Threaded Order Chronological Order
| NYT review | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 03:00 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Mack & Mabel tonight. - Amiens 11:29 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| ...The music isn’t the only thing that this glamorous-looking reboot, directed and choreographed by Josh Rhodes, has to offer. There is a handsomely disheveled Douglas Sills as Mack, a quietly charismatic Alexandra Socha as Mabel and a general reveling in period fashion and physicality. Yet even when Rob Berman’s fine orchestra is at its most delicate, the show scarcely comes close to stirring emotion... |
|
| Link | ‘Mack & Mabel’ Review: Lights! Camera! Passion! |
| reply to this message | |
| re: NYT review | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 03:32 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: NYT review - MockingbirdGirl 03:00 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Wow, how I wish he'd said more. Maybe he was trying to be polite, but it's not as if a huge long term commercial run is at stake. All these years I hear about how this show doesn't work because of the book (and I mean really we hear that constantly about so many shows, it hardly provides any illumination into this show) but everyone loves the score. He offers that the characters are drawn two dimensional. Is that it? Maybe the fact that it doesn't merit a more in depth critical analysis speaks to how truly terrible and hopeless it is. I guess I'll get to decide for myself when I see it this weekend! | |
| reply to this message |
| re: NYT review | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 02:28 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT review - EvFoDr 03:32 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| This production is using the revised book by Francine Pascal, by the way. Here's the issues, as I saw them...there's a lot of telling, rather than showing. Mack has big monologues in almost every scene in which he tells us things that the show should be showing us. Sills did fine by them, but it gets tedious. Also, the central relationship of the show, that of Mack and Mabel, takes place mostly off-stage in scenes we don't see. That's a big, glaring fault for a show called MACK AND MABEL. The only sort of tender, romantic scene between them is the one that contains "I Won't Send Roses." We don't see what attracts her to him or him to her. We don't see how their personal relationship evolves after this scene, until she walks in on him having sex with someone else and leaves him. The show presents only bits and pieces of their professional, working relationship. The entire story presented by the musical is fictional, except that there are characters called Mack Sennett, Mabel Normand, Fatty Arbuckle, and William Desmond Taylor, which share names with actual historical figures. The real story seems much more interesting that the fiction, so I wonder why the writers bothered with the fiction at all. All the characters are completely fictional. I'm not sure a single true fact about any of the "real" characters is presented here, other than that they were involved in making silent movies. By the same token, if the writers were going to present a story that is their own creation, why not come up with something better? The rise and fall of glamourous Hollywood figures has presented drama for nearly a 100 years in various guises...surely, they could have come up with something better for a musical. We're also never really told what the issue is with Mabel's health in Act II, although we're left to assume that she's a drug and/or alcohol addict, which, again, we're told, but don't really see. As far as this production is concerned, the powers that be made some errors, the most destructive of which is that the juxtaposition of the events leading up to the murder of William Desmond Taylor and the funny, bouncy "Tap Your Troubles Away" is confusingly staged and I had trouble following the Taylor story. I literally kept losing Taylor, Mabel, and the other couple involved in the dancers doing the number and Alexandra Socha and the other actress were very similar in type and costumed similarly, so it was difficult to tell at times who was who. William Desmond Taylor is reconceived as a dancey, bisexual goodtime guy...from what I read, almost the complete opposite of what he was like in real life. Mabel's drug use is foreshadowed nicely in the first act when we see her popping pills to keep up the manic pace required by Sennett while making 2 reeler after 2 reeler, but doesn't really go anywhere in Act II, where we don't see her taking drugs, even those specifically handed to her by Taylor. In real life, Mabel's main health issue seems to have been TB, but that is not even mentioned here. So that's what's wrong with it, in my opinion. There was also some terrific stuff here other than the justifiably adored score, but you didn't ask about that. :) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT review | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 04:28 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT review - JereNYC 02:28 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| "The entire story presented by the musical is fictional, except that there are characters called Mack Sennett, Mabel Normand, Fatty Arbuckle, and William Desmond Taylor, which share names with actual historical figures. The real story seems much more interesting that the fiction, so I wonder why the writers bothered with the fiction at all. " I often have had the same question about other shows and movies based on real-life people and events. In this case, for instance, why on earth do you suppose that the writers of M&M decided to make Mabel Normand a "waitress from Flatbush" rather than what she actually was, a young model from Staten Island? Is that LESS interesting? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT review | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 08:03 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT review - Michael_Portantiere 04:28 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| As per Wikipedia (take that for what it’s worth), Mabel Normand was already a well known actress when she met Mack Sennett. Maybe they thought that him discovering her and making her a Star was a more dramatic story? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| *she | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 03:45 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 03:45 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT review - EvFoDr 03:32 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| The reviewer is Laura Collins-Hughes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: *she | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 03:48 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: *she - MockingbirdGirl 03:45 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you! Wow. Totally my bad. My brain was so certain this had to be Brantley that I rushed right past the byline. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Wow! That is a very generous review. | |
| Posted by: Amiens 03:27 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: NYT review - MockingbirdGirl 03:00 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| But when Mack & Mabel "....scarcely comes close to stirring emotion..." how can it be deemed successful? I do agree with her assessment of the orchestra's playing of the entr acte (the overture on the OBCR) as the emotional highlight of the evening. It was the only time I teared up. ***SPOILER*** And bringing down the gigantic photo portraits of Jerry Herman in the middle of it only reinforced the joyous sentiment. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wow! That is a very generous review. | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 03:36 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Wow! That is a very generous review. - Amiens 03:27 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Interesting. Awhile back I mentioned here that I'd heard that what is known as the overture on the OBCR was really the entracte, and was strongly challenged by those who claimed to have seen the original that the overture on the OBCR WAS the overture in the theatre. I am willing to concede that maybe at some point it was used as the overture, maybe a performance or two that only a few people saw? Who knows! But I'd always heard it was really the entracte. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Overture/Entr'acte | |
| Posted by: reed23 04:30 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Wow! That is a very generous review. - EvFoDr 03:36 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| The Overture on the original cast recording was the Entr'acte in the actual original Broadway show. I saw the show in 1974 at the Majestic, and have always remembered the stark opening, with a short brass-orchestrated intro for the rise of the curtain and Robert Preston's entrance; and I've always remembered the extended tune medley as the Entr'acte. A performance tape I heard recently confirmed my vivid recollection. Gower Champion was no fan of overtures, and his jumping right into opening scenes was a distinctive characteristic of his (CARNIVAL, HELLO, DOLLY! for instance.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Overture/Entr'acte | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 05:07 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 05:05 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Overture/Entr'acte - reed23 04:30 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| People better get back to their seats after intermission from the restrooms promptly if they want to hear the famous overture, considered one of the very best overtures ever, at least by its placement at the beginning of side A and its title "Overture" on the OCR! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.033349 seconds.