| Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 04:39 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| OK, first I should mention that I have posted several times here in the past that I wasn't sure the film was a good source for a musical, and that using songs of the past rather than a new score was a bad idea added to what was already a questionable idea. So was I wrong? Well, partly. I do think this show has a good chance of being a hit, perhaps a big one. And it is better than I was expecting it to be. (One last warning: Not only are there spoilers below, and not only is it very long, it also jumps around without much rhyme or reason. I felt like typing up my thoughts, but I didn't feel like trying to organize them, which I know also leads to some repetitiveness below.) For better or worse, while following the movie closely in general, it does not take an overly reverent attitude toward the movie. And I'm guessing this is to some degree because Woody Allen took the movie seriously but he doesn't really take musicals seriously as an art form, or at least he doesn't seem to think this one should be too concerned with coherence. The movie is basically coherent (if often distinctly silly), but the musical, not so much. One thing that always bothered me slightly in the move — and I love the movie — is the anachronism of the play having a bunch of Broadway previews. This did not happen in the '20s. If a play or musical went out of town (as almost all of them did), it either opened cold on Broadway or had, at most, one preview (but I think most opened cold). Still, there was an important plot point there: at one of the Broadway previews, Olive's understudy goes on, and this is what really pushes Cheech over the edge and makes him decide that Olive must not be allowed to open in the role. That is now gone. The understudy goes on for the first time on opening night. There is nothing in the show about Broadway previews. I doubt that Allen got rid of this because he was concerned about the anachronism. I think he got rid of this because with all the songs, stuff had to go. So Cheech just assumes that anyone would be better than Olive. But I really miss it. Allen could have gotten rid of the anachronism and kept the plot point by having the understudy go on in Boston. Does it kill the plot? No, but I think it's a loss. Speaking of anachronisms, for those who care, there are at least two not in the film: Helen at one point sings of Brecht as one of the great playwrights. (In 1929, hardly anyone here knew Brecht at all.) And we learn that David — through Cheech — has improved the play greatly by cutting a long passage of exposition and replacing it with one word: "Bullshit!" On Broadway in 1929, absolutely not. Another, perhaps more bothersome loss than Olive's understudy not going on before opening night is Cheech's final playwriting suggestion to David being cut. I'm not sure why that's gone unless it's because the play, not all that coherently presented in the movie (but just coherently enough), is even less coherently presented here. The opening night sequence is particularly silly on a couple of counts. But at least in the movie the bits we see of the play in performance seem an attempt to evoke a certain type of serious American play of the '20s, even if Warner Purcell looks increasingly ridiculous. Here it almost seems as if the play is a comedy, and that we're supposed to think that Helen, Warner and Eden are not even good actors. Which kind of destroys the point of Olive being a terrible actress. And the use of old songs that are, at best, generalized responses to the situations that lead up them also suggests that Allen does not take musicals very seriously, or at least did not think of this one as aspiring to any sort of coherence. That having been said, the "additional lyrics" by Glen Kelly do help, and a few of the songs have been made to fit pretty well. The show gets off to a good start because the first three songs work surprisingly well, and that helps a lot. (First fifteen minutes and all.) Admittedly, the first song is a production number at Nick's club, "Tiger Rag," with Olive in the chorus. I often dislike diegetic opening numbers of this sort, but I thought this one worked well. As did "Gee, Baby, Ain't I Good to You," which follows for Nick and Olive, and David and Ellen's first number, "Blues My Naughty Sweetie Gives to Me." Btw, some of the songs really are little-known (I will avoid using the o word), or at least were unknown to me, while others are quite famous, among them "I"m Sitting on Top of the World" (with some new lyrics), and "Let's Misbehave" (which I think sticks pretty closely or perhaps completely to the original lyric). The latter, a duet for Olive and Warner as they embark on their little affair, is a highlight. Even though I mentally groaned when it started (because they were resorting to using such a famous song), I was soon won over by Stroman's clever staging and the performances of Brooks Ashmanskas and Helene Yorke. In general, I was pleasantly surprised by Stroman's choreography and staging here. I've never been a great fan of her work, although I also have to admit that I've never seen Crazy for You. (I know, I know, but it just never sounded at all interesting to me.) A friend who's seen this told me that too many of the numbers reminded him of Stroman stuff we've seen in the past so perhaps not having seen Crazy for You is a positive if you're seeing this. Still, I've seen most of her other major New York work, and this impressed me, at least a lot of the time (although that