anyone else see sunday in the park with kelli and manoel? — Page 2

I just thought she was so miscast that I couldn't pay attention to the story at hand, only to how she was fighting to make the role work for her. I mean everything about her was wrong for the role - her voice, her look, her presence, etc.

But the problem is, Broadwaybaby,the shows at REPRISE! are presented as fully staged musicals. If you don't know the mission statement, they simply come across as somewhat thrown together, poorly rehearsed musicals. You can't give an audience full sets, and costumes and performers off book and then tell them you can't "judge" it because its just a "concert version." Sorry - no dice.

Updated On: 2/1/07 at 08:55 PM

I agree that Krakowski would be ideal casting if the London production transfers without Russell.

With all respect to Michael Bennett, McNulty does NOT like everything. His reviews tend to be balanced- i.e. he points out the flaws as well as the positives of each production. I would say most of his reviews of LA shows have been mixed. He has found very little to absolutely love since he's been out here but then again, he has not outright hated very much either.

I saw the London production of "Sunday" last year and it was one of the top 5 theatre going experience of my life, and I have been going to the theatre for 30+ years. To compare a semi-staged production with limited rehearsal time to the London revival would not be fair.

---

how many of you who are bashing o hara have actually seen the performance, hmm???

my opinion? dont talk until youve seen it. you can say "id think shed be this and that" but you dont really know what she ended up doing, so why bash her. I know this is a discussion but isnt it a little unfair?

the moment kelli started "sunday in the park with george" i had to hold my breathe because i was shocked. it was nothing like id ever seen her do. her voice was full and lush sounding (nothing like clara or her dracula character or even babe williams for that matter). i think people are expecting a bernadette peters but the fact is she isnt bernadette by any means. shes not trying to be.

THIS IS HER TAKE ON DOT. you can like it or you cant, but just because she doesnt do it the wqay someone else did it in the past doesnt mean its bad. its jsut differnt. also i think she was fiesty, extremely so. i think she as rich sounding. she was also very needy and vulnerable, and her love for george was evident. it wasnt "why am i not getting attention" it was "does he even love me...maybe not." it was more self reflective as the show went on.

and i agreed with the la times review that she shines even more in the seecond act. but she was terrific in the first act too.

when i saw the show i wasnt the only one to feel this way.

yes i wouldnt think of her initially in the role, but maybe thats a good thing. bring something fresh to in instead of a bernadette part 2 performance.

just my two cents.

---

Updated On: 2/1/07 at 09:34 PM

Well, other people who have seen her are confirming suspicions that some expressed when she was cast. There's a difference between founded skepticism and judging, the latter of which even the people posting here who have not seen her do not seem to be doing. Saying it seems to be against her obvious capabilities isn't "bashing" her performance. People who haven't seen her are commenting on the reviews, and have every right to make informed speculative comments based on the role and what's known of the actor. Sure, this is her take and her interpretation, but just because she's making it her own, blah blah blah does not mean everyone should accept it or whatever. Just because something is fresh does not mean it's going to be accepted simply by virtue of that. These are very difficult, complicated, very iconic, very well-loved roles and people have very acute perceptions of what they want to see in these characters. That's just the reality of taking on such a weighty role. You can't really pass off the fact that you disagree with what's apparently the overwhelming sentiment by just up and complaining that everyone is bashing her, and that it's unfair, blah blah blah. This isn't a case where it works to fall back on that. Like her all you want, that is certainly your prerogative, but making the default claim that everyone else is unfairly bashing her when they aren't judging her as if they've seen her is a little bit ridiculous.

---

Updated On: 2/1/07 at 09:46 PM

Well, Jazz, Jerry Herman, bless his heart, has been trying to get a revival of MACK AND MABEL on Broadway for almost twenty years. The Reprise! mounting was tentatively announced for a limited run at the Brooks Atkinson theatre, but it was always known Krakowski (on Ally McBeal at the time) wouldn't be able to do the show in NYC. Supposedly Herman wanted Andrea McArdle or Caroline O'Connor to replace her - but the funding fell through. No production of MACK AND MABEL will ever make any money...

