Doyle's MERRILY.- Page 2
Doyle's MERRILY.
#25Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 10:06am
Understood, but the point I'm trying to make is that it's an exploration that is limited by nature, and has already been explored thoroughly.
At this point (to me), it feels less like exploration (in Doyle's hands) than a mask to cover lack of inspiration.
In Doyle's hands, it also (again, to me) tends to upstage the piece and make it about Doyle and the gimmick, rather than about the work itself.
In answer to your question "if someone who has spent their career specializing in a specific theatrical concept is hired to direct a production in just that style, where is the harm in that" - I think that's a different conversation entirely. I'm not sure if "harm" is being discussed. Nor is anyone calling for a law against Doyle's gimmick. People are merely expressing a valid, informed reaction to what they see.
Updated On: 3/9/12 at 10:06 AM
#26Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 10:21am
I understand that qualm, but in truth Doyle does direct a large number of productions that don't employ the concept, so even if those productions can be argued to lack directorial inspiration, we can't really say that Doyle is simply employing the musician/actor concept to cover for his insecurity about directing a traditionally staged production.
I also tend to agree that the actor/musician concept does tend to often upstage the piece itself, but, pretty much without exception, the works he is directing in the style are all 'classic' pieces that have been staged countless times already in traditional settings (this even holds true for MERRILY).
Though I sometimes think the concept is ultimately distracting (and even maddening) it is true nonetheless that I almost always go away finding some moment of genius or new insight into the material when I see one of the actor/musician stagings, so I can't argue that its not (even when its not to my tastes) a worthy exercise, especially for a regional theatre. I applaud Cincinnati Playhouse, in fact, for continually picking material and directors who (as in this case) are getting them nation wide attention.
You and I may roll our eyes at it being 'another John Doyle staging,' but for the theatre its a smart move and I don't think we should necessarily damn John Doyle for taking the pay check to give a regional theatre 'another' pretty unconventional and potentially risky production.
iluvtheatertrash
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/9/04
#27Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 10:43am
I adored his COMPANY. Saw it 13 times. But I found SWEENEY cold and perplexing.
If this came in, I'd be in heaven. With so many people from the COMPANY cast reuniting, and this wonderful score - I'd love it. That Enocres! production was a snore.
"I know now that theatre saved my life." - Susan Stroman
CurtainCall
Understudy Joined: 4/1/11
#28Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 11:07am
As someone who was first introduced to theatre through actor-musician productions and ceilidh theatre over 45 years ago - and subsequently through performing in countless (non-Doyle) productions, I'm at a loss to understand why this is such a bone of contention, it's just a way of performing a play. You wouldn't suggest that we stop traditional musical performing because it's all been explored before - whatever the hell that means - you just get on and use it again, if it works for you.
Sometimes the results are successful, sometime not - just as with conventional theatre.
#29Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 11:14amAgain - the objections aren't to the gimmick itself. It's merely that some feel that Doyle relies upon the gimmick because he has no other ideas. And that his work sans gimmick is generally bland.
Brick
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/21/06
#30Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 11:21am
Michael Bennett, you are the voice of reason, as always.
I think it's easy to throw the word gimmick around, but it isn't one if he has directed - and continues to direct - dozens of productions without it. Now, if you don't like those productions, nor the actor-musicians ones, then fine.
I, personally, find them to be revelatory, if varying in their degree of imagination and surprise.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
#31Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 11:23am
Doyle is just flat out awful at taking a show and imparting it to an audience. His gimmick is interesting but does it help in any way to tell the story? As a concept for Company (Everyone plays an instrument but Bobby, who in the climax, finds his instrument) sounded interesting on paper but in production? It made zero sense.
And the Sweeney was awful awful awful. If you did not know that show backwards and forwards going in you were baffled and if you did know it, you knew how much of the suspense and drama was lost by a staging that somehow never made clear who was speaking to whom. Not to mention that the central conceit (Toby is telling the story) is deeply flawed by the fact Toby didn't experience many of the events he's supposed to be telling us about.
I should just avert my eyes whenever I see anything about Doyle. His career irritates and frustrates me.
#32Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 11:24amWhat of course we really need is an actor/musician concept production of CARRIE.
#34Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 11:59amBased on the clips I just saw, I am so glad I saw the Encores! production. (Which I loved). I really enjoyed his Sweeney and Company but this production doesn't look like one I would run to see.
Just give the world Love.
#35Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 12:01pmuncaged . . completely agree. I really liked Sweeney and Company but think Merrily looks and sounds AWFUL!
". . . POP . . ."
wonkit
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/30/08
#36Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 12:25pmAnd having seen Encores! and the clip from Cincinnati, I love the Doyle version. I thought the Encores! cast was underwhelming, and the staging kind of awkward. With Doyle, the one thing you get is the words coming through. And this looks like a talented and highly individual casting of the three leads. I got chills. All I got from Encores! was a sense of bewilderment.