opening-night sequence at the theatre should be rethought). Several of the numbers are so well choreographed that their lack of real pertinence is forgiven. Unfortunately, however, this is not true all the time. Several numbers can and should go, starting with "There'll Be Some Changes Made," used as Cheech's warning to Warner, a moment that I think does not merit a number at all. It makes Cheech seem too personally invested in the matter, much more so than in the film. And bringing on the chorus line of gangsters does kind of confuse things. If they know about what's going on between Warner and Olive, might not one of them say something to Nick? If it were up to me, I'd also get rid of the number that follows, even though a number there for those two characters — Helen and David — would make sense if the song seemed like something those two people would sing. But "I Ain't Gonna Play No Second Fiddle" simply doesn't, although the audience seemed to like it. That number brings up something else. We heard that Woody Allen wanted a soprano for Helen, but in the show that's currently playing at the St. James, Helen goes into her upper register very little. Most of the role lies in belt range, and the few times when Mazzie goes higher hardly seem essential. The second act really could also lose the "Yes, We Have No Bananas" finale, but I've seen much worse. Stroman makes a misstep, I think, but an easily correctable one, in the next-to-last number, "She's Funny That Way," Helen and David's song of reconciliation and commitment, which occurs at the opening-night party at Nick's club. She has Zach Braff and Betsy Wolfe upstaged by the dancers behind them doing fancy moves that reminded me of Rob Ashford's silly choreography for the party scene in The Sound of Music. That final scene generally is one in which Allen rather surprisingly seems to be trying to add coherence, diverging from the movie in a couple of big ways and trying to tie things up more thoroughly and neatly. I'm not sure that I love these changes, but they do suggest that Allen is not overly attached to the movie. Speaking of changes, the agent character played by Harvey Fierstein is gone. Instead, some of his lines are given to the producer, which works well enough. Where Allen, or Stroman, or both, seem a bit too devoted to the movie is in several of the performances. It's not that every line reading of the movie cast is imitated. They're not. Sometimes the readings are rather different (and the lines are different often enough). But general vocal patterns and choices of the film performers show their influence with several performers here. Some of Allen's new lines are good, but some of them seem to have been written by some Broadway hack called in to provide gags. Santo Loquasto has made the already not-very-wide St. James stage (as musicals houses go) feel even a bit tighter. This actually helps preserve a certain intimacy (although I can't imagine it feels intimate to the folks in that high St. James balcony). I wasn't in love with everything he did, but he makes it all fit. I did love David and Ellen's apartment, and I loved the effect when the apartment was far upstage as David was singing of his opening-night nerves with "The Panic Is On," a number that nonetheless could perhaps go. But if every number that I think might be cut from the second act were cut, it would be a very short second act. (The show was over around 10:40, and the intermission was, of necessity, on the long side.) Both of the numbers that David and Ellen sing in the apartment worked well in terms of dramatic coherence, but in the second-act breakup scene, why does Ellen seem about to go out in her slip? Is that dress something a woman would have worn on the street in the '20s? Maybe, but it seemed odd to me. The cast is generally good if you don't mind how much some of them evoke their screen predecessors. Zach Braff and Betsy Wolfe in relatively straight roles are probably under less pressure in this way and they don't much evoke their predecessors. He does well, giving a much more overtly comic performance than John Cusack (with his inflections sometimes sounding a bit like, yes, Woody Allen). She kind of seems like a star in the making here. Personally, I wouldn't mind if she and her Tales of the City co-star, Judy Kaye, were reunited in a certain upcoming revival for which another star has been announced. Karen Ziemba doesn't have a huge amount to do, and if you're sitting close, she is clearly rather older than the character is meant to be, but she's such a great performer. For me, she brightens every show she's in. And it may be mostly thanks to her (and to good staging from Stroman) that the second-act opener, "There's a New Day Comin'," is entertaining enough that you don't mind it being not exactly necessary and that the lyric is not terribly specific to the situation. Marin Mazzie seemed to me like a supremely competent understudy, but the friend I was with felt she was completely great and the audience also seemed to love her, so perhaps it's just me. Anyway, her competence here is certainly not in doubt. I wish that Nick Cordero as Nick was allowed a bit more of the shading that Chazz Palmintieri was allowed or encouraged to bring to the character in the movie, but as written in the show, he probably has to play it this way. I don't especially feel the need to comment on anyone else. They all do what they do very professionally. I like that a couple of older and heavier guys are among the dancing gangsters. (Jim Borstelmann and Kevin Ligon, I think.) I can't help but wonder a bit if the show would make a lot of sense to anyone who hasn't seen the film. The orchestra sounds like it's in another building, and after the show I was told that it is in another building. Don't know if that's true. The deck is very high for this show. I was sitting fourth row center, and I would not have wanted to be any closer. So that is a warning. I would really not want to sit in the first row for this. Also, if you're in the first few rows, you will get lights in your face at several points. It's not really pleasant. OK, I've gone on quite long enough. A lot of people will enjoy this show, and for all my quibbles, I enjoyed it. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| Why is there so much comparison to the film? | |
