticipation and spend a small fortune on tickets, only to be bitterly disappointed. It's easier to believe that's it's really not all that bad. BUT IT IS! But I guess if you're getting paid to shill for a show, it doesn't really matter, now does it? Is it salvageable? No. Not in my opinion. Not in four weeks. You'd have throw most of it out and start over from scratch. But time will tell.

Updated On: 10/11/10 at 09:35 AM

[BroadwayGuy12]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 9:55am

I saw the matinee yesterday, so here are some of my thoughts. I stayed away from this thread before I went (and only skimmed the last few pages, so I apologize if anything I say has already been addressed by others).

The show was far from a disaster, but it also certainly wasn't a masterpiece. I was very, very excited to see this show and, for the most part, I wasn't terribly let down. I had a good time (I felt it was worth my $36.50 just to see that cast on stage), but there's definitely work that needs to be done.

The score was a mixed bag. I loved "Model Behavior" and "On the Verge" and thought "Lovesick" and "Invisible" were pretty good too. I enjoyed "Island" as well, but that may have been more because of the burning bed than the song itself. Both of Stokes Mitchell's songs were dreadful, though he does sound terrific. But "The Microphone" was by far one of the show's lowest points. The opening number was also pretty lackluster, although whether that's because of the song or the staging I'm still unsure. For reference re: Yazbek: I liked (but certainly didn't love) the score to DRS, and I'm not terribly familiar with TFM. I will say that the orchestra sounded delightful throughout the performance.

As many others have said, Benanti did a fabulous job and absolutely stole the show. I thought LuPone was more than solid and think the character would have come across as significantly less interesting with another actress in the role. I was actually impressed with Scott but agree that her part is underwritten. I shouldn't have to take the time to remind myself that the show is about Pepa the way I did yesterday. It's hard for me to comment on Stokes Mitchell's performance when everything he was given was so sub-par.

The choreography was pretty pitiful, not that there's really much in the show to begin with. The sets, especially the projections, are very ostentatious (bordering on tacky, IMO). As has been mentioned, the transitions seemed almost too numerous; I never felt like I got the chance to know where I was, if that makes any sense. I did like the costumes, but it is my understanding that they were more heavily influenced by the film than anything else in the production (I haven't seen the film so I wouldn't be able to say for certain).

And now for Sher. He came out before the performance to let the audience know that the show was probably going to stop, seeing as they had only made it through once in their previous three performances (it didn't stop, but there were several sound issues and crew members running on and off stage to help with scene transitions). He also seemed very nervous about the entire process, and understandably so: this isn't his best work. Unlike his crisp work on SOUTH PACIFIC, this just felt jumbled. That's not to say I hated everything (I liked the little "vignettes" during the scene transitions, etc.), but he still needs to find his footing in the piece. It would probably help if the material were written more like a comedy and not a character study, but that's something that should have been decided a while ago.

Those are just a few of my thoughts to add to this conversation. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm bashing the show; I would like to make it clear that I did have a good time yesterday, I just think there are still kinks with this piece that need to be worked out. And yes, I know it was an early preview (although I did buy my ticket when the first preview date was still 10/2) and that this is the time to work stuff out. I'm trying to be sympathetic towards that. I'm just presenting what I thought about yesterday's performance. So take that for what you will.

And at the risk of going on for too long (this post has already hit an obscene length), let me just say that, yes, the refurbished Belasco looks gorgeous.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 10:18am

Looniest thread in a long while, but if you ignore the most extreme posts on either side of the love/hate divide (and we all know which two posters we're talking about), the responses are remarkably similar.

1. Benanti triumphs.
2. Patti's great.
3. Sheri's part is underwritten.
4. The choreography is negligible.
5. Stokes's songs aren't worthy of him.

Then everyone decides how important each of these elements is, and how much they liked the show because of/despite its virtues and flaws.







Updated On: 10/11/10 at 10:18 AM

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 10:22am

nobody has really said anything about this yet: How's the orchestra? and what is the orchestration/instruments used, and how large is it?

just had to throw the question out there...

[Sleeper2]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 10:34am

Reginald, I agree except for the adjective on number 4. I would substitute "the choreography is negligible" for "the choreography is a failure."

[singer73192]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 11:19am

Sorry if this has been posted, but there was an Overture at yesterday's performance. So, there is already much work that is being done. It really was not nearly as bad as some here are describing it as. I don't think it will ever be the "masterpiece" that we were all expecting, but it will be a crowd pleaser. Other audience members seemed to be loving the show yesterday.

Side note: I wouldn't recommend sitting in the front orchestra. The stage was pretty high. Brian Stokes Mitchell said at the stage door that the mezz is the best place to see the show.

[ljay889]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 11:24am

I hope they keep the overture. Yazbek's "overtures" are awesome.

[Donthatecongratulate]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 1:03pm

songanddancequeen-waaaaaaaaaaaaaah, pass the bottle baby because I'm not going anywhere. stop straight bashing.

Reginald Tresilian seems to be one of the smartest people on here for summing it all up.

NOW, moving on.

the orchestra, in my opinion sounded great. Not sure how large it was, but i did appreciate the fact that they used some of the score from the film.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 1:09pm

Running time, anyone? I want to go see this some time this week but I'd rather go to a matinee if the show has been running really long.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 1:14pm

2 hours 50 minutes a few shows back. That will doubtless get tighter as technical kinks and timing are worked out.