#37Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 12:36pm
The problem I have with the actor-musician shows I've seen of Doyle's (SWEENEY and COMPANY) is that I generally walk away feeling that the cast is spectacularly talented, but that I gained no new insight into the shows. SWEENEY drove me nuts because I actually thought it wasn't daring enough in f*cking with the show (that final Ballad of Sweeney Todd should have been CUT!) and Company felt like some sort of meaningful weight was being put upon a show that needs a lighter touch. When I finally got to see the NPH Company, I was so relieved to see it be funny AND moving without all the tsuris and alcoholism.
#38Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 3:33pm
I saw Merrily at Playhouse last Sunday. Aside from listening to the OBC I have very little experience with the show, so I am not sure if some of the flaws in this production are just because of the production or because of the show itself. Here are my thoughts.
I was a big fan of Doyle's Sweeney and Company. I thought they were beautiful interpretations of the piece. I will agree with the complaint though that Doyle's style of direction (both with the instruments and non-instruments) is not always conducive to telling a story. However, I did not think the actor-musician concept worked with this Merrily at all. And I think the reason I did not like it this time is because Doyle did not have an overall concept that united the show. With Sweeney it was the aslyum and Company it was the party. These overlying concepts created a world that made all of his choices make sense. Since there was no uniting thing Merrily, the instruments did not make sense or add anything to the show.
Also I felt the production lacked any sense of emotion or tension. I did not feel any dramatic arch nor was I invested in the journey of these characters. I don't know if that is because Doyle's direction did not bring it out or because that is a problem with the show.
One unique choice that was in place for this production was that there was a young man sitting downstage observing the action. Occasionally he would be part of the scene either as Frank's son or as a young Franklin Shepard watching what his life had become. I found this choice to be irritating and distracting myself, but it was still one of the more notable things about the production.
The cast was mediocre at best. The one standout was Leenya Rideout at Gussie. Of all the actors, I felt that she was the only who nailed the change in her character from scene to scene. Her progression was beautiful and had the arch that the show lacked.
Malcolm Gets was adequate as Franklin. He sang fairly well, but did not really bring much to the show. Becky Ann Baker was disastrously bad in the opening scene but slowly improved as the show went. Of the three leads, she was the only who tried to capture any sense of change (with varying degrees of success). However, vocally she was one of the weakest (in a cast that, as a whole, struggled vocally). She started the show okay, but by Our Time, she was barely producing sounds and what she did produce was not good. I also did not like Daniel Jenkins at all. His Charlie was forgettable at best and grating at worst.
Does the show usually have an intermission? If so, where is it placed? I think it is funny that this production is does not have one especially since when I saw it, at least six people got up and left during the show.
In spite of all my complaints, I'm still really happy to have had the chance to see it. It was an interesting production of a fascinating show, that I probably won't have many opportunities to see. I have tickets again for this coming Sunday and I'm excited to see how I like it the second time.
#40Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 5:56pm
MisterSnow89, thanks for the review.
I'm curious about the set and the boy who watches the show from the sidelines and occasionally participates.
The set (yes, very blue along with the costumes), seems like sheet music pages in stacks, etc. Am I seeing it wrong in the photos? Is this some sort of failed concept?
You talk about the asylum for Sweeney and the party for Company. Does the blue sheet music pages and the younger man on the side equal some sort of "play within the mind" that isn't coming across at all?
I can't figure it out. It obviously didn't read clearly enough as a concept for you when you saw it.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#41Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 6:18pm
Tackling a bunch of different things in this post, bear with me. b12b, answers to your questions on the bottom.
it's always going to be flawed where the other two have been deemed "classics" if you will.
Well, yeah. That was exactly my point. Company and Sweeney are so strong, on multiple levels, that there's more for such conceptual storytelling to grab onto with them than there is in Merrily. There were moments in Merrily where it clicked really strongly, in ways very similar to things we saw in Company and Sweeney, but overall, I don't think there's enough for it to latch onto as fully and as, like I said before, vitally, as it was able to for the other two.
Interesting that Leenya Rideout's got the bass. If I remember correctly she played it in Company, too.
A lot of these actors (from all three of the shows) are actually also very highly trained instrumentalists, too (and a lot of them have instrumental performance degrees), so in many cases, it's not like they were just arbitrarily assigned instruments. (Not to say some didn't learn new things, they did.) It's totally no surprise that she's playing bass again, or that Fred is playing cello again, or that Matt Castle (also the music director for Merrily) is playing piano, etc.
I don't know Merrily well enough to know which version it was, but it's an hour and forty five minutes, no intermission. My friend who knows it better said that most of what was cut was transitional material.
