Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: BillEadie 11:11 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - TheOtherOne 10:04 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| I, too, saw each part when it originally appeared. I’ve also seen at least one (probably more) production of the combined parts. Never liked the show much, though I found some of the music to be appealing. For some reason, this film version really clicked with me when I saw it last summer. I particularly liked Ms. Block’s performance, which I thought was not only exquisitely sung but also revelatory as a characterization. Mr. Rannels’ performance also resonated with me. I found myself enjoying the overall arc of the production for the first time. Watched it again last night - my feelings about it didn’t hold up on second viewing. But, I still enjoyed it quite a bit Bill, in San Diego |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 12:07 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - BillEadie 11:11 am EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Although I did not feel this production held a candle to the original cast I still found hearing the score again was rewarding. I saw the Lincoln Center version more than once on stage. I didn't have a problem with the set or costumes. I didn't find Rannells right as Whizzer, what was his appeal? And though Block played the part with conviction Barbara Walsh was so much better. I did like Borle, Uranowitz, Thoms and Wolfe. Perhaps if I hadn't seen the original I would have loved this version. I still am glad I saw it and that it was filmed and many more will see it on TV. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 02:38 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - lowwriter 12:07 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Whizzer is a jock. Aaron Tveit would have been ideal casting -- I think Telly Leung or Curtis Holbrook would have been good choices also. I wonder if any of them were considered. That said, I had previously only seen a small regional production of Falsettos in the Chicago area. I did enjoy the Broadway revival on my trip to New York last November. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Whizzer's self presentation | |
| Posted by: Delvino 06:29 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - BroadwayTonyJ 02:38 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| In the 80s, the Whizzer character was a certain type of Manhattan man. He always seemed coolly detached, classy, and aggressively masculine, perhaps in cliche terms. The jock thing, the snob attitude. Rannells is gifted, cute, and a wonderful triple threat. But that 80s almost hyper masculine NYC jock thing -- it's not really what he presents. This may have been a calculated attempt to unlock the character, to move away from that sort of niche type. I thought it interesting that Borle presented as straight, and Rannells a very comfortable gay man. It made the Borle Marvin coming out via this relationship very different than than the way it felt with Bogardus as Whizzer. Rupert and Bogardus were almost the reverse of what we saw last night. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Whizzer's self presentation | |
| Posted by: Circlevet 12:02 am EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: Whizzer's self presentation - Delvino 06:29 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Neither Rannels or Borle seemed to have an understanding of their characters (which ultimately must be laid at the foot of Lapine). Whizzer should be everything that Rannells was not---certainly not a big self-centered effeminate man. And Borle, who should have found the vulnerability of Marvin only found a mean and almost psychotic Marvin. Except for Betsy Wolfe I thought, of the many productions of this I have seen, this was the worst performed. I still think this is an extraordinary piece of theater but this production did not do it justice. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Whizzer's self presentation | |
| Last Edit: CCentero 11:29 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| Posted by: CCentero 11:19 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: Whizzer's self presentation - Delvino 06:29 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| I honestly don't have any idea what Rannels was doing, period. Can he not ditch the "ironic Book Of Mormon/ animated movie" voice? I thought he was playing the pretty boy, posing and trying too hard in a way that Whizzer wouldn't. Thought Borle and Rannels had no chemistry, unlike Rupert and Bogardus, who you rooted for as a couple. He came off as silly and insincere around Jason, making their rapport inplausible. The sets and costumes? Were the real ones stolen? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 06:27 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 06:26 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - BroadwayTonyJ 02:38 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Whizzer is a jock. Well, he plays raquetball (but so does Marvin) and he likes baseball (but we have no evidence that he plays it, though he does coach Jason). I don't know if that qualifies him as a jock, or even a jock type. Were he a jock, I imagine that there might be a sports-playing reference somewhere in "The Games I Play" - but we only get a reference to canasta and that he bets on horses. ;-) I tend to think of him more as just the prototype of a young extremely appealing/attractive gay man. I hesitate to say he's a "pretty boy," (because I tend to think that implies some androgyny, which I don't think needs to be part of the character's look or style), but in a sense I think of that much more than "jock." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 03:28 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:17 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Chromolume 06:26 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| Funny, in all my life I've never heard the term "pretty boy" and understood it to specifically imply androgyny, and i don't use it that way. In the context I've heard it in it almost always means someone whose face is too pretty to be the way an average man's face looks, but that doesn't imply androgyny to me. Either way, I don't think Stephen Bogardus was a "pretty boy" when he played the role. Is that how people saw him? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:09 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Chazwaza 03:17 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
|
|
|
| I should have clarified, lol - I was describing the way I saw Rannells' take on the role. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 04:02 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Chazwaza 03:17 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
|
|
|
| No, that doesn't describe Bogardus at all, though he was a very attractive Whizzer. He was WASP-ish, and he was the better looking and more confident of the two so he had an upper hand that both turned on and frustrated Rupert's Marvin. They had terrific chemistry. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: Ann 04:41 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - TheOtherOne 04:02 pm EDT 10/29/17 | |
|
|
|
| I've always wondered what kind of Whizzer Bogardus was. I did not see the original and, for awhile, just knew of it vaguely - and I though for quite some time that Rupert must have played Whizzer (without knowing much about Bogardus). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. | |
| Posted by: JohnDunlop 11:42 am EDT 10/29/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I think this production was ugly as hell. There I said it. - Chromolume 06:26 pm EDT 10/28/17 | |
|
|
|
| If Whizzer likes baseball and coaches Jason, it is almost certain that he once played baseball. Perhaps just Little League, or with others at school or his neighborhood, and the same would apply to basketball, football or tennis. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.029848 seconds.