#1
Posted: 2/19/09 at 12:33am
GUYS AND DOLLS 2009, OR WHY DO BROADWAY AUDIENCES ACCEPT SH*T?
People say the perfect musical is either Guys and Dolls or Gypsy. Despite my affection for Guys and Dolls, I'd have to go with Gypsy. I always found Guys and Dolls a little too book heavy and a little clunky at times. It doesn't move quite as well as Gypsy does. Even a bad production of Gypsy moves. Unfortunately, as we now know thanks to Des McAnuff's ugly, painful and miscast production, Guys and Dolls does not move so well in a bad production
Mr. McAnuff has stupidly decided to reset Guys and Dolls, usually set in 1950 (the year the show was produced), somewhere in the 1930s and has even more stupidly, put Damon Runyon into the production walking into scenes, interacting with characters, and in some cases annoying them. Kate Jennings Grant as Sarah Brown tells the Runyon look alike to "Go away" towards the end of the show. Thank you Miss Grant. We all concur.
Mr. McAnuff has also decided to use rear projections as settings. One graphic is Times Square (a dull one), another is a side street, one is the mission exterior and so on. This "Happy Time" gone Runyon is ineffective and lacks the cartoony whimsy the piece needs. The screen used for the projections is also way too small.
Then there's the matter of the cast. Of them all, only one truly shines. That is Kate Jennings Grant as Sarah Brown. Miss Grant is extraordinary, perhaps the best Sarah Brown since Isabelle Bigley or Jean Simmons in the film. She is charming in the role, entirely effective and sings lovely. Craig Bierko as Sky Masterson does not reach the level of excellence Miss Grant does, but he fares well. At least better than my next two victims...
Oliver Platt is miscast and looks totally confused as Nathan Detroit. He is dull as petrified wood, never lands a good solid laugh and seems bored onstage. And then there is the matter of Lauren Graham. The audiences, mostly made up of Gillmore Girls fanbase, adore her. Why? Miss Graham is giving one of the most thoroughly awful performances I have ever seen in the theatre. She plays the rather ditzy, but intelligent Adelaide like she is mentally challenged in some way. Again, she never lands a solid laugh and her "Adelaide's Lament" is a waste of a good song. Can't audiences realize when they're being given a plate of ****?
Then there's the matter of "Sit Down, You're Rockin' the Boat. It's a fine number but the typically self indulgent Mary Testa needs to be restrained. Did someone actually mention the chance of her getting a Tony nomination for this work?
I'm sorry to say this revival of Guys and Dolls, with the exception of Miss Grant, did not bring me much joy at all. It obviously was a joyous time for the audience judging from their nearly orgasmic reaction to most musical numbers and at curtain call. It's funny though, they didn't laugh that much.
People say the perfect musical is either Guys and Dolls or Gypsy. Despite my affection for Guys and Dolls, I'd have to go with Gypsy. I always found Guys and Dolls a little too book heavy and a little clunky at times. It doesn't move quite as well as Gypsy does. Even a bad production of Gypsy moves. Unfortunately, as we now know thanks to Des McAnuff's ugly, painful and miscast production, Guys and Dolls does not move so well in a bad production
Mr. McAnuff has stupidly decided to reset Guys and Dolls, usually set in 1950 (the year the show was produced), somewhere in the 1930s and has even more stupidly, put Damon Runyon into the production walking into scenes, interacting with characters, and in some cases annoying them. Kate Jennings Grant as Sarah Brown tells the Runyon look alike to "Go away" towards the end of the show. Thank you Miss Grant. We all concur.
Mr. McAnuff has also decided to use rear projections as settings. One graphic is Times Square (a dull one), another is a side street, one is the mission exterior and so on. This "Happy Time" gone Runyon is ineffective and lacks the cartoony whimsy the piece needs. The screen used for the projections is also way too small.
Then there's the matter of the cast. Of them all, only one truly shines. That is Kate Jennings Grant as Sarah Brown. Miss Grant is extraordinary, perhaps the best Sarah Brown since Isabelle Bigley or Jean Simmons in the film. She is charming in the role, entirely effective and sings lovely. Craig Bierko as Sky Masterson does not reach the level of excellence Miss Grant does, but he fares well. At least better than my next two victims...
Oliver Platt is miscast and looks totally confused as Nathan Detroit. He is dull as petrified wood, never lands a good solid laugh and seems bored onstage. And then there is the matter of Lauren Graham. The audiences, mostly made up of Gillmore Girls fanbase, adore her. Why? Miss Graham is giving one of the most thoroughly awful performances I have ever seen in the theatre. She plays the rather ditzy, but intelligent Adelaide like she is mentally challenged in some way. Again, she never lands a solid laugh and her "Adelaide's Lament" is a waste of a good song. Can't audiences realize when they're being given a plate of ****?
Then there's the matter of "Sit Down, You're Rockin' the Boat. It's a fine number but the typically self indulgent Mary Testa needs to be restrained. Did someone actually mention the chance of her getting a Tony nomination for this work?
I'm sorry to say this revival of Guys and Dolls, with the exception of Miss Grant, did not bring me much joy at all. It obviously was a joyous time for the audience judging from their nearly orgasmic reaction to most musical numbers and at curtain call. It's funny though, they didn't laugh that much.
