Porgy and Bess is FANTASTIC in previews

[dwperkins]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 9:07am

Just saw it last night and it's amazing. Definitely another Tony for Audra and maybe also for Norm Lewis. The story is tight and very involving. The creative team did a superb job with sets and lighting. Ronald Brown's choreography is amazing, so organic and true to the characters and their emotional life.

LOVED IT! Only complaint was the orchestra is too small by half and poorly amplified so the sound is tinny. Wish they could have had the South Pacific sized orchestra.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 9:23am

Great, but that "only complaint" is pretty major.
With due respect to Lewis, McDonald and Grier, I'm not sure I'd want to see Porgy and Bess with a small, underamplified tinny orchestra even with Paul Robeson, Leontyne Pryce, and Cab Calloway.

[dwperkins]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 9:30am

well the ensemble acting and direction are so tight that you get very involved in the story and are able to forget the orchestra at times believe it or not.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 9:56am

I adored this production, as well. As I said before I went into the show fairly unfamiliar with PORGY & BESS (as a whole) so I was not disappointed in the least. I do think Norm Lewis has no competition come Tony time, however that leading actress category is FAR too crowded this year to call a lock on anyone.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:04am

I saw the performance last night as well, and will second the praise that Ms. McDonald and Mr. Lewis are getting. If your eyes are dry at the end of "Bess You Is My Woman Now" and "I Loves You Porgy" then you have no soul at all.

The rest of the cast is excellent, especially the fine actor playing Jake whose name I just can't remember right now, sorry.

I got the feeling that the sound mix was being worked on, it seemed to fluctuate during the evening. I can't entirely disagree about it sounding rather tinny in places.

But Audra McDonald is a revelation -- one of our greatest actors.

[dwperkins]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:25am

Yes I agree with Roscoe about the intensity of the scenes mentioned. I want to add that the entire acting ensemble is superb and a cohesive unit. I love how the dancing is done by the community and organically flows out of the story. It is SO moving. The choreography is so emotionally true and real as opposed to "professional dancers." Very very affecting.

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:27am

The production is very good. Anyone who says it's the ugliest set they've ever seen--and there are many on this board who have--needs to see more theatre (and opera, the land of the ugly unit set). Audra is indeed revelatory, and the entire cast is pretty uniformly solid (although I didn't care for the woman playing Serena). Lewis really surprised me--nothing I'd seen him do on stage before prepared me for the depth he brought to Porgy. I'd love to see him pick up several awards come spring. Phillip Boykin is everything you'd want in the menacing, terrifying role of Crown.

Audra's "I Loves You, Porgy" is damn near definitive; I'd want them to make a recording just to preserve it.

I'm not a scholar of the work, but I didn't feel that the changes watered down the work in any way. The only thing I found odd is that "Summertime" is now a duet between Clara and Jake--it didn't make a lot of sense, considering that it's supposed to be Clara's lullaby to the baby, with Jake singing his own lullaby ("A Woman is a Sometime Thing") immediately following.

Overall, though, I'd urge everyone to go see the production, even if just for Audra, Norm, and DAG (a first-rate Sportin' Life).

Updated On: 1/5/12 at 11:27 AM

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:29am

I loved Nikki Renee Daniels' "Summertime". She has a beautiful voice.

[newintown]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:33am

I am so sick of the overuse of that word "definitive." There is no such thing, and if there were, no one on this site would have the authority to use it.

Can't you just say you like her version? Why must it be "definitive?"

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:35am

Mea culpa. I should have checked with you first.

[dwperkins]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:38am

You crack me up AC! Great answer!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 11:43am

I've never been the type to believe that the existence of uglier sets out there magically transforms the inside of a wooden tornado into a "superb" piece of work, as OP suggests.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 12:20pm

Lets face it guys the days of huge and lush orchestras on broadway are over and done...at the very least fading fast. But im pretty sure P&B has one of the biggest orchestras on BWAY right now. I didnt think it was tinny. But then again i havent seen many shows with huge orchestras so i have nothing to compare it to other than cd recordings.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 12:24pm

I looked in the pit and was surprised that they had as many people as they did in there. It was pretty crammed. But I do agree the the sound was not as "full" as I expected. Especially after looking in the pit before the show.