| Posted by: | broadwaybacker 06:32 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 04:39 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Woody Allen films are not generally huge box office hits, and Bullets isn't even in his top 10. It did a bit over $13 million at the box office, and about $26 million in adjusted box office revenues. So my guess is that the overwhelming majority of people who see the Broadway show will have either never seen the film, or if they have seen it will have only a vague recollection of it. So to me, the real question becomes how will this show be received not by Woody devotees, but by the typical summer tourist crowd (not to mention the critics.) How entertaining is it, period? Will it be cut to a more tolerable length than the current 2:45? Will they fix the ending. which seems to have generated substantial criticism? I haven't seen it yet, but I have tickets to see it the day before it opens. The fact that AlanScott, (who I respect as much or more than anyone on this board) found it enjoyable certainly is a positive sign, as he's a pretty tough critic generally speaking. So I'm really looking forward to it. And though I have seen the film, I can't quote lines or remember many of its jokes, which probably makes me more like most people who are going to see it. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Why is there so much comparison to the film? | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 08:43 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Why is there so much comparison to the film? - broadwaybacker 06:32 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| The show let out at 10:40 last night, after a standard late start and what seemed a slightly longish intermission (necessary given the rest room situation at the St. James). While I think some numbers could be cut, I don't think it feels intolerably long. As mentioned, the numbers I think could most readily go are mostly in the second act, which is only about 50-55 minutes (after a first act of about 80-85) so cutting two or three numbers would leave a very short act. I do suspect that one way or another they will get it down a bit, but if they don't, I don't think people will complain too much. If anything, I think a lot people appreciate seeing a show that feels full length after spending all that money. As for the question of comparison, I'm not a critic and my original post is more a report than a review so I don't feel the need to restrain myself from comparing it to the film. Near the end of my original post, I did wonder whether the show will make a lot of sense to audiences who don't know the film, especially those who may not be all that theatre-savvy. But I can't pretend not to know the film well and in this case I don't feel able to put myself in the position of someone who doesn't. As Chazwaza notes, it's very easy for anyone who wants to see the film to see it. I'd guess that a large percentage of last night's audience had seen the film and that some had seen it multiple times. I agree that how well it will appeal to audiences beyond Woody Allen devotees is a big question, but it's one that I don't feel qualified to address. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Why is there so much comparison to the film? | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 07:46 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Why is there so much comparison to the film? - broadwaybacker 06:32 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| No wait a minute. What makes you think that the people who paid to see the movie in theaters in 1994 are the total number of people who have seen it? The movie has been out on video and DVD and whatever else for TWENTY YEARS. On top of that, it was nominated for SEVEN OSCARS and won 1. I assure you many more people have seen the movie than bought tickets for it in 1994. And I'm not trying to claim it's some enormous popular perennial favorite that everyone has seen, I'm just saying don't try to skew it unnecessarily. Also, anyone who wants to see the movie and hasn't, can see it very easily and cheaply (if not for free) before they see the show, or after. So comparisons are impossible to avoid. Especially since, even though 20 years old, it is fairly recent, and being Woody Allen, it will never be separated fully from being compared to the movie. It seems odd to me that you're even asking this question, what, 3 previews in to the Broadway preview run of the first Woody Allen musical based on a fairly recent film... OF COURSE, maybe more than many properties, this will be compared to the film by people who are writing about it in chat boards or blogs or newspapers and magazines. And the fact that it doesn't have an original score, but has quite a long of songs, makes it all the more comparable because it's not being reimagined/adapted as a musical the way most things are (with an original score being written). But again it seems pointless to ask because it's inevitable. And, I hardly think it was necessary for you to say this, and the way you said it: "AlanScott, (who I respect as much or more than anyone on this board)" ... ouch to anyone else! (I'm not personally offended, I just read it and laughed out loud with "jeez"). