I do not think this show belongs on Broadway. It’s too small, to begin with. For all intents and purposes, it’s a 2-person show...plus the child. The father-in-law doesn’t sing (this is a musical, after all), and the AA sponsor never seemed to speak more than a line or two at a time.
But it’s also dated. Our understanding of – and pop culture’s portrayal of – alcoholism has evolved tremendously since 1960. We now know that you don’t have to be sitting around drinking all day, every day, to be an alcoholic, and that there are functional alcoholics, who still have jobs and go about their lives, etc. And a woman could be an alcoholic without ending up turning tricks in a sleazy hotel. The original movie is from a time before it was widely recognized that there could be a reason other than substance abuse for a married woman to sleep with a man who’s not her husband.
(I would hope this goes without saying, but I am not defending people cheating on their spouses; I’m just pointing out that this material dates from a time when most pop culture did not acknowledge that women might have sex because of actual desire. In 'Days of Wine and Roses' the wife has the story arc she does because that was the worst thing she could do, seeing as no "normal" woman would ever do such a thing...)
Whatever lyricism, etc. you think this show has, it revolves around a portrayal that's out of touch and heavy-handed. Kelli O'Hara's pretty singing is NOT enough, contrary to what many people seem to think. It's enough to go see her in concert, but not enough to justify a Broadway musical.
Also, except for that soft-shoe-type number, the songs all seem the same – same tempo, same staging, etc. I don’t think that works for most Broadway audiences. It’s a chamber musical for certain type of theatergoer – much too limited in appeal, as far as I’m concerned, for Broadway. |