[Tony2600]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 12:41pm

By my count, there are twenty-two musicians in the orchestra. That’s about eight less than would be ideal but hardly a tiny orchestra. From where I was sitting, fifth row center orchestra, the music coming out of that pit sounded like it was being broadcast from Madagascar on a crystal radio. Come on guys, this is a beautiful symphonic score by George Gershwin. Audra, Norm and the rest of the cast are sensational in spite of what Acme Sound Partners is doing to sabotage all that excellent work.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 12:44pm

Tony, that's about what I counted also. During the show I was thinking that maybe it was the sound board or something but it should have sounded a bit better (fuller maybe). It was fine though.

Updated On: 1/5/12 at 12:44 PM

[My Oh My]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 1:09pm

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the problem lie in the new orchestration and not adaptation? It's easy to confuse the two.

My understanding is that P&B features new orchestrations unlike any before. That, in itself isn't the problem, it's that the spirit of the piece has been lost and replaced with a less effective one. A lot of you are talking adaptation, which involves taking an orchestration written with a certain number of musicians, instruments, and notes in mind, and adapting it so that it can be performed by a group of either more or less musicians. Most people don't have a problem with adaptation because 9 out of 10 times it closely follows the original orchestration, upholding its integrity. A whole new orchestration discards any semblance of the original and replaces it with something else.

I think what makes this difficult is that, like the issues with Les Mis that I can't seem to shut up about, the new P&B orchestration isn't inherently "bad." It is a valid interpretation and one that effectively steers the piece toward a satisfying direction for most, especially those who are unfamiliar with the original piece.

But to someone who knows the original work well and who have been moved by its musical message and what it tells/offers/infuses the piece with, having that replaced with not only a slimmer number of musicians, but a whole new musical identity that pales next to its intended one AND is touted as an "improvement" over THAT OTHER version, well, it's infuriating.

It's important to understand both sides so that we don't have one side thinking the other are stuffy purists who don't know how to let go, and the other assuming those who love the new version are a bunch of musically illiterate morons with bad musical taste. This clashing is a sad event to witness because both sides are wrong about each other, but absolutely correct and valid in how the newest incarnation personally affects them.

In the end, Ms. Paulus' strategy of undermining the original while elevating her own is at fault and makes people resistant to her vision, when a little bit of respect and mindfulness in considering those who love the original piece would have prevented alienating them.

It doesn't mean everyone would have loved and accepted her alternate take, but it wouldn't be the highly emotional reaction the show is getting. And I'm only strictly talking musically. We all know the production has other problems but I think this is the most important.

It's bad enough that something precious has been lost, throwing in this snotty attitude that it was lost for the better is what burns.

[latitudex1]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 1:53pm

"In the end, Ms. Paulus' strategy of undermining the original while elevating her own is at fault and makes people resistant to her vision, when a little bit of respect and mindfulness in considering those who love the original piece would have prevented alienating them."

If you believe Diane Paulus, the intent was never to improve or replace Gershwin's original work. The intent has always been to streamline and condense for the musical theatre stage and the musical theatre audience. Or, if you're more cynical like I am, to receive royalties for The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess once Porgy and Bess becomes public domain.

I hate using car analogies, but a company like GM will use the same underpinnings for a wide range of vehicles, from coupes to crossovers. However, each vehicle is distinct with its very own market and purpose. Doesn't mean one is better than the other. Well, it's same thing with Porgy and Bess.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 2:46pm

Isn't this what the Gershwin estate wanted, though? Diane is getting a lot of shlt piled on her for essentially doing what she was asked from them, no?

[Tony2600]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 3:17pm

It’s one thing to have the **** piled on Paulus by folks who have seen this production but when it’s shoveled by those on this board like “my oh my” who haven’t even seen it, it’s pretty infuriating.

[dwperkins]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 4:14pm

I think you have to judge it based on whether it works as a piece of musical theater and on that basis YES IT WORKS BEAUTIFULLY. IT is a very emotionally involving evening at the theater with great performances of a masterpiece. Go see it and judge for yourself. You will not be disappointed.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 4:32pm

It is pretty infuriating, Tony, when people don't know what the hell they are talking about and claim I am blasting a production I haven't seen when I'm actually blasting the type of claims and strategies used in marketing this production that I've long disagreed with that have adversely affected other shows I love. If you did not get that I'm wholly understanding of how those who have seen this P&B and loved it could do so, then I'm afraid some reading comprehension remediation is in order.

