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

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 8:55pm

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

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 9:06pm

I agree with all the sentiment thus far about the miscasting of O'Hara.

While she is no doubt an astonishing performer in ingenue and naive roles (although she went a little outside her box with Babe Wililams,) I just don't see her bringing out what's needed in "Sunday in the Park.."

For me, Dot is a spunky everyday woman whose very much down to earth. O'Hara reads extremely still and regal to me. Those aren't traits I'd normally associate with the character in the least.

I agree with MichaelBennett. Alot of the major productions that we've seen continue to cast these beautiful types as Dot that don't necessarily fit (like O'Hara and Errico.)

Where are the unconventional choices for it? I see someone like a Jane Krakowski (who, although beautiful, certainly is able to look common) if any current American actress is going to take a crack at it.

My only hope is that Jenna Russel comes over if Roundabout's plan to transfer it goes through.

Updated On: 2/1/07 at 09:06 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 9:10pm

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

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 9:14pm

It'd be interesting to see Jane Krakowski playing Dot as she already played another major Bernadette Peters role, Mabel, to much acclaim. I've never seen Mack & Mabel live but I have read the libretto and I've always thought Mabel is similar to Dot in some ways.

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 9:16pm

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.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 9:20pm

They are very similar, Jazz - that is very interesting...

Both are uneducated. Both are the romantic muses of artists, mainly based on their unique look. Both desperately want to please and understand the genius behind those artists. Both women leave (though Mabel leaves through dying) catipulting that artist into years (or perhaps with GEORGE centuries) of searching for what is lost.

Very intersting.

Broadwaybaby - I see nothing wrong with comparing them, though, of course, I do agree they need to be held to a different standard. Updated On: 2/1/07 at 09:20 PM

[DramaQueen700]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 9:34pm

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

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 9:36pm

Exactly, MichaelBennett! What it's also interesting is the structure of both shows. At the end of Act I of Mack & Mabel, we see Mabel leaving the man she loves because he won't give her the attention or the love she truly desires from him ("Wherever He Ain't") and what does Sennett do? He immerses himself in his world and creates "Hundreds of Girls." Also interesting is that both women reconcile with the men their love through an element of fantasy, in Sunday it's Dot's returning a hundred years later in "Move On" and in Mack & Mabel we get the movie marriage during "I Promise You A Happy Ending."
I didn't have the chance to see Krakowski as Mabel but from what I've read she was very successful in the role (didn't you mentioned in an older thread that the 2002 Broadway revival was canceled mainly because she pulled out?), so she's likely to make a great Dot as well, plus she is one of Sondheim's babies, right?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 9:46pm

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

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 9:47pm

DramaQueen, sometimes a performer can just be wrong for a role, regardless of what they produce on stage. I will agree in that I haven't seen O'Hara as Dot and can't say with certainty that she was bad (nor have I claimed to,) but I can say that I feel she is miscast.

As I said before, she is stunningly beautiful and reads as innocent and youthful on stage. Nothing can change how she comes across naturally, so I think you're not completely justified in saying people aren't right to have those misgivings without having seen her. For those reasons, I just don't feel as if she is right for Dot. Does that mean she can't be good in the role? No. But I just don't see it, and I am entitled to that, regardless of whether I've seen her or not.

Alot of your defense in her performance has been in her vocals. I don't think I've read one person here (both those who have and haven't seen the show) who've critiqued her in that area, so I don't think you need to be quite as defensive about it.

In regards to your inclination that people are expecting Bernadette and won't recognize things outside that realm.. I disagree. People aren't expecting a Bernadette . They're expecting someone who works in the role both in their performance and in their casting, and I don't think Kelli can produce that.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 10:03pm

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.

[lostgirl]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 1:28am

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.

[lostgirl]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 1:28am

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.

[lostgirl]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 1:29am

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.

[mallardo]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 2:41am

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.