He should just let them do the show at Encores.

I think that Bernadette Peters has really colored peoples perceptions of Dot as a character and it's wonderful for her as an artist and us as audiences that she was able to resonate so much in the role. But while her Dot is tart that's not to say the character has to be that way.

I haven't seen O'Hara in the role and I really can't say how she does with it. But I can see her doing very well. Maybe because I don't see her as young, fresh, innocent etc, the way that others seem to. If you look at her body of work she's been cast in the ingenue roles in Dracula, Jekyll and Hyde, and to a certain extent The Light in the Piazza. But while she's famous for having played the innocent Clara, before that she played the feisty Franca. She left type again in The Pajama Game. I actually see Dot as somewhat similar to Albertine (in My Life With Albertine) as the artist's lover/muse who is unable to connect with the artist in life and must do so through art. I think that if her Dot elaborates on those themes in the way her Albertine did it could work very nicely.

Aside from Peters, I think that one of the more sucessful Dots was Melissa Errico who comes across on stage in a similar way to O'Hara- beautiul and regal. Basically I can't have an opinion without seeing the performance but I see no reason why she couldn't do the role.

I saw it tonight - Kelli O'Hara was radiant, in gorgeous voice. Her take on the role was different only in that she played her first scenes much younger than I'm used to. Her Dot matures in what I thought was beautiful and convincing character arc. She nailed all the big moments. Like others I thought she only got better in the second act. "Children and Art" was sublime.

I was less convinced by Felciano. He has a great voice and the vocal blend with O'Hara was superb - "Move On" was the highlight of the show for me. But he didn't dominate the stage as Georges should. At times he seemed more petulant than passionate about his art. But he too improved in the second act.

The production as a whole I found problematic. Jason Alexander had too many ideas. It was a busy busy production. And this great show doesn't need that.

---

newmoon -- the ticket price probably is justified because as we've been arguing, Reprise shows are fully staged - with costumes and scenery and actors off book. It is a fully staged production - the only thing that gives it the "concert" mantra is the limited rehearsal time for the actors.

But yeah, if you can only see one - I'd definitely pick CITY over SUNDAY.

True, though of course DROWSY and CURTAINS both played the Ahmanson which has more than double the amount of seats (560) at the Freud Playhouse where SUNDAY is playing.

I really hope some clips of this turn up. I'd love to hear O'Hara's "We Do Not Belong Together." And to me, this show seems hard on the actors, given their quick rehearsal period. This show is very intricate, so I applaud them for attempting it.

I think the complexity of the show itself also comes into play. Sunday isn't an easy show to stage or perform, especially with the second act. They had just about a week's rehearsal time, which, for a show like this, isn't nearly enough.

Wonderful Town can be accomplished in a week, learn the music, learn the dancing, learn the script. There isn't anything complex to it.

Sunday is a whole 'nother ballgame.

Theatermania Review. Negative:

http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/9994

In his staging of Stephen Sondheim's and James Lapine's 1984 Pulitzer Prize-winning musical Sunday in the Park With George, director Jason Alexander takes deeply -- and literally -- to heart this opening observation. By withholding color from the first half of the show and focusing on inspirational white, Alexander does "give us something new to see" in terms of perspective. Unfortunately, a great deal of dramatic power is sacrificed for that vision.

In addition, the often tedious pace he employs throughout further dims the luster of this complex, shimmering show -- with its vastly different two acts -- as does the generally thin sound from both the cast and orchestra. And while technically impressive in many aspects, the driving artistic passion that is the show's heart seems to have been largely whitewashed from this production.

Moreover, rising Broadway stars Manoel Felciano and Kelli O'Hara, who headline the show, both fare much better in their Act II personas than they do as the disconnected, frustrated lovers in the colorless Act I, where they tend to come across as too young and immature to be fully believable.

etc

Updated On: 2/2/07 at 06:36 PM