Waitress Previews — Page 4

"I was looking at the songlist and the similarity of the titles "She Used to Be Mine" and "You Will Still Be Mine" made me wonder if they were related melodically (or lyrically beyond the titles)."

No, at least not in terms of melody.

 

"Do people who saw it think that Jessie Mueller is a solid bet for a Tony nomination?"

Jessie gives a pretty strong performance, but the problem is she only has SHE USED TO BE MINE to show off her talent (the one song that really moves and transports me) as opposed to a dozen songs in Beautiful (Goffin & King songs are perfect to display intricate emotions). Besides, I think the book gives too much attention to the supporting characters so Jenna doesn't really stand out as much as Carole does in Beautiful. So while Jessie plays a memorable Southern girl, the book poses a limit that will perhaps keep her from getting a TONY nom in this very critically strong year. But who knows? 

 

"dancing -- if all you got out of the show was "cheating" you missed a lot. Not seeing this version (saw it at the ART) I can't speak to whether it's the fault if the current production or not, because many of your complaints are/were explained in Boston and the film."


It seems my wording confused you. It's my fault. I do see other things such as sovereignty, sisterhood, and the earthiness we New Yorkers have pretty much lost. What I mean by "stuck with me" is that cheating is what bothers me most, like why can't there be something else to do with a straight man and a straight woman at the same age than pairing them up? Or why can't they stay faithful or at least get their partners' consent or at least stronger explanations on their defense? Not to mention many people in the audience are teenagers and even grade school kids! 

I do think developing Earl's character will add some notable points to the show, because people are not born abusers or saints or criminals. It'll be an interesting addition to the deeper themes, such as how people can change, that I assume the show touches. Besides, right now it seems that Jenna does not love Earl and is afraid of him but Earl is in some ways oddly dependent on Jenna and needs her presence. That's more than an abuser and it gets me interested in the why of the character. In fact, many characters' motives need clearer explanations.

Or it might be because the audience was too reactive and concert-ish tonight that I missed a few lines.

I don't know how anyone can question Jessie's Tony nomination prospects if you see this performance. She is giving a deeply fleshed out performance of a woman who is completely different than anyone we have seen her play before. The fact that she is the same woman who played Carole King is pretty astounding. What a fully rounded complex moving performance she is giving here, not to mention how musically she has found an entirely new voice and sound for this character from anything else we've heard her sing. I frankly can't think of many people who can transform like that and disappear so completely into a role from one show to another like she has managed to do in such a short time. I think you are really short selling her if you are judging her by how many 11:00 numbers she has in a show. Not to mention that she never leaves the stage...and that her 11:00 number is killer. 

Is Jessie Mueller currently scheduled to play all eight performances each week, or does she have an alternate?  If so, is she always out the same night (ex. every Wednesday evening)?  (I realize she could be out at any performance.  Just trying to avoid buying on a night she's already scheduled to be out.) Thanks!

She has 2 understudies. 1 being the one from A.R.T.(Stephanie Torns) and the other is a swing whom is also from A.R.T.(Ragan Pharris). The only female swing. 

Both ladies also understudy Kimiko Glenn.

Updated On: 3/26/16 at 08:35 AM

Okay I had a whole post typed out (on my phone, bad idea) and lost it. I'm not toggling spoiler content.

But I was there last night and I was thrilled. I saw the show at ART and from the start I was very happy with the changes they have made. They got rid of some of the really lame stuff (song for the couples in the doctor's waiting room chief among them). The score is still pop but it has a much stronger musical theatre sound from new arrangements.

To address Jessie Mueller and a Tony nom - I think it's not only a lock but that she'll be a strong contender. A Tony isn't given for showing how you can stand in one spot and belt a big number - but her 11:00 number is a a doozy and she acts through the entire thing. Her character is very nuanced and she has to do a lot of moving around during most of her songs. And as people have pointed out, she's in every single scene and is basically never off stage. I've been a longtime fan but I'm so impressed by what she has done with this role. I echo BroadwayBaby's sentiments.

The recasting from ART has proven to be effective and worthwhile. I'm not in any way disparaging the people who played the roles there, but they have just improved. I previously found Ogie annoying and a distraction and wrote here about my concerns with a male character saying "You're never getting rid of me" in a show like this, but Christopher Fitzgerald has made him endearing and turned that song into an Act 1 showstopper. As an Orange...Black fan I was surprised and impressed to see another side of Kimiko Glenn who has made Dawn a much deeper character. She has great comedic timing and the two of them, while just vulnerable as everyone else, provide lighthearted relief. Regarding Earl's character, if I recall he shows up earlier in the show and they've done a better job establishing his controlling attitude and verbal abuse. He's really a jerk and it shows. Also, you don't need to hit someone to be abusive and he does grab her with intent to do so before she reveals her pregnancy.

Regarding the crowd - I died when I heard a "woo" during "She Used to Be Mine" and I can only hope it calms down. This was a very responsive, excited first preview crowd that had been waiting for months to see this (also lots of young spring breakers). I agree that the Bareilles fans that will stream in during the summer months may not react in typical theatre ways, but hopefully it's ultimately bringing more new people to the theatre.

steven22 said: "Jessie is scheduled for all performances."

This is going to be a crazy spring and summer for Jessie Mueller. She's on stage the entire show and will certainly be doing lots of press and, hopefully, working the awards publicity circuit.

I saw both Sara Bareilles and Diane Paulus in the back of the orchestra last night. 