Speaking of estates and other shows I love, the Hammerstein and Ferber estates also approved of streamlining their classic Show Boat so that more theatre companies could produce it. While Signature Theatre's production attempted to prove it could be done economically and on an intimate scale, the Hammerstein and Ferber estates as well as its director's strategy left much to be desired and invited criticism while alienating fans of the piece like myself. The New York Times wrote a piece on the effects of their decisions with some contradicting quotes from the estates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/theater/10showboat.html


I did not see it but some people whose opinions I trust thought it was wonderful. I have an audio of it and am happy to report Mr. Tunick indeed adapted the massive orchestration beautifully, respecting its integrity. The cast sounded fantastic as well. However, according to some reviews, the staging was ineffective due to the director's belief the show was never about people but was mostly "pageantry." This made for a misguided fixing of what wasn't broken and the manner in which he spoke of the original was very similar to the way Ms. Paulus spoke about P&B. The director's "No-BOAT!," as he called it, made all sorts of pretentious claims that were never met. Here's one opinion in the Washington Times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111804009.html

I don't agree that the show NEEDS to be lavish. The heart and soul of any show is in its music and Signature did a fine job on that front. However, I do believe the director's overreaching vision got in the way and probably stunted a lot of the show's potential. When one resists what works because they feel they can somehow magically reinvent it, you're making yourself bigger than the work itself. Does this mean Signature's version was no good? Of course not. But I don't see why celebrating the original and producing an intimate version in its honor was never an option. This juvenile putting down of productions past in order to force a supposed "rebirth" of an old classic is as tiring as it is unclever, especially when the groundbreaking "improvements" are only in the imaginations of those genius directors who are mostly interested in celebrating themselves.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 6:47pm

>> Anyone who says it's the ugliest set they've ever seen--and there are many on this board who have--needs to see more theatre

I wouldnt say it's the ugliest I've ever seen, but I'd definitely put it in the top 10. It was bewildering in concept and "unfortunate" in execution.

Having not seen the production, I can only say that, insofar as the orchestrations of this or any other show of its nature are concerned, perhaps it's time the musicians union re-think its adamant policy against electronic augmentation. I realize that this opens the door to abuse by producers (heck, what doesnt these days?), but it's about the only way you're ever gonna hear this score performed the way Gershwin intended.

[DAME]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 6:54pm

Loved it. Was completely absorbed. It took me somewhere else. Cant recommend it enough.

[temms]

Posted: 1/5/12 at 7:17pm

My Oh My, thank you for your intelligent thoughts. I saw "P&B" the other night and could not get past the musical deficiencies. Between the sound system, the rearrangements, the reduction, and some iffy playing (the night I saw it, at least) it was a major disappointment.

It is exactly as you say - if you don't know "Boat That's Leavin'" in the original version, you'd probably have no problem with David Alan Grier's perfectly fine performance of it coming at the end of a well-acted presentation of a good play. But when you know what Gershwin intended with those chugging bass lines and shifts from straight-eighths to swung-eighths even within the same bar and to hear it all mushed up...

We all go to the theatre for different reasons. We're all moved by different things. For me, the music is my way in. I fall in love with characters by the music that comes out of their mouths; other people respond to the drama, others to performers. I think we all (I'm suddenly sounding syrupy) kind of want to fall in love with the people onstage in some way. The characters in "Porgy" are so vivid in my mind from the way they're presented musically, the way the entire piece ebbs and flows driven by the sounds that are coming from the pit and from the singers. And I'm not sure there's really any piece of musical theatre that does it better than P&B.

And so it really is kind of heartbreaking to some of us. Write it off as bitchy or elitist or whatever you want, but it's sincere. I never wish for people to have a bad time at the theatre, so I'm honestly heartened that people are finding the piece effective even if I can't get past the musical hash that's been made of it. The singers don't fit with the orchestra the way they can. I felt like they were at odds with each other.

I've been spending more at more evenings at Lincoln Center hearing things with unamplified, full orchestras and I'm finding that Broadway just can't offer me the same kind of satisfying experience. It used to, and it makes me sad that it doesn't. Maybe it's me that's changed, but I have to say that I left P&B very discouraged, and I did not enjoy not enjoying it at all.