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| one retraction | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 07:51 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Why is there so much comparison to the film? - Chazwaza 07:46 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I re-read the line I quoted a few times and I swear each time I read it I read "who I respect more than anyone on this board" ... which is what was so funny to me. Reading it again and seeing the "as much or more" in there is certainly less biting or notable, but still mildly notable in its being mentioned that way at all. Anyway, sorry for the misread. Cheers! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 06:21 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 04:39 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I enjoyed the specificity of all of these observations, which oddly enough answer many of the questions I have had about adapting the film. Your comments made me think that this show is somehow in spirit a bit like one we never mention: SUGAR, the SOME LIKE IT HOT adaptation. The stories are not similar, but the blend of show biz and gangsters just invited the comparison. The SUGAR score, by Styne, was once considered something of a liability, though it has its fans (me included). I found myself wondering: a Jule Styne styled score is the sort I would expect might make BULLETS soar. Old fashioned, but modeled on the great musicals of the past, with attention to craft. For my taste, this show is less compelling with the sandwiched in standards, no matter how savvy the fit. I can imagine that they do lend authenticity and nail the period. But character songs flow from momentary needs. I'd love to know what a great composer and lyricist would have done with Helen Sinclair. She's had to absorb musical numbers that were written for very different purposes. I gather from your take that it works well enough. Still, nothing beats fresh composition. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| The show actually seems to intentionally nod to Some Like It Hot | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 08:25 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - Delvino 06:21 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Funny you should mention Some Like It Hot and Sugar because the show seems to nod to it. The first-act finale is "Runnin' Wild," and it's performed as they're boarding the train to Boston. If they didn't have Some Like It Hot in mind, a lot of people in the audience surely will. I did say that the second-act duet for Helen and David — mostly sung by Helen — is not helpful, although well-staged. In fact, I don't think any of Helen's three numbers accomplishes much of anything that is especially helpful. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" | |
| Posted by: | PlayWiz 10:34 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | The show actually seems to intentionally nod to Some Like It Hot - AlanScott 08:25 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I wonder if the creators of this show could commission someone to write a new character-specific number or two for the show. Certainly new numbers used to be added to shows, like "Swanee" for Al Jolson and Broadway new-comers in the early part of the 20th Century sometimes had numbers added to shows when producers would give them a try-out. It doesn't take away from any one composer in this show really since this show is composed of old songs anyway. I would have preferred to see a new score anyway, but that's Woody's decision. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 11:14 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" - PlayWiz 10:34 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I always thought that one of the difficulties in musicalizing the film was the danger of being too on the money. A song titled "Don't Speak" would have to be awfully brilliant to overcome being . . . a song titled "Don't Speak." I suspect that this is one of the reasons why Hamlisch and Carnelia either gave up or Allen decided that what they were coming up with wasn't right. By going with period songs, the songs are a bit oblique. Being oblique is good. Unfortunately, here it goes along with being nonspecific. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" | |
