Miss Saigon is a problematic show which engages in stereotypes and the male gaze, but this article does a terrible job at explaining why and would not have convinced me had I not already agreed with the main argument. I remember in Nicholas Hytner's fantastic memoir Balancing Acts, he described how the musical's opening sequence only condemns the misogynistic behavior of the male characters after completely reveling in it for the first ten minutes
I haven't read anywhere that there will be an alternate for the role, did I miss something? It's not like the role is particularly taxing to sing, and it's not like Groff is some pampered movie star who's never done 8 shows a week before. Has there been an announcement or are you making an assumption?
^^I'm deeply curious about what that original ending was... when I saw it last week, there was nothing strange about the ending.
I have to say, Marian's singing was not very good, and that really ruined a lot of the evening for me. She had no power or control, especially in the high range. Other than her, I mostly really enjoyed the production and would recommend it to anyone who can get an affordable seat.
I was surprised to find very few of Mary Zimmerman's tricks
I hope they paid particularly close attention to the line about money being like manure in that it's not worth anything unless it's spread around, encouraging young things to grow. There's a lot they could have learned from this show, though I doubt they did.
It's impressively executed, but not in any way that tells a story. Yes, choreography in musicals must tell a story. To use examples mentioned in this thread, Turkey Lurkey Time tells the audience that people are having drinks and letting loose at the office Christmas party. Too Darn Hot tells the story that the dancers want to have a good time but can't because it's too darn hot. Are either situation particularly dramatically compelling? No, but the dancing tells the audience some
Joanie2 said: "Some theaters tell you when gunshots are used in a production but they never tell you when. I understand that "when"might reveal spoilersbut it doesn't help those of us with loud noise sensitivity. I often cannot see anything with a noise warning. Thank you for your help. It is greatly appreciated by me and many others."
Often, if you talk to a house manager or usher and bring up your concerns, they can give you more detailed information.
To me, the craziest part of this story was that the Times article that broke the news said yesterday that the production planned to announce the casting Sunday via a NYT advertisement and they declined to comment (the article now says they confirmed the casting on Friday [today]). It read to me like someone in Rudin's office submitted the ad without an NDA or embargo agreement, and the Times used that opportunity to break it as news, right? I can only imagine what went down in Rudin's
Vanessa Redgrave did the show in its world premiere at Hartford Stage early last year--I don't see why she wouldn't do it on Broadway if she could do it in Hartford. Plus, there's the meta aspect of the play being based on Howard's End and the fact that she was in the film.
ETA: My mistake--while the play was commissioned by Hartford Stage, that company did not produce the play.
I wouldn't say there were a few anachronisms, as it was clear to me that the whole production was set today. The costumes all felt modern, though mostly not distractingly so (apart from one character's bright red sneakers). Thankfully, they didn't have cell phones to drive this point in your face like you might see in a lot of modern-dress productions.
I found it to be a pretty middling production worth it only for the production values the Lyric could provide. Maria had a gorgeous voice, but her acting was embarrassingly amateur. Tony was a good actor but his singing was far too contemporary--he punched the consonants, preventing him from letting any line feel legato, and he even sang some incorrect notes. Anita was a great dancer but a sub-par singer and actor. Yes, it's great to hear the score played by 43 musicians, but at least at
Well, it was a very subdued and slow-moving production. Tempos were very slow, and many scenes had very long pauses. Lots of transitions happening in blackout. Some moments of real human connection, and a more naturalistic take (the set was far less abstract and much more of an actual house than the broadway production) made it worthwhile, but there were a lot of rough spots. It was also the least funny production I've seen. Too many emotional moments were staged far upstage, and actors w
I worked on a small production of the revised version a couple of years ago. Aside from a couple new songs, the main difference is that it's just a little tighter and more confident. The book isn't perfect yet, but it's solid enough that the show can really work. From what I remember, the problems in the original production seemed to primarily stem from the gargantuan design--they were trying to put a big, colorful, dazzling Almodovar film on the stage, and the story really got lo
This is probably not the most helpful answer, but the thing that finally made me "get" Chekhov was reading his work in the original Russian.
Assuming learning a new language is out of the question, I am partial to Curt Columbus's translations. His translations capture the bluntness of the characters and the directness of the language. The most important thing is to avoid the "translations" by non-Russian-speaking playwrights who freely adapt literal translations
So they took a risk that didn't pay off. That shouldn't completely turn you off from a company that has continually produced excellent work and has in recent years demonstrated efforts to challenge their subscriber base. Like any longstanding institution, they've produced some sublime theatre and some truly atrocious theatre... it's all part of the game. You can rest assured that this theatre probably won't be hiring that director again.
Thank you for all the helpful input coming so quickly, everyone! Especially your details 52889j!
I will add that the reason I'm not interested in Hadestown is that I listened to the off-Broadway album and did not like the writing. I'm not just making some assumptions based on what I understand the show to be, I gave the material a chance, and it didn't do much for me. I've listened to other songs since then and watched their Today Show performance, along with t
Making a last-minute trip to New York in a week. I already have tickets for My Fair Lady, and I plan to rush What The Constitution Means to Me, leaving me with three more slots available. I've followed these boards long enough to know that these threads often just become fans shilling out their favorite shows, so I'm going to provide a little context for the shows I'm considering:
ALL MY SONS - I love the play and these actors, but from what I've read, it seems lik
I've heard great things about Porchlight's A Chorus Line and Shattered Globe's Hannah and Martin. I'm looking forward to Firebrand's Queen of the Mist as well as Ms. Blakk for President at Steppenwolf. For something completely different, Windy City Playhouse is running two very solid productions right now--Noises Off and an immersive play called Southern Gothic, now in its second
I understand the anti-Scott Rudin narrative, the winner of the Best Play award who gets to make the speech, generally, is the playwright. It's crazy that Aaron Sorkin this far along in his career has never been Tony nominated. Especially considering most film and TV critics seem to think of him as a playwright first.
I thought that The Cher Show would get more love this morning, and I expected less from Beetlejuice and Ain't Too Proud. Interesting that they nominated 5 Play Rev
