LOG IN / REGISTER



Threaded Order Chronological Order

re: 'How to Succeed' with Des
Last Edit: JereNYC 03:31 pm EDT 06/25/18
Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 03:30 pm EDT 06/25/18
In reply to: 'How to Succeed' with Des - WaymanWong 05:43 pm EDT 06/23/18

Regarding the sexual politics in the 1995 revival of HOW TO SUCCEED, we should also remember that that production cut the Act II opener "Cinderella, Darling" and replaced it with a new version of "How To Succeed" with new lyrics that underlined the idea that the women were just as much sharks as the men, only with a different goal in mind. I never liked the change, although I do understand that some have issues with "Cinderella, Darling." (One production I saw years ago included "Cinderella, Darling," but the program had an asterisk next to the bio of every woman involved in the show that lead to a program note essentially saying that the ideas expressed in the song "Cinderella, Darling" were not endorsed or embraced in real life.) Another option I've seen done is simply to cut the first scene of Act II and the song with it. HOW TO SUCCEED is a long show and, to be honest, the show doesn't lose a whole lot with the loss of that material.

In general, I really liked that production, especially the brilliant video scenic elements, which were pretty innovative at the time and were a McAnuff trademark. Megan Mullally took a role that's really colorless in the writing and played an actual character. In a show chock full of brilliantly drawn featured character roles, the leading lady is curiously underwritten, but Mullally obviously didn't care and filled in the blanks herself, just as any sharp character woman would.

Cilento's choreography really served the piece well, but I really hate that he added a little dance break that allowed the production (and Mullally) to cheat on the famous "Paris Original" quick change. When that moment is done well, it always gets a reaction when the leading lady completely changes her costume, shoes, and hair in seconds.

And, whatever issues and quibbles one may have had with the 1995 production, it was head and shoulders above the more recent revival starring Daniel Radcliffe. That one was just...dismal...in every department. That production was just completely wrong-headed at every turn and I found little, if anything, redeemable about it.
reply to this message


Privacy Policy


Time to render: 0.005928 seconds.