[thenewmoon]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 11:39am

"one cannot judge them on the same level as one would judge a fully staged production"

Then tickets shouldn't cost as much. I was really planning on going to the show tomorrow, but I don't think the mixed reviews justify the $75 ticket price. Doesn't anyone else think that's pretty hefty for a "semi-staged" production, imported stars notwithstanding? I mean, I didn't pay more than $60 for anything I saw on Broadway last year... and, as has been pointed out, it's not like this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

I'm going to get tickets for LA Opera's "City of Mahagonny" instead. Sorry, Sondheimites, but Audra & Patti trump Mano & Kelli, at least for me.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 11:57am

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.

[thenewmoon]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 12:03pm

I am aware of that, and certainly how much goes into the Reprise productions, but to clarify, I meant that $75 is a high price point for L.A., especially considering that the Music Center offers discounted "Hot Tix." Considering I saw "Drowsy," "Curtains," and any number of tours at the Ahmanson for $20, it's hard to justify spending $75 for "Sunday." If the reviews were unanimously positive I probably would go. I really appreciate being able to read everyone's opinions here and making a better informed decision--as noted, the LA Times DOES seem to love everything.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 12:09pm

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.

[Danielm]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 1:02pm

I've already said what I thought of the production. I don't think I'm "bashing" O'hara and yes, I did see the show.

Michael Bennet, perhaps they were having an off-night on Tuesday and the energy got better on later nights--they seemed adrift and enervated when I saw them.

As to McNulty--I don't like him as a reviewer because he spends so much time telling us the history of the show and various other productions and comparing performances rather than reviewing the performance at hand. He also says that this is a concert production--it's not--I think a concert production would have been better. The cast does not carry thir scripts, it is staged (although staged in a rather half-assed way). I also think the whole thing about the show being a Sondheim autobiography is arguable--he didn't write the book, Sondheim's work is always about the show--we just infer that it's about himself.

About Reprise! itself. I usually get half-priced tickets but I believe that by charging prices that are as much as full productions they do cause people to expect a quality they can't achieve within the perameters of their contracts. They don't do concerts, they do choreographed, staged productions. To say that this show is a "work in progress" is misleading--it won't be going anywhere after this.

Though I think both performers are indeed miscast, I think with a better director they may have achieved good performances. Which is another problem with Reprise!, they really don't use good directors.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 1:33pm

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.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 2:40pm

Rentboy, I get your point but Donna Murphy, Victor Garber, Patti LuPone, Debbie Gravitte, and Bebe Neuwirth have all earned rave, Tony-bait reviews from their performances in some of the Encores! series (in fact Wonderful Town transferred based on Murphy's glowing reviews in the Encores! concert and she got as much rehearsal period as Felciano and O'Hara).
Even Rachel York earned solid reviews lasy year when she did My One and Only for the Reprise! I think the fact that they're not well-rehearsed obviously comes into play, but it does not really justify whatever bad reviews they get.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 3:31pm

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.

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 5:54pm

Another review, from San Bernadino Sun. It's mostly positive:

http://www.sbsun.com/stage/ci_5135538

In Bradley Kaye's scenic design, a series of painted triangular flats are rolled
and spun to depict the park, its inhabitants and Seurat's blank canvas. Bethany Jane Bohatila and Heather Carleton's costumes favor lush, creamy tones until the opening of the second act when the "Grand Jatte" inhabitants re-emerge, decked out in the painting-specific costumes that a pointillist like Seurat would depict.
That reappearance is spectacular. As are the colorful swirls of dotted light created and mixed by lighting designer Jason H. Thompson. You won't soon find a "Sunday" that takes the anthem "Color and Light" so effectively to heart.

Broadway star Kelli O'Hara is affect-less and lovely as Seurat's neglected mistress Dot. O'Hara's longing, nascent wisdom and inability to connect with - or even touch - Manoel Felciano's Seurat is palpable and heartbreaking, and in songs like "Move On" and "Children and Art," the actress sings like an angel.

Felciano's Seurat (he also plays the artist's great-grandson, another struggling artist) encountered a few stumbling blocks within the score opening night. The character's self-disgust plays more smoothly than his cruelty.

Alexander, who directed the political parable "The God of Hell" at the Geffen Playhouse last year, proves himself just as adept within the meditative landscape of a nontraditional musical. He clearly loves this work, this composition. That affection is more than apparent in the output.

Updated On: 2/2/07 at 05:54 PM

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 6:36pm

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