Threaded Order Chronological Order
| The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Last Edit: Genealley 01:24 am EST 12/17/22 | |
| Posted by: Genealley 01:14 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| This NY Theatre Workshop production does nothing to clear up the confusion of the backward conceit nor does it inject much heart into the proceedings - which would help the audience care just a bit about what's going on. I've seen this show 4 times and I still had a hard time piecing together what was happening and why I should care. And this is going to Broadway at $250 a ticket??????? This production DOES show that the libretto is weak and sketchy and doesn't do much to entice us with any reason to be interested. Frank is blank and a machine, Gussie is not that talented, Charlie's role is woefully small, Mary is an outline. No scene invests us with much emotion to feel (except confusion or boredom). The casting here is 50% OK. Radcliffe is almost a perfect Charlie - too bad he's given little to do. Mendez is fine as Mary but enough with the bleeding heart over and over (again...that libretto!!!). Brown is just not the Broadway star required for the role. And Groff is curiously lacking in much of a personality. (granted there's not much in the script - Michael Hayden miraculously created one in the Kennedy Center production - my favorite so far). Direction is bland and often aimless. Choreography is strictly community theatre. Odd tempi in some numbers (esp "Opening Doors"). Save your money. Wait and get rush or TDF for the Broadway iteration. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: TGWW 06:17 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Genealley 01:14 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| It's only transferring to fleece the Sondheimite who will keep it running for 12 weeks or so. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Commopics 07:23 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - TGWW 06:17 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| When a production does well in London, sells out its O-B run in no time flat, and gets money reviews, it tends to move to Broadway, that's not fleecing, it's the norm. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Live_From_London 06:00 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Genealley 01:14 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| The best production of Merrily was the Donmar Warehouse production back in 2000 (i can't believe it was 22 years ago!) Grandage restored Hills of Tomorrow and Rich and Happy (instead of That Frank) and made a few other changes. Sondheim was not happy. AT ALL. He allowed them to complete the run but that version will never be done again |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:43 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Live_From_London 06:00 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| I suspect it was Furth who was more upset than Sondheim. By the time of Look, I Made a Hat, Sondheim seemingly forgot all about the reversions (quite considerable) to the original and even pointed to the production winning awards as proving how successful the revisions had been. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: student_rush 01:13 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Genealley 01:14 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Such an interesting takeaway. I fully disagree that this is - at all - challenging to follow. With open eyes (costumes, acting) and ears (they literally sing the years), audiences should have no trouble following the reverse-chronology of the text. It was stunning to me, however, truly how small Radcliffe’s role is. For whatever it’s worth, he was the weakest of the three for me — but it may very well be because he has the least to do. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:31 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - student_rush 01:13 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Had you ever seen the show before? Did you think that Charley was the central character? I am mystified — and obviously not alone in this — by the idea that Charley's role is "truly small." It's a show with three central characters, but if there is a single central character, it's Franklin Shepard. Did you know this before you saw it? Mary and Charley may well be regarded as major supporting characters rather than central characters, but I can't imagine how Charley's role comes off as "truly small." I have to guess that you went with the expectation that Radcliffe had the central star role. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: huskyital (huskyital@yahoo.com) 05:42 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - student_rush 01:13 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| I did see the show in London and with everybody carping about the show as is why don't they just try to do it backwards and start with the early years and bring it to the ending. Perhaps then they could work on the script and perhaps then audiences would like the play and the characters better. The present conceit does not work. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 06:11 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - huskyital 05:42 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| I'm sorry, but no. The original 1934 Kaufman and Hart play set the conceit for going in reverse order (this was not some random decision by the musical's team), and that's how the story is constructed. If you play it forwards in time, it would be a different property. That's when you write another show entirely, and call it something else. But it wouldn't be Merrily We Roll Along if it went forward in time. Like it or not. I recently saw a production of the opera La Boheme with the order of the acts reversed. Likewise, they should have given the production a completely new title. It wasn't La Boheme. I'm not sure what the hell it was, but it wasn't Boheme. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:57 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Chromolume 06:11 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, I cannot fathom why anyone thinks Merrily would be better moving in chronological order. Think of the ending. If anything would make an audience unsatisfied, that would. I don't think that anything you could put after that, if the idea is that it wouldn't actually end as it starts now (or with the 1980 graduation scene), could possibly be satisfying. If it were positive, it would seem sappy. If it were negative, it would seem depressing and pointless. And, yes, it would cease to be Merrily We Roll Along. As you say, it all goes back to Hart and Kaufman. I put Hart first because the play was his idea. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 07:44 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - AlanScott 06:57 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Years ago I was directing Pinter's BETRAYAL, a play I like quite a bit. As an exercise one day, we ran the scenes in chronological order - what a mess! Everything was obvious, and fake, and pretty awful Pinter knew what he was doing! The interesting thing about the musical MERRILY is that it takes some things from the musical - but leaves the best behind. Kaufman and Hart being MUCH better writers than George Furth, The high school graduation scene (Hills of Tomorrow) was needed because of the , as it turns out, bad idea of casting all 20 somethings - so they had to begin with a scene where they were all playing their own ages, more or less. Then jump forward, then slowly roll back in time. The play MERRILY (with a cast of almost 100) opened with a scene in 1934, at a rich rich party in Long Island, which ends with an argument and a brutal confrontation. Much more powerful than anything in the musical. And the nit goes on like that, scene after scene until the bright beginning where it all started. Walter Abel, one of the stars was 36. The play had a rave review to end all rave reviews in the Times, from Brooks Atkinson. The play was definitely darker than the musical ever has been. And it broke your heart. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:42 am EST 12/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - NewtonUK 07:44 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| The graduation scenes weren't "needed because" of the "bad" idea to cast 20somethings... it is an inherent part of the concept for this musical, and isn't there to justify anything, in fact it is pretty justified on its own terms by how brilliantly it works emotionally and dramatically. It was one of the best, most effective aspects of the original and it's key to why and how the show was written, and it's a damn shame they cut it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:20 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - NewtonUK 07:44 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| I am tempted to comment on several things, but I will just question whether you've seen a production of the revision. I imagine you have. I would not say that the opening scene of the original play is darker than the opening scene (following the title song) of the revised version of the musical. It goes to the exact same place. What do you think is darker about the play? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:11 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Genealley 01:14 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| "Mary is an outline. Charley is small. Gussie has no gift. (orchestra sting) Mary is too bleeding, Charley's a lift, Frank's a blank wet blanket" (orchestra sting) (Or something like that...) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: bmc 01:03 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Chromolume 12:11 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Buried sweetly/...Sweetly Buried.........I've always liked this alternating phrase, Tho I don't really know what it adds.. I especially like the 'Wrong' note on the word Dream in "satisfied enough to DREAM you'" .Without that blue(?) note, the song IMO wouldn't be itself;(( I have no musical training, but i know what i like. Didn't Bernstein advise SJS to get rid of0 the wrong note? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Jack1009 08:50 am EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Genealley 01:14 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| My love for Sondheim and this score is unmatched. However, there is only one way to stage this show. Do it as a concert with little of plot used. Just enjoy the music. Am I alone? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Delvino 09:11 am EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Jack1009 08:50 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Forgive me if this is well-established: does this revival use the 1994 (York and beyond) iteration of the score? Even with other textual adjustments? I'm curious to read in this thread that the role of Charley seems smaller. He has slightly less music in act one, post B'way, which may or may not impact that impression. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:15 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Delvino 09:11 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Without going to the trouble of counting lines, but going to the trouble of looking at the revised script to refresh my memory, I would say that Charley's role is bigger, not smaller, in the revision. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Delvino 11:31 am EST 12/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - AlanScott 07:15 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| He has two of the tentpole numbers, "Franklin Shepard Inc" and "Good Thing Going," as a 2nd act solo since the 1994 (if I got that wrong, someone will correct me). I can't imagine ever considering the role less-than. But though I saw a preview of the original (circa 10/15/81, two days before the new Franklin went in, I believe), I tend to speak of it in terms of the recorded score, on which Charley is prominent. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 12:43 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:42 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Delvino 11:31 am EST 12/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Musically, the balance of solo material (from 1994 on) has changed a little from the original - Frank gets "Growing Up" and Gussie gets 2 reprises of it, plus the diegetic reprise of "Good Thing Going." Beth is added to the wedding version of "Not A Day Goes By." And Charley loses the long held "best thing that ever could have------------------- happened" in "Now You Know." So perhaps it feels as if Charley is used less, comparatively, though musically at least, it's pretty much the same role. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:24 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Chromolume 12:42 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think it is important to mention that Frank loses "Rich and Happy," in which he has a full-song's worth of solo. It's a company number, but Frank's solo is the length of a song. He has only a fraction of that in "That Frank." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 09:23 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:22 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - AlanScott 06:24 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. Good point. (And of course Charley was not in that number at all.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 10:32 am EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Delvino 09:11 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| It definitely uses the 1994 iteration of the score, yes. As for the role of Charley being smaller, it's hard to say without having seen the original version. On the OBCR, however, it seems as though we are given much more information about Frank's life outside of Mary and Charley than we are ever given about theirs without him. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:03 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - TheOtherOne 10:32 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| It definitely uses the 1994 iteration of the score, yes. But with 9 players in the band instead of the 12 originally orchestrated for that version. (Including the synth, which for me, takes away a lot of musical character from "Franklin Shepard, Inc" in particular.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Ann 07:52 am EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Genealley 01:14 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Maybe you just don't like this show. That's ok. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Genealley 11:03 am EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Ann 07:52 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| As I said: I liked the Sondheim festival production. After viewing it, I saw that Michael Hayden was a much more sympathetic Franklin. Esparza was a sturdier Charlie but given much more nuance and the role seemed “bigger”. Shor was a pricklier, more interesting Mary. The choreography and blocking were sharper and more creative. And tempi were brighter. This one seems heavier and way too plodding. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Ann 11:09 am EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Genealley 11:03 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| No, you didn't say you liked the KC production (before). You said you liked Michael Hayden. . | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: writerkev 08:02 am EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Ann 07:52 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| They can’t all be “Diana.” | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:01 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - writerkev 08:02 am EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| They can’t all be “Diana.” Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-men to that! :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| But Diana can do Sondheim!!! | |
| Posted by: Genealley 02:22 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Case Of The Curious MERRILY - Chromolume 12:01 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Jeanna is in the SWEENEY company!!! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I am surprised... | |
| Posted by: peter3053 12:20 am EST 12/18/22 | |
| In reply to: But Diana can do Sondheim!!! - Genealley 02:22 pm EST 12/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| I'm surprised by a couple of the comments in this thread concerning the character of Charley. Other comments about the emotional effect of the piece, or lack thereof, are not new and may be true of a particular production. Personally, I find Merrily as a work deeply truthful to the human condition and the motivations of the characters quite understandable and explicable. I also lament that the show can't be done now with the beautiful framing device of the graduation scenes and the hymn "Behold the Hills of Tomorrow", with its sad irony; but warmly accept other revisions which clarify the chronology, and suit older actors than were present in the original production. (Others who saw that production have sworn how moving it was.) But the suggestion that Charley is a small part is very strange to me. Does Charley not provoke the aggression of Frank when he exposes his own true feelings on TV, and also lament with Mary the loss of their friendship with Frank? Does he not challenge and help dramatise Frank's values in the "Old Friends" scene, and join in its singing? Does this not lead to Frank rationalising his choices to himself in "Growing Up"? Does he not encourage Frank to go on the holiday which inadvertently brings Frank even closer to Gussie, and so join in "Best Thing That Ever Happened?" the big Act One finale? Isn't he with Frank on the night of their first hit, momentarily sucked in to the glamour he later, and earlier, despises (or do I mean earlier and later?) Does he not feel betrayed by Frank just before, ironically, being called on to sing "Good Thing Going"? Is he not part of their revue act? Does he not join in the youthful rounds of "Opening Doors"? Does he not swear to join Frank in his mission to change the world in "Our Time"? When people have commented on the shortness of his part, are they humorously referring to Daniel Radcliffe's stature??? I'm dazed and confused. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am surprised... | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 12:51 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
| In reply to: I am surprised... - peter3053 12:20 am EST 12/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed. Before Growing Up was added, Charley had two solos and Frank had none. He's all over the piece. If anything, more developed than Frank, which is part of the reason I think that audiences struggled with the show. The supporting leads were more developed, musically and in revealing their wants and inner life, than the leading man. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am surprised... | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 01:14 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am surprised... - EvFoDr 12:51 pm EST 12/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| and Frank had none Not so. Frank (with Mary, but much of it Frank) had the wedding version of "Not A Day Goes By" (Beth didn't sing there in the '81 version), and of course for a time he also sang the courthouse version of the song, and he gets that on the recording as well. And of course he had (and still has) solo sections of songs throughout the show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.193108 seconds.