Drowsy Chaperone SPOILERS thread...- Page 2

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:20pm

Looks like a fun group in attendance!

[loridunn]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 2:19pm

I loved the show. I don't think I have laughed that hard at just one person at any show. Man In Chair was too adorable and had me after his opening monologue (though we couldn't see him). I agree that Sutton should have another big number and I also think thta Trix should. It wouldn't workfor the plot, but she has such power! I was also at the show with the wedding but I hadn't seen this post so I started one called REAL WEDDING. So if any of you care to know what happened it's there. Anyways I loved the show and was extremely happy to see Sutton perform (those 1 handed cartwheels - Amazing). I was more surprised at how she didn't seem fazed by her arm than those cartwheels though. Needless to say I am hopefully going again!

I really enjoyed it but I was wondering how many of you had people around you/friends that did not enjoy it? My friend did not. The second Man in Chair started speaking I knew she was underwhelmed and she stayed that way for the rest of the evening. She was looking for a straight musical. Obviously this show is not that but I still think it was wonderful. She loathed the entire piece with "monkey" references, from Sutton first song through the ballet. Any time they even mentioned monkey after that she had this "Not Agiain" look on her face.
Well I was just wondering how many others thought this way. It seems that more like it but I was still wondering.

Oh and Man In The Chair, could totally get a tony for his performance. He was amazing! But I read that they may not get to Broadway until after spring. Any truth?

Posted: 11/23/05 at 2:38pm

I think that it's either lack of funds or there's no theater readily available. Boy, I would love to invest in this show...anyone know if they sell "shares" in musicals anymore?

[eslgr8]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 2:53pm

Sounds like your friend is a real curmudgeon. Then again so was the reviewer for the Hollywood Reporter, who found it just one extended sketch. Bah humbug to him! Everyone I've talked to loved the play, even those who are hard to please. The applause last night was tumultuous and the standing ovation virtually unanimous. All that being said, this message board has shown again and again that no matter how loved a show is, there will be some who hate it, and vice versa.

PS: Sutton's one-armed cartwheels are worth a Tony themselves!

Posted: 11/23/05 at 3:00pm

Now, don't be too down on the board...it's a free forum. I'm one of the few who really was let down by the filmed version of "Rent", so....

I would say not to be too concerned with someone else's enjoyment of theater at the expense of your own. I have a few friends who are always watching me during a night at the theater to see my reaction, usually if I am crying (which I tend to do if the piece warrants it)...it's kinda annoying....as if they are looking to me and my reaction as a gauge of their own, instead of taking it in and forming their own opinion.

Sorry your friend didn't 'get it'...

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 4:53pm

I don't think there has ever been a show in the history of mankind that hasn't had someone somewhere that didn't like it. It's just not realistic. People of all walks of life attend theatre, and successful and highly praised shows couldn't possibly reach out to everyone the same way.

I think your friend had a bad time, and that's unfortunate. I'm glad and relieved that the majority of the audiences so far seem to love the show and embrace the innovative concept. It makes me very happy.

There will be others I'm sure that either don't like it or don't get it. It's bound to happen. Looking at the broader picture of responses so far, I think it's safe to say your friend is in the minority on this one. Still she has her opinion... and so be it! She is entitled to it.

On another thought... I doubt after the Los Angeles run that they will be lacking any funds. If they need backers, they came to the right town with the right show.

But I think finding an open theatre on Broadway is already a problem. I hope things work out and New York can see this show soon. Also, the longer it stays out of town, the more risk you run in losing some of these amazing cast members to other jobs. Life goes on, as they say. I'm sure it will get to Broadway as fast has humanly possible now. However long that takes.

As far as another number for Sutton, as much as I LOVED her in this show... I think it would be a mistake. It would throw the focus of the show off from the Man in the Chair, and I think it would trip up the show's momentum as well. She has the Monkey song, after all. Need anyone want for more after that?

Honestly, she knocked me out. They could have added more songs for Sutton, "Rodolfo" and "Drowsy" and I would have sat there all night. Let's make it a 4-hour musical! Leave 'em wanting less!

I say, "leave 'em wanting more," and leave the show as is. The show ain't broke, so why fix it?

Posted: 11/23/05 at 6:18pm

I was talking with someone about DROWSY, and he was not sure he was going to see it, saying, "I hear it's nothing but a pastiche....."

Uggh

[eslgr8]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 6:45pm

Backup, you're lucky to be able to tune out the person next to you. I guess that's one reason I can enjoy seeing things by myself. I can't help but notice my companion's reaction, and many times my enjoyment has been spoiled by the person next to me's obviously not liking what he/she was seeing. By the way, if you check metacritic.com, you'll see that Rent review run the gamut, from all out raves to extremely negative. Sometimes it's hard to believe that two people with such different opinions can have seen the same show!
And yes, much as it might make commercial sense to add another number for Sutton, she is hardly the only outstanding performance what is and should remain an ensemble show. Let's not upset the delicate balance that makes Drowsy work so well.
Updated On: 11/23/05 at 06:45 PM

[steveshack]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 9:25pm

I met two people that night who didn't like it. One was an older woman who just looked puzzled. Her response was, "I didn't get it." And another was a playwright friend who said, "Why didn't they just do 'Dames At Sea?'" Clearly, he just did not get it.

I have a feeling that, because the show within the show is a spoof, those people who don't like spoofs aren't going to get it. The Hollywood Reporter guy missed it entirely. This show is NOT a show celebrating old musicals. It's a show, as Sharon Perlmutter said on TB, a show celebrating those who love musicals.

This show is about the Man In Chair and if you don't like him or get him, then you probably won't get the show. Also, I know people who hate anything that isn't cynical or hard or mean. This show is so endearing and so sweet, so uncynical, so gentle, that it's just not going to appeal to people who can't relate to that.

We had that problem, sometimes, with The Last Session. It just didn't have a mean bone in its body -- and there are some people who cannot abide that. For them, the world is a mean place and they want to see that POV reflected on stage. They distrust kindness.
Updated On: 11/23/05 at 09:25 PM

[loridunn]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 9:37pm

Thanks everybody. I'm glad to hear you all liked it and yes I agree the show is great and shouldn't be changed. I just got carried away with Sutton and Trix love. The Man In The Chair is too adorable and I really hope that Broadway accepts this show because it is amazing! Anyways thank-you for your help and feedback.

Posted: 11/24/05 at 12:37am

This would make the perfect Christmas present for any fan of the theater...wonder if it will be extended..it's scheduled to close Christmas Eve

Posted: 11/24/05 at 2:46am

saw the show on the 22nd and LOVED it. i was there for the wedding too. i was completely waiting for them to be like "JUST KIDDING" but then they never did, and me and my friend were like, "is this actually real?", and bob martin getting certified on the internet, omg, soo funny. he is just, amazing!!!! and after the show we went to the stage door and asked for the brides autograph-ha- and then this woman from the NY times interviewed us. it was a good night.

[eslgr8]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 3:28am

Nothing has been posted about the fact that there's no intermission, and why, so I'll jot down my thoughts.

More and more shows these days seem to be long one-acts (around 90 minutes), usually because (I suppose) they're too short to need an intermission. LaChiusa's The Wild Party (the OTHER great musical currently in L.A.) runs two hours plus without an intermission, to maintain the intensity, which would be spoiled with a mid-party break.

But in the case of the Drowsy Chaperone, the