| Posted by: | PlayWiz 02:05 am EDT 03/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" - AlanScott 11:14 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Oh, I agree it would have to be a brilliant song to equal Allen's writing and Dianne Wiest's performance in one of the most memorable and quotable parts of the film. If that couldn't happen, then I think someone mentioned the Kurt Weill-Ogden Nash song "Speak Low" from "One Touch of Venus", a very lovely song which could be sung with an interjected "Don't Speak" or two (and some other choice words) at some point as a surprise to make it into a more comedic song. Or perhaps someone write a counterpoint for a duet along the lines of "Don't Speak to Me of Love... in fact, just.... don't speak!". I'm only conjecturing because the problem with old songs is, as you say, they're just rather general and not specific. Specific is usually funnier. It may be from "The Sunshine Boys" or some stand-up comedian, I can't recall, but when someone tries to tell a joke, they start -- "A guy walks into a shop"; The professional interjects: "No, no -- not A guy - THIS guy walks into a shop" -- it makes it more specific and funnier just by being even that little bit particular. It's the same thing here, based on what you are saying. I didn't read all of your long post above, though I'm sure it's good as per your usual insight. I just skimmed to avoid spoilers and surprises, as it has been years since I've seen the film. The impact of Wiest, Chazz Palmieri, John Cusack and Jennifer Tilly's performances are what I remember most from the film. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 11:40 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" - AlanScott 11:14 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I recall how Mel Brooks took lines from "Young Frankenstein" ("Roll in the Hay") and did exactly what you mention in turning them into songs: literalize their more subtle charms. Sometimes, a line that lasts seconds on the screen is memorable for just that reason: brevity, and our resulting gasp (and laugh). When we hear the same sentiment attenuated, expanded, the moment loses its power and its humor. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 12:26 am EDT 03/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" - Delvino 11:40 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Yeah, you totally want to avoid that kind of thing. You might put the line "Don't Speak" into a song, but you'd have to let it surprise the audience. Since you brought up Young Frankenstein, one big mistake made there that's not repeated here is the use of enormous sets. The YF sets were very impressive, but that's the kind of thing that you probably want to avoid when putting a movie onstage. Movies can give us closeups, and you need to approximate that. Not that the sets here are small (although the Village apt. set is nicely undersized), but they're not massive, and the stage feels on the small side. The same mistake was made long ago by Santo Loquasto — although he may have simply been doing what he was asked for — in Singin' in the Rain. Massive sets, very impressive, and exactly not what that show needed. Although Bullets is in a big theatre, they'd done their best to make it feel intimate. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" | |
| Posted by: | newintown 09:10 am EDT 03/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: It sounds like there should be a number called "Don't Speak!" - AlanScott 12:26 am EDT 03/19/14 |
|
| |
| I think this whole exchange skirts around the de-evolution of adaptation - a good theatrical adapter wouldn't use "don't speak" at all, either in a song or dialogue - that line is too memorable, too much a part of the experience of watching the movie. A talented adapter would create their own iconic moment, every bit as good as (or better than) "don't speak." For my money, a good adapter also would create a new title, change the story line to be more musical, add or delete characters - in other words, create a new work only based upon the film, not slavishly adhering to it, filling it out with irrelevant songs. Some shows actually do this - Grey Gardens and Gentleman's Guide to name two. But mostly, it seems to be a game of plopping the screenplay on stage with plugged-in tunes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| 'Bullets Over Broadway' -- I was there last night too, Alan! ... | |
| Posted by: | flaguy 11:33 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 04:39 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I loved it! To me it's the same 'musical comedy heaven' formula that worked on THE PRODUCERS, and it's working again. This is the very definition of what I believe people have come to expect when they go to see a big Broadway show. And I can't believe anybody will be disappointed with it. OR find it incoherent!? I even liked the finish at the cast party with the singing of 'Yes, We Have No Bananas.' Didn't Woody's film RADIO DAYS have a similar finish? It seemed kinda familiar, and very Woody, to me. Anyway, I've always been an admirer of Stroman's work, and I think she's done a great job here. My one disappointment is that Zach Braff doesn't really sing all that well. But I forgive him, because he IS very funny. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: 'Bullets Over Broadway' -- I was there last night too, Alan! ... | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 08:15 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | 'Bullets Over Broadway' -- I was there last night too, Alan! ... - flaguy 11:33 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Big spoilers below about changes from the film. Sorry to have not seen you last night. I wouldn't say that this ending is quite similar to the interestingly bittersweet ending of Radio Days, which is probably my favorite Allen film along with Bullets, but I do see what you mean. If anything, the fact that no one, including David, gives a second thought to the death of Cheech or expresses regret keeps it from being bittersweet at the end. You might think that Helen, having learned the truth, would express a moment of regret about the loss of a potentially great playwright and also a being potentially great lover. That might be a good comic moment to add. Re Zach Braff's singing: they even make a joke about it at one point, but he seems to be intentionally singing badly there. One problem I've had with Stroman's work before, and I have it again here, is her direction of onstage moments where things are supposed to change or go wrong in an actual performance. They always seem fuzzy and not-thought-out to me, and I think that's true again here. But the writers also always bear responsibility in those cases. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| PS -- I was in the front row of the mezz, which was WONDERFUL! (nm) | |