It seems my wording confused you. It's my fault. I do see other things such as sovereignty, sisterhood, and the earthiness we New Yorkers have pretty much lost. What I mean by "stuck with me" is that cheating is what bothers me most, like why can't there be something else to do with a straight man and a straight woman at the same age than pairing them up? Or why can't they stay faithful or at least get their partners' consent or at least stronger explanations on their defense? Not to mention many people in the audience are teenagers and even grade school kids! 

Honestly, if this is what you took away from Waitress then this show and this story were never for you and you entirely missed the point. For me the story has always been about Jenna's self-actualization and growth as a human, and how she relates to the other women around her. 

I also don't see how children being in the audience makes a difference, but okay.

I also don't see how children being in the audience makes a difference, but okay.

 

"

The rating system for TV and films exists for a reason, and I doubt you would take an 8-year-old to see a show with overt sex scenes (though not in nudity) and people having affairs.

It's true that Waitress portrays the arc of Jenna in a very believable and uplifting way, but that doesn't offset the very fact that cheating is morally wrong.

laughingplace said: "Does the musical say cheating was morally right ? Because there is cheating in a musical does not mean that anyone believes its morally right ?  Did anyone on this board say it is morally right?

On a side note : What age was Spring Awakening for ?

 

"

Definitely not 8 and below. I seriously doubt you would take your grade school kid, if you have one, to either.

And having half the major characters involved in cheating is like sending a message that does not necessarily say it's right, but still not totally wrong. It's more than the duality you are talking about. The gray area can be very dangerous and I remember one pair hasn't sorted it out by the end of the show despite Jenna finally growing to step out of the relationship. Simply leaving it there kind of complicates the problem. Again, it might be because of the raving crowd that I missed something.

The production isn't responsible for the children in the audience.....the parents are.  Period.  They are creating theater, not a morality play.  

 

Even during SA, people brought inappropriately aged kids all the time.

 

WITH movie ratings, parents don't listen...there were helluva lot of complaints about Dead Pool, e enough though that's rated R.

 

 

It's also the parents' decision whether or not they feel something is appropriate for their child. I was taken to see a lot of theater and movies at a young age that some people might find inappropriate, but my parents decided that I was mature enough to handle it and 99.9% of the time I definitely was. In your original post you mentioned teenagers in the audience too. The movie Waitress is rated PG-13, and I don't see how the show would be too much for most teenagers to handle. By the time I was in high school I was into things like Angels in America, and I saw the original production of Spring Awakening when I was just shy of 16 and loved it. And then I went back and took my mom and she loved it too. You'd be surprised what kids can handle, and if they're interested and engaged I don't really see anything wrong with letting a kid see a show that isn't Disney. 

The story here isn't about the cheating. It's not an action that's treated with any sort of reverence or really much of a moral perspective at all. In the film at least, it's very much portrayed as an action that is sometimes a reality of life, and no one involved really seems to benefit much from it. Jenna's journey does include an affair, but it's something that happens on the way to finding her strength and joy in herself and in her daughter. 

As for the film ratings system, watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated. The MPAA's decisions are incredibly arbitrary and are meant as a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. They are also way tougher on films that contain sexual content or harsh language than violence, which disturbs me. That doesn't mean I think 5-year-olds should be seeing Deadpool, but I also think that if there's something worthwhile to a movie (or TV show, or musical) that a specific kid would enjoy, the rating wouldn't make my final decision for me. 

Thanks for writing a well written response to something I thought was idiotic. Oh okay you want to know why?

 

This is the reason I feel that the original poster is idiotic. Is they are being childish. I think they are trying to say I am right and everyone is wrong. And trying to say everyone in the theater is wrong. What is right and wrong can be subject to many things. For instance is having an affair when your Husband is disabled to the point that he cannot even move ( by that I mean totally paralyzed like Stephen Hawking) ? will depend on your OWN personal values. I do not need someone to tell me an adult what is right or wrong who I have never seen. 

 


perfectlymarvelous said: "It's also the parents' decision whether or not they feel something is appropriate for their child. I was taken to see a lot of theater and movies at a young age that some people might find inappropriate, but my parents decided that I was mature enough to handle it and 99.9% of the time I definitely was. In your original post you mentioned teenagers in the audience too. The movie Waitress is rated PG-13, and I don't see how the show would be too much for most teenagers to handle. By the time I was in high school I was into things like Angels in America, and I saw the original production of Spring Awakening when I was just shy of 16 and loved it. And then I went back and took my mom and she loved it too. You'd be surprised what kids can handle, and if they're interested and engaged I don't really see anything wrong with letting a kid see a show that isn't Disney. 

The story here isn't about the cheating. It's not an action that's treated with any sort of reverence or really much of a moral perspective at all. In the film at least, it's very much portrayed as an action that is sometimes a reality of life, and no one involved really seems to benefit much from it. Jenna's journey does include an affair, but it's something that happens on the way to finding her strength and joy in herself and in her daughter. 

As for the film ratings system, watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated. The MPAA's decisions are incredibly arbitrary and are meant as a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. They are also way tougher on films that contain sexual content or harsh language than violence, which disturbs me. That doesn't mean I think 5-year-olds should be seeing Deadpool, but I also think that if there's something worthwhile to a movie (or TV show, or musical) that a specific kid would enjoy, the rating wouldn't make my final decision for me. 

 

"

 

Updated On: 3/27/16 at 07:47 AM