Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short | |
| Posted by: Zelgo 07:07 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I really enjoyed this while questioning if this is what should pass as Bway entertainment. That said, has there ever been a shorter musical? I think it’s runs 75 minutes, and that includes the extra songs at the end obviously added to pad the time. There could have been other ways to extend the time, like delving more into the feminist aspects of the story. Instead, that’s given just a few moments and then a quick resolution. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short | |
| Posted by: skier74 09:37 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short - Zelgo 07:07 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| How long is Joseph? Including/excluding the megamix at the end? :) | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:25 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short - skier74 09:37 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Depends on the version. But generally, way too long for its own good. Over the years it's been given so much needless padding, just to make it longer, that the show itself feels rather lost inside all the extra repeats, reprises, extended arrangements, prologues upon prologues, and the like. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 11:08 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short - Chromolume 11:25 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| If I remember correctly, JOSEPH runs about 80 minutes including an intermission. That overblown '90's version of the show that not only included the megamix at the end, but had many of the songs sung twice within the context of the show probably ran a bit longer than 90 minutes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short | |
| Posted by: Pokernight 11:07 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short - Zelgo 07:07 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| IMHO it was a concert. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 10:13 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short - Zelgo 07:07 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I actually thought it was a tad long for what it was trying to be. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short | |
| Posted by: mikem 08:24 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short - Zelgo 07:07 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think Six is as long as it should be, given the type of musical its creators envisioned. As you note, it already feels a bit padded. That being said, I also wish it could have delved a bit deeper. It stays very fun and frothy and surface. Although I have mixed feelings about A Strange Loop, I am glad it won the Tony over its main competitors Six and MJ, which both have very strong elements but both choose to have little real meat and substance. Although fun, light musicals can be a great night at the theater, I think an award-winning musical nowadays should try to explore its subject matter in depth if that subject is of a certain type. Both Six and MJ have the opportunity to do so given their subject matter, but their creators resolutely keep the show on the "fun" side. Both shows feel like a missed opportunity to me. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| There’s nothing wrong with a frothy musical | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:47 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Finally saw SIX—it’s really, really short - mikem 08:24 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| And it is not easy to achieve. Many have tried and failed. The creators did push back to producers who wanted to add songs and make it longer. It’s for the young crowd and its long enough to hold their attention. As for content, it really does cover a lot of history—not that distorted to make it entertaining. I think the score is a very well crafted and deserved the tony. The show probably recouped or close to it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There’s nothing wrong with a frothy musical | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:43 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: There’s nothing wrong with a frothy musical - dramedy 11:47 am EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| The show works on the strength of the songs (the lyrics really are very clever), the actors, and the bare-bones but entertaining presentation. (When the show ran at the A.R.T. in Boston, I'm good friends with the bass player, and it was fun to see her and the guitarist truly featured onstage, grooving along with the cast.) The conceit of the book isn't much, but it holds the evening together. I really really enjoyed seeing it. Not every show has to be the 1971 Follies to be memorable lol. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.029201 seconds.