Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 9:27am

The 1992 Broadway revival of "Guys and Dolls" has been acclaimed by everyone who managed to see it. The recording is spectacular.

Can people please share their memories of this production explaining why it was so damn good and perhaps better than the 2009 Broadway revival - and maybe explain why that 2009 revival was so bad??

Thoughts?

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 9:39am

The attitude. The overall tone for the show worked nicely (or nicely-nicely). The cast was terrific, and it had that candy-colored explosive Dick Tracy comic book look, which served it well.

Personally, I didn't love the production design. I thought it looked more like a roll of Lifesavers, but I could see how it was working with audiences.

But the cast, the direction, the choreography, and orchestrations were stellar.

"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."

blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 10:13am

It was funny. Brilliantly funny.

http://youtu.be/X-PslnnE88c

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 10:18am

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 11:46am

The show really did hit the correct tone - a true comic fable. Stylized but not corny.

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 12:41pm

It was hilarious; my only criticism would be that the lead couple (Sky & Sarah) became the supporting characters, because the second couple (Nathan and Adelaide) were so funny, they made Sky & Sarah seem bland and dull.

I'm not even sure if that's really a criticism since I have always felt that Nathan/Adelaide were always the more interesting couple. Lane and Prince were both nominated in the "lead" category (as was Josie de Guzman who played Sarah). When they revived it it they put "stars" in as Nathan and Adelaide while using Broadway names for Sky and Sarah. In the original production Isabel Bigley (Sarah) won the Tony for best "Featured Actress".

So, in my opinion anyway, it's always slated more toward Nathan/Adelaide being the lead couple.

"All our dreams can come true -- if we have the courage to pursue them." -- Walt Disney We must have different Gods. My God said "do to others what you would have them do to you". Your God seems to have said "My Way or the Highway".

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:31pm

2 words: Christopher Chadman. His choreography was simply mind-blowing perfection. Wow!

Here's Faith Prince and "Bushel and a Peck": https://www.bluegobo.com/index.php?var=10302

Delicious!

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 1:59pm

I would also add the new orchestrations - one could only wish all productions could use them, they were amazing.

The splashy design and matching big and hilarious performances made you aware what the show was about(where most productions always seem to fail, making it a snooze fest): it's not about life in the early 50's but a romantic comedy about relationships and obvious differences in the interests between men and women.

The show was a riot from beginning to end, one of the best revivals I've seen.

Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 2:21pm

I think Sky and Sarah ARE bland and dull. I think I am one of the few people who is not fond of the show. I don't understand it's longevity.

#10

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 4:06pm

The show was directed and acted with an underlying truth.
This was not (nor is the show) a Cartoon.
The moment when Sky finishes "My Time of Day" was so quiet and followed by a tiny filled-in moment of silence and then he begins the first line of "I've Never Been in Love Before" as a character-changing confession was just one of many FRESH and breathtaking gems in the show.
Lane and Prince's "Sue Me" was brilliant, funny, wonderful in its sense of "complaint".
The production design was gaudy and yet had a sense of "sending-up" the original style. The orchestrations were spectactular.
If you've not seen it, there's a TERRIFIC PBS documentary on the making of the album, "Guys and Dolls: On the Record" (or is it "FOR the Record".) If you can find it on DVD, you'll see the cast's performing with the same attention to detail and SPARKLING energy. Best of the lot is the CONDUCTOR!!!!

#11

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 4:49pm

I wish I could have seen it on Broadway. I saw the national tour and was let down. Loved the design and choreography, but the pacing was so fast, it ran like a speed-through rehearsal. There was no pause for laughs or applause, so the cast just barreled through and a lot of the dialogue was missed. And Lorna Luft didn't get a single laugh. It was one of the most awkward tours I've ever watched. Everything about it felt off and phoned in. My boyfriend at the time (a big musical theatre fan) fell dead asleep in the second act.

"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

#12

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 5:33pm

Same as what everyone said before - hilarious, larger than life performances, great orchestrations, choreography, the works. I do think the sets and costumes were gaudy and approaching cartoonish, but everything else was measured appropriately so it never felt like a sitcom.

The dismal 2009 revival and the Jessica Biel Hollywood Bowl fiasco made me question the show's timelessness, but this revival never felt dated.

#13

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 6:21pm

Nathan. Lane.

#14

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 6:21pm

Nathan. Lane.

#15

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 6:21pm

Nathan. Lane.

#16

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 6:25pm

I saw the revival numerous times (from previews on) and found it quite enjoyable. Loved the orchestrations and the choreography. Did anyone get to see Victoria Clark go on as Miss Adelaide?

Hey Dottie! Did your colleagues enjoy the cake even though your cat decided to sit on it? ~GuyfromGermany

Updated On: 5/9/11 at 06:25 PM

#17

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 7:57pm

I saw Ms. Clark do it in Pittsburgh a few years later in a production informed by the revival, same costumes and similar sets. She was a comic delight, Now that she is a "serious" actress, and a great one, I long to see her in more comedy. I still think we need to see her DOLLY.

