Scarywarhol said: "I keep finding in recent seasons that people (and often the artists themselves) are quick to call criticisms of a minimalist or radically overhauled production "traditionalist," like the dissenters are automatically a bunch of unimaginative stuffy old museum curators. It's often a very easy way to dismiss any notion that the take actually doesn't work.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, and also sorry if I wasn't clear.
kdogg36 said: "I'm wondering if maybe our differing reactions to this production correlate closely with our previous engagement with Pacific Overtures. I maintain that it was a very compelling piece of theater, but I can see why others would be quite bothered by the cuts and the stylistic changes."
Absolutely. I have actually always thought a version of that rings true of experiences with him in general. His Company was my f
Yeah, I overheard some unahppy people. I suppose advertising it differently could've been useful, but in CSC's defense, they have sent numerous e-mails (and send you more if you have tickets) that clearly state it's 100 minutes with no intermission. If you know the show well enough to be like, irate about changes to the libretto, then "100 minutes, no intermission" should probably tip you off that it's different. (Or maybe people just don't read.)
I saw it. I enjoyed it. I don't know Pacific Overtures very well (although I had seen it before this production), and it's a show that I struggle to have affection for the way I do the rest of Sondheim's work, both emotionally and intellectually. I think it's a challenging show that has some great moments, and is really really smart. I think there are bits in this production that could stand to be cleared up through their preview process, and have every reason to believe they
I tried it on a weekday before the holiday, which I think was spring break for a lot of places. Arrived at about a quarter of ten and there were 6 or 7 people ahead of me. I think only the first two people in line actually got rush tickets. The rest of us were told that there were a handful of seats left for the performance, but they were all full price, and that there would be standing room if/when the show sold out. I got SRO about two hours before the show. Maybe I had an unusual experienc
I mean I'd argue that Road Show was still kind of a work in progress when John took it on. And isn't the consensus that The Visit was never really "finished" either? Maybe I am mis-remembering on that one. The only thing he removed from Company was Tick Tock, which is neither imperative nor in every production. Sweeney was intact too. I did not see Passion.
I did this a few times when I was a young'un and was never told it was (or responded to in any way that would suggest it was) egregious in any way. The stage door attendants were always very friendly to me, and because I was polite and not demanding, they were happy to help. I can't remember what my reasoning was, since I lived in NYC and saw shows all the time, but the most vivid memory I have of doing this was when Raul Esparza was doing Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and I had a par
Maybe! That's not great, but I'm grateful for any kind of explanation, honestly -- it was just so weird to me. I spent the whole night being like, "... aren't they required to tell you?" But if I just didn't see the digital board, oh well for me, I guess.
I'd have assumed it accidentally fell out if my entire group hadn't been without inserts, as well. They didn't accidentally fall out for all of us. It's possible we just got an unstuffed batch. Which shouldn't happen, but it's not the end of the world. I was just so confused.
I didn't mean New York Hamilton standards, although I know shows that Jeffrey Seller produces usually do the full-cast inserts for every performance and not just the &quo
WHERE?! I didn't notice it walking in, but then I went looking everywhere at intermission, and again after the show was over. Is it possible they only show the cast while people are entering and then the screen changes to something else since it's digital? I'm so curious about this newfangled thing, haha.
I'm not necessarily frustrated by the presence of understudies on stage, but I AM frustrated by what I feel like was a lack of information about who was performing. Maybe this is just ignorance on my part because I'm used to New York procedures, but I figured Broadway in Chicago would have the same standards? I went on the night of March 29th, and we had at least one understudy, I think two, but there was not a single visible or audible thing alerting us to this fact. No Playbill inse
I've had so many people tell me they didn't think I would like this show, so I never bothered to see it until now. I went to see Adam, but I thought the show was delightful. Had a good time, laughed a LOT. Obviously I exist in my own world of bias when it comes to Adam, but I thought he was great. The part fits him well, and for whatever it's worth, I thought he was hysterical. I have always thought he is funnier than a lot of people give him credit for. I'm happy he's going on tour, because
I saw it this weekend. I've only seen the movie once and it wasn't terribly recently, but from what I remember the script is pretty similar to the screenplay. Which left me sort of indifferent, I didn't need a lot of change and it didn't bother me, maybe because I'm not that attached to the material. It felt, somehow, a little thinner than the movie, but I'm having trouble detailing how in much of a useful way. I did think it was beautifully directed and, well, very Jo
At first I was like "mrrrr, no," but then I gave it some thought and I think it could actually bring something really valuable and interesting to the show. I'm down. I'll be super curious about more details of the changes as they emerge!