#26
Posted: 5/30/04 at 8:56pm
But, the problem is--she HASN'T been "missing a lot". It's blown well out of proportion. ESPECIALLY in contrast to other shows' stars.
#27
Posted: 5/31/04 at 11:58am
I had tickets 2 weeks ago and got refunds soon as I heard Donna was out. Hopefully, I'll get another chance soon.
Reidel made one point I have to agree with, her timing was bad, with the Tonys coming up, but his crack about her sit-com was just plain mean.
Reidel made one point I have to agree with, her timing was bad, with the Tonys coming up, but his crack about her sit-com was just plain mean.
#28
Posted: 5/31/04 at 6:23pm
Count me among those very underwhemed by this show. I wasn't bored exactly, but nothing made my heart beat faster either. Fine singing, fine dancing, fine performances, good score, competent in every department -- but god, there didn't seem to be a drop of warm blood coursing through the veins of this show. It was all very NICE, "pleasant" even, but where was the fire, the passion, the sense of urgency that would make me care about anything happening on that stage?
And it's not a case of "well, maybe this just isn't your kind of show." I happen to own the 1958 version Rosalind Russell filmed for television and let me tell you, the difference between it and that placid exercise going on over at the Hirshfeld is night and day. There is an electricity and a fire in the performances on that washed out grainy-looking video that Murphy and company cannot begin to approach. Russell is extraordinary -- hysterically funny, energetic and poignant throughout. Her "Conga" is masterclass in physical comedy. And she finds laugh after laugh in "One Hundred Easy Ways to Lose a Man" that Murphy doesn't. Russell seems to propel the entire production along through sheer force of will. Others I've shown it to agree with me -- the WT revival lacks dynamism and oddly feels dated in a way that the 1958 black and white video does not.
It doesn't surprise me that the revival isn't doing well. It was never a blockbuster to begin with and has been hovering around 50% attendance for months. It strikes me as a show more admired and respected than really loved. Word of mouth has clearly been lukewarm -- this isn't the kind of show that generally inspires people to get on the phone the second the curtain drops and call all their friends saying "You just HAVE to see this incredible show IMMEDIATELY." It's a pleasant enough diversion for an evening, but for most people it hasn't engendered a truly passionate response.
And it's not a case of "well, maybe this just isn't your kind of show." I happen to own the 1958 version Rosalind Russell filmed for television and let me tell you, the difference between it and that placid exercise going on over at the Hirshfeld is night and day. There is an electricity and a fire in the performances on that washed out grainy-looking video that Murphy and company cannot begin to approach. Russell is extraordinary -- hysterically funny, energetic and poignant throughout. Her "Conga" is masterclass in physical comedy. And she finds laugh after laugh in "One Hundred Easy Ways to Lose a Man" that Murphy doesn't. Russell seems to propel the entire production along through sheer force of will. Others I've shown it to agree with me -- the WT revival lacks dynamism and oddly feels dated in a way that the 1958 black and white video does not.
It doesn't surprise me that the revival isn't doing well. It was never a blockbuster to begin with and has been hovering around 50% attendance for months. It strikes me as a show more admired and respected than really loved. Word of mouth has clearly been lukewarm -- this isn't the kind of show that generally inspires people to get on the phone the second the curtain drops and call all their friends saying "You just HAVE to see this incredible show IMMEDIATELY." It's a pleasant enough diversion for an evening, but for most people it hasn't engendered a truly passionate response.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
Updated On: 6/1/04 at 06:23 PM
#29
Posted: 5/31/04 at 7:38pm
Bang on Margo! Agree w u totally. But we seem to be in a minority- except for the box office!
#30
Posted: 5/31/04 at 7:46pm
Actually; it seems to be alot of peoples opinion. Including mine. But I do love Donna Murphy.
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#31
Posted: 6/1/04 at 2:07am
Margo, your opinion would have won me over more if you knew how to spell Mr. Hirschfeld's name. 
#32
Posted: 6/1/04 at 3:09am
JRB; how aware is the cast or people involved with the show off all the NY post stuff about the show?
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#33
Posted: 6/1/04 at 3:23am
I do not know exactly who all knows, reads, cares about any of that stuff--but I know there are folks who work there who have talked about it. I shared disgust with someone on the show after that first one that attacked Linda as well as Donna. And, this is exactly WHY I am not game for a lot of the talk that goes on in his column or this board--I get to hear the TRUTH from actual sources. THIS has instilled in me the desire to always take what is said here or elsewhere as rubbish until proven true.
#34
Posted: 6/1/04 at 3:37am
Well you are absolutely right. I guess my appeal to his column is that being so far aways; it is one of the few things one can read about the NY theater scene that at least sheds a un sugar coated light on broadway. Everything else is a press release.
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#35
Posted: 6/1/04 at 6:30pm
I, too, must agree with Margo’s assessment. And how I wanted to love this show! I’m a huge Donna Murphy fan and flew in from Chicago in January specifically to see her in it. The reviews had me so excited, and I’d listened ad nauseam to a (poor quality) sound recording of the Encores show, which nevertheless came across as sparkling, witty, and funny – everything one would hope for. It sounded as it should - magical and light.
But on stage I found it, at best, underwhelming; at worst, dull and plodding, overly considered – somehow they managed to drain the life out of it. Ms. Murphy was lovely, yes, her singing was fabulous (please, give me that distinctive voice over some generic chirpy soprano any day), but it did seem a particularly mannered, manufactured performance, completely bereft of any natural joy or feeling. The rest of the cast made no impression at all. The pacing was deadening, the jokes rarely landed, and everyone (including the audience) seemed a little lost, as if we were all waiting for the real show to begin. I can only wonder what would have happened had they been able to transfer the show straight from Encores – something essential was apparently lost in those long years, and it's unfortunate. Not a waste of time, exactly, merely a wasted opportunity. It should have been marvelous.
But on stage I found it, at best, underwhelming; at worst, dull and plodding, overly considered – somehow they managed to drain the life out of it. Ms. Murphy was lovely, yes, her singing was fabulous (please, give me that distinctive voice over some generic chirpy soprano any day), but it did seem a particularly mannered, manufactured performance, completely bereft of any natural joy or feeling. The rest of the cast made no impression at all. The pacing was deadening, the jokes rarely landed, and everyone (including the audience) seemed a little lost, as if we were all waiting for the real show to begin. I can only wonder what would have happened had they been able to transfer the show straight from Encores – something essential was apparently lost in those long years, and it's unfortunate. Not a waste of time, exactly, merely a wasted opportunity. It should have been marvelous.
#37
Posted: 6/1/04 at 7:01pm
i'm personally hoping for bebe neuworth
"Grease," the fourth revival of the season, is the worst show in the history of theater and represents an unparalleled assault on Western civilization and its values. - Michael Reidel
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