#18

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 8:33pm

Lorna Luft played it on the national tour, and she seems very good in the clips that exist.

http://youtu.be/aDS_v2UuMk4

#19

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 10:58pm

I never saw the revival in person, but I am in love with all the clips I have ever seen of this production. It captures the feel good essence of a good old-fashioned, big Broadway musical. You can't help but get swept up in the glory of it all. And yes - NATHAN LANE and FAITH PRINCE. Glorious chemistry and impeccable comedic timing. And that performance of "Sit Down You're Rockin' The Boat" at the '92 Tony Awards! It's one of those performances that, as a young child, just makes you fall in love with theatre and musicals and Broadway. I could watch it every day. In my opinion, it was FAR superior in every way to the Tony performance of the revival.. which had to reduce itself to a cheezy gimmick ("Down with the devil!") in an attempt to make itself stand out.

#20

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/9/11 at 11:34pm

I saw a super cheap, tiny bus and truck tour based on this production maybe a couple of years after (it was playing smaller cities than the first National Tour)--though with the original choreography (Sit Down was close to perfection as was the opening Runyonland and the Craps Ballet--as much as I have affection for Kidd's original work on all of those...), basic sets based on the Broadway, etc. I was kinda worried going into it cuz it was so low budget--yet it was just a great show--largely due to the actors I think, but it also showed just how foolproof the basic production was. Back then I thought G&D was one of those rare shows which is near iumpossible to get wrong anyway, but since then I've had that proven wrong numerous times.

#21

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/10/11 at 1:19am

The revival was one of those magical experiences (for me) where every moment worked. Also the special Friday matinee I saw was an Actors Fund performance with many cast memebrs of other shows attending. This was just a few weeks after the show won the Tony for Best revival of a Musical.

It was done with care and obvious affecton for the material but it was in no way a museum piece revival.

I did see the Lorna Luft tour when it played Toronto a year or so later and it was a good road show edition but not as magical as what was on stage at the Martin Beck in New York.

Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!

I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com

#22

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/15/11 at 1:24pm

It was so good because Jerry Zaks directed it. And by the way, the last revival was much better than the reviews indicated.

#23

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/15/11 at 3:01pm

Full disclosure-- we're just a LITTLE bit biased about this production owing to the fact that the 1992 revival was the first broadway show I ever brought my boyfriend (now husband) to see. And predictably, nothing in his entire Broadway going experience has ever surpassed that amazing night.

Yes, Nathan Lane was performing EXACTLY the role he was born to play. Yes, Faith Prince found colors and nuances in Adelaide that no-one had ever found before. But don't underestimate the contributions of Josie de Guzman and Peter Gallagher either. Gallagher in particular made Sky more recognizable a human being than anyone had seemed to find in the part till then. Each and every cast member found sparks of humanness and honesty in their parts that imbued the whole night with a fresh pure love of humanity that plastered huge smiles on every audience member from the overture to the curtain call.

About the set designs of Tony Walton, which are getting mixed reviews on this board-- to me Tony found a vibrant new visual vocabulary for the show that exactly matched the joy and boldness of Frank Loesser's score. Almost shocking to see when the curtain first flew up, that blast of color and perspective and wit carried us happily along from Times Square to the Hotbox to Havanna to the Sewer and back with not a single moment of flagging imagination. (Full disclosure here too-- I was one of Tony's lowly design assistants for a couple of years back in the mid-80's, but had sadly moved on by the time Tony started his stunning sketches of G&D.)

When the cast, the director, the design and the script all come together to create a performance like that one in '92, you can feel for a night that you haven't really missed those glorious moments of the famed golden age of the broadway musical we were all too young to witness the first time around.

#24

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/15/11 at 4:23pm

This was one of the first productions I ever saw on Broadway and a truly life-changing experience. I was quite young at the time, but I can't imagine anyone seeing this and not immediately falling in love with musical comedy. It was truly copacetic: perfect cast, brilliant direction, amazing choreography, dynamite physical production...basically, it had everything going for it.

Faith Prince WAS Miss Adelaide. A true triple threat. She sold the cabaret numbers like no one I've ever seen; she was dynamite in the book scenes; she performed "Adelaide's Lament" like it was written for her. She and Lane had unbelievable chemistry, which, I've come to believe, is what makes or breaks a production of this show. (For example, see the 2009 revival) Lane was genius as Nathan Detroit. Peter Gallagher was the quintessential leading man/matinee idol. Josie de Guzman is not my favorite performer, but she did quite well by Sarah Brown.

I saw the show about a year or two later, with a subsequent cast, and it still retained much of the magic.

"You travel alone because other people are only there to remind you how much that hook hurts that we all bit down on. Wait for that one day we can bite free and get back out there in space where we belong, sail back over water, over skies, into space, the hook finally out of our mouths and we wander back out there in space spawning to other planets never to return hurrah to earth and we'll look back and can't even see these lives here anymore. Only the taste of blood to remind us we ever existed. The earth is small. We're gone. We're dead. We're safe." -John Guare, Landscape of the Body

Updated On: 5/15/11 at 04:23 PM

#25

Why was the 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS so damn good?

Posted: 5/15/11 at 4:29pm

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the NY Times ran a photo from the show on the front page the morning after the show opened.

Hey Dottie! Did your colleagues enjoy the cake even though your cat decided to sit on it? ~GuyfromGermany

Updated On: 5/15/11 at 04:29 PM

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95