I'm not going to get engaged in whether it's a gimmick or whether it works or whether it's stupid because everybody knows how I feel, and if you don't, do a search for my posts re: Sweeney and Company circa 2006 and 2007. It benefits nobody to re-hash the arguments, BUT, in the interest of factual accuracy, two things:
To my knowledge, Doyle's theater company in the UK didn't necessarily exist for the express purpose of actor-musician shows, though he did a significant amount of work using it way before his production of Sweeney, for which it was, in part, a financial necessity. I have read just about every interview the man has ever given, and he has never said or suggested that he's invented or pioneered this way of storytelling -- he just happened to go high profile with it when Sweeney took off.
To say that Doyle continually employs this concept because he has no other ideas is willfully ignoring the significant amount of work (whether you like that work or not is irrelevant to the numbers) he has done without it. And, I think it's only fair to remember that Company and Merrily were both commissioned; Cincinnati sought him out to do these productions specifically. If I remember the story correctly, after Sweeney, Cincinnati asked him to direct another Sondheim show that same way and let him pick which one. I don't know how Merrily came about exactly other than that he had done it before and was not completely satisfied with the result, and that Ed Stern, the Cincinnati Playhouse Artistic Director, is leaving this year and asked Doyle to come back and do one more as part of his final season.
Moving on.
In terms of the issue of sex, I agree about the tension and the sensuality between Anthony and Johanna in Doyle's Sweeney, absolutely. I think that's a good point, and made even stronger by whoever mentioned the fact that they both play cello, and where the cello sits on the musician's body. That's actually not something I had ever thought of before.
I studied Company for years, though, so I think I am definitely better equipped to speak to that. I think it's important to remember that Sondheim is so much about disconnection and failure to connect, and that was definitely tremendously emphasized in the Doyle production. I tend to think of the Bobby/April sex scene in his production as an echo of the karate scene in the first act -- a married couple goofing around together, doing something that's about physical contact, and not touching. That's why the clothed sex scene always worked for me. Was it as "obviously" raw and sexually charged as everybody taking off their clothes? (Which they did actually try in rehearsals.) No. But, I think, in a much more cerebral, conceptual way, the way Doyle chose to stage it says the exact same thing about who Bobby is as would a Bobby who hastily removes all of his clothes without listening to a word the girl says. It's as someone else said, not love-making. It's disinterested, disconnected, careless sex. The fact that the staging put a literal physical barrier to the intimacy of it completely emphasized that.
Anyway, more on Merrily.
The set (yes, very blue along with the costumes), seems like sheet music pages in stacks, etc. Am I seeing it wrong in the photos? Is this some sort of failed concept?
Yes, it's stacks of paper, presumably sheet music, and some like... banker's boxes or something. The boxes were sometimes used sort of like the cubes were in Company, but they also had more paper in them. By the end, there's paper in places it wasn't at the beginning.
I'm curious about the set and the boy who watches the show from the sidelines and occasionally participates.
I actually really loved what they did with that. That's Frank's son (in a blue Juilliard t-shirt, if you can't see it in the photos). I think -- and this is coming from a fairly un-educated-about-Merrily perspective -- that this production really made the show Frank's show, and went for the focus on father/son imagery to go hand-in-hand with past/future tensions, etc. Youth is about promise; and so by the end of the show, that particular future is totally hanging over what we see.
I too have been toying with whether he's only Frank's son or also becomes an image of a younger Frank and it's actually both. I'm still on the fence, and sometimes wonder if it should have been clearer, but I like that it can be seen in multiple ways.
I'm not much one for "reviewing" anymore these days, but if people have specific questions I can try to answer them, though my Internet time is super limited these days.
#42Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 6:30pm
At 1:45, they must have cut more than just the transitions.
Without the transitions, how did they regress in time?
#43Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 6:31pmNo no no, sorry, that was unclear. They HAD the transitions, but maybe not all of them, or maybe they cut them short? Again, I don't know, just repeating what my friend told me. I had never seen it on stage before. I can ask her if you're interested.
#44Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 6:45pmThanks for the detailed answers, luv!
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#47Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 7:26pmI had not seen that. Thanks.
#48Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 8:09pmJust watched the video, which I'm sure is not a complete representation, but I don't really like what I see. I didn't see Sweeney, but I thought Company was sleek and sophisticated. This just looks garish with all the blue. Also, two questions for anyone who's seen it - How is Franklin Shepard Inc staged? And how well do the backwards transitions work, especially with older leads and (I assume) no costume changes?
I know you.
I know you.
I know you.
#49Doyle's MERRILY.
Posted: 3/9/12 at 8:45pm
Were these video clips posted yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYVPy_d5wWI&list=UU1MIypF1CqevUorqhILzB6g&index=1&feature=plcp