| Posted by: | flaguy 11:36 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | 'Bullets Over Broadway' -- I was there last night too, Alan! ... - flaguy 11:33 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| ! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | JT 11:32 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 04:39 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| This is a very good analysis, AlanScott. While I understand where you are coming from, I do not entirely agree on your point regarding Cheech; As someone who never saw the movie, I clearly understood Cheech's motivation in not wanting Olive to "open" in the role. Also regarding Marin Mazzie, I thought she was sensational, but I also thought her costumes (and wigs) enveloped her and worked against her. Perhaps that is why you felt she was a supremely competent understudy. I agree about Karen Ziemba- she was a delight and brightened the show. Where I disagree, is from where I sat, she looked very age appropriate. It was a thrill to see Jim Borstelmann ( who I fists saw as a dancer in the original cast of Chicago) grow as a performer and shine in a variety of featured parts. I do hope while the show is in previews, the creative team is rethinking the ending (the ending reminded me of City Of Angels, where the show as a whole was great, but the show h just sorted of ended in a fashion not so satisfying), | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 07:58 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - JT 11:32 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| BIG SPOILER below: Oh, I think it's clear why Cheech doesn't want Olive to open in the role. It's just that he makes a very sudden change from thinking Olive is bad but tolerating her to killing her. Especially since not long before he decides to kill her it's clear that he has not even thought of that or he wouldn't be warning Warner to stay away from her, which become a huge point here because it gets a big number. He has not been ordered to warn Warner. This is something he decides to do because he thinks Warner is important to the show (also a point that is not so clear here). It doesn't help that Warner doesn't seem like he's necessarily such a great actor here. Jim Broadbent is as funny as can be — if anything, funnier than Brooks Ashmanskas, but he's given better moments to be funny, and the camera helps — but he also conveys that this man is a very good actor. Which is why David insists on him, despite the warning from Julian that he will gain weight. Although this comes later, if anything Warner is made to seem like a sort of bad actor here, someone who plays baldly to the audience and can't stay focused and in the moment when surprised by audience laughter. But as William Goldman wrote about Mame, some musicals aren't meant to make sense. They're just meant to entertain. One thing that Allen has done to try to clarify things — perhaps to make up in part for no longer having the understudy go on before opening — is to make it clear that Olive did not get good reviews. But even that is muddied by the retention of lines from the film about the audience accepting Olive well enough (and Cheech's very smart comeback that the audience knows something is wrong, even if they don't know what or why, but even Cheech does not dispute that the audience is not strongly aware that Olive is atrocious). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | Bobster 10:27 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 04:39 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Great piece/opinion, Alan. This gives me much to think about when I see the show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 04:47 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - Bobster 10:27 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Looking forward to hearing what you think when you do see it. How well do you know the movie? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | lordofspeech 11:36 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - Bobster 10:27 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Thanks for the clever and elaborate post. I prefer reading somewhat free-associative contemplations than the sized-down reactions of someone like Brantley. It's more how my mind reacts to a show; less judgemental, too. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 05:03 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - lordofspeech 11:36 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| It's good to know that some folks like reading those kinds of posts. I used to write them more often but I rarely do nowadays. I started one on Mothers and Sons that I really should try to finish and post. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | mikem 06:12 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 05:03 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| AlanScott, I also like reading these kinds of posts. It provides a different perspective on a show, which is always helpful. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I agree! | |
| Posted by: | Guillaume 02:51 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - lordofspeech 11:36 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I really enjoyed reading the long post, it sounded like a friend talking over coffee rather than someone hectoring us. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 07:08 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 04:39 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| This is maybe a bit philosophical, but the details you so superbly pinpoint remind me of something David O. Selznick said specifically about the task of adapting Gone With the Wind into aa screenplay, but I think it applies to any sort of adaptation: "I have learned to avoid trying to improve on success. One never knows what chemicals have gone to make up something that has appealed to millions of people, and how many seeming faults of construction have been part of the whole, and how much the balance would be offset by making changes that we in our innocence, or even in our ability, consider wrong." The rather minor plot detail about the understudy you mention I think is an example of a "chemical" in the Selznickian sense; the slight change that is made for the stage musical really robs the moment of its wit and it becomes only a plot point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 04:45 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - LegitOnce 07:08 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I haven't seen the movie in a while because I've somehow never bothered to get it on DVD and I no longer have a working VCR. But my memory is that one of the interesting moments occurs when David congratulates the understudy for doing so well, and she doesn't seem particularly happy or impressed by the praise David gives her. It's a job, it's one performance, she'll be back to being the understudy. Speaking to the larger point you raise, there's the whole Sondheim thing about "Why? musicals," a phrase he got from Mary Rodgers, to give credit where it is due. For Rodgers and Sondheim, a musical must have an energy and vision of its own, which often involves changes to the source material. Many of the musicals commonly regarded as great make big changes to the source material. But the changes must be made with care, not just because there's less time for development. Even some of the great musicals clearly diminish the source material. Which may be why less well known source material may be smarter to use (in the long run). No one cares that Frid is a rich and interesting character in Smiles of a Summer Night, but barely more than a walk-on in the musical. Stroman's strength is in the numbers. One reason why I ceased feeling bothered shortly into "Let's Misbehave" about the use of a famous song is because you quickly stop listening to the song. Stroman's staging takes over. The song is accompaniment to the staging, rather than the staging being accompaniment to the song, although even there it kind of helps to have seen the movie where a quick point is made of Olive being turned on by Warner's girth. This is in the staging of the song, but I'm not sure it comes through clearly without a line about it. Despite having such famous source material, and the author of the source material writing the book and certainly being a powerful member of the team (and probably the person who makes the final decisions), it does tend to feel a lot of the time like the story is just an excuse for the numbers. This must be what Allen wanted. The friend I was with last night (who sometimes posts here) emailed to say that he wasn't sure whose story it is. That's an interesting point. The movie is clearly David's story. Last night I thought that the show might end with "She's Funny That Way," tying up the story of David and Ellen and leaving the focus on David's journey. But the show goes on to add new stuff about a couple of the other characters and to end with a celebratory group number. I don't know how I feel about that and whether they might be wise to rethink that a bit. I suppose that if the show is a hit, it won't matter. The great surprise is how much it seems to be Stroman's show more than Allen's. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Did you see "Big Fish"? | |
| Posted by: | garyd 10:36 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 04:45 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| It was her show, by default, but her show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Did you see "Big Fish"? | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 12:30 am EDT 03/19/14 |
| In reply to: | Did you see "Big Fish"? - garyd 10:36 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| No, didn't see it. But, yeah, it's what you'd expect on that show. Of course, it may be that Allen is really The Muscle here as much as you'd expect. But watching it, it feels like Stroman's show more than you might expect. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Did you see "Big Fish"? | |
| Posted by: | garyd 03:15 am EDT 03/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Did you see "Big Fish"? - AlanScott 12:30 am EDT 03/19/14 |
|
| |
| Will see it soon and hope that it is a collaboration between the two since that usually produces the best. It is musical theatre after all and so it must be "out front", not necessarily real and not just loud, but performed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | robert_j 11:01 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - LegitOnce 07:08 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| It is an interesting point regarding Olive. I have not seen the movie, but when I saw the show it felt like Cheech's decision to get rid of Olive lacked sufficient motivation. And it is not just that we lose a scene in which Cheech sees the understudy in the role (although I agree that it sounds like a big loss). At the beginning of Act II, Cheech sings that song telling Warner to back off of Olive, which really seems to renew his commitment to his boss. So it feels even more like a 180 for him to suddenly turn on Olive like that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 05:01 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - robert_j 11:01 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| And this is where a new song might have come in handy. If there is to be a song for Cheech when he warns Warner, it might focus a bit more on what I mentioned below to LegitOnce: One of his reasons Cheech for issuing the warning is because Warner is a good actor who is important to the show's success. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 11:29 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - robert_j 11:01 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| It really is a witty idea in the film: that Cheech does what he does for the good of the show, just like a producer firing an actor out of town. Nothing personal, just she she has to go. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 04:58 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - LegitOnce 11:29 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| And that carries through. IIRC, one of the things he says to Warner is something like "You're a good actor. I"d hate to have to kill you." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | Bobster 10:29 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - LegitOnce 07:08 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Wow, this is such a great point too! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | DistantDrumming 05:32 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 04:39 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I like reading your opinions on here Alan, but I'm trying to avoid too many spoilers with this one. If you feel so inclined, perhaps you have the energy for a brief bullet-point list of your highlights -- what worked for you in the production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 06:16 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - DistantDrumming 05:32 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| • A mixed bag that I think may be a hit. It's so hard to tell. • Some good staging and choreography from Stroman, whose work I've never loved. • A few numbers that work well either because they fit the situation just well enough (sometimes with the help of rewritten lyrics) or because the staging and performance is enough fun. But too many others seem unnecessary and simply too nonspecific, especially in the second act. • The book has been cut down too much to create room for the numbers. Coherence is lost. Some plot points changed in ways that do not help. Some good new lines, with others that sound like the work of some hack gag-writer. • Thoroughly professional performances, some of which seem a bit too closely modeled on those in the movie. • Try to avoid sitting closer than the fourth row. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Thanks for the thumbnail review | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 10:16 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 06:16 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I'm also in spoiler-avoidance mode until I see it! :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Cheers! (nm) | |
| Posted by: | DistantDrumming 02:17 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 06:16 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | BDBoston 11:34 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 06:16 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| A great assessment. Could you let us know which "letter" row you were in? I know you said fourth, but the old and new Telecharge sites have differing seating charts (one indicates the rows start with AA, then BB, then A, B, C...; the other shows rows starting at BB, then A, B, C...). Thanks! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 04:46 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - BDBoston 11:34 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I was in row C, so I think BB must be the first row. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Will box office exchange tickets? | |
| Posted by: | seeseveryshow 10:48 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Bullets Over Broadway tonight (Spoilers and VERY long) - AlanScott 06:16 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| They charged me premium price ($167 each) for front row center orchestra for Sat Nite March 29, and now I've heard from several folks about the high stage platform and undesirability of close up orchestra seats. When I pressed the box office guy about this possibility when I bought them, he shrugged and said the seats should be okay and the show producers set the ticket prices, and that if I didn't like the view when I got there I should seek out the House Manager for re-seating. Since that may be too late, I am heading back to St. James today to try to switch my tickets for non-craning seats. I hope the box office will be helpful. Just don't understand how they could extract premium prices for those seats. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 1.953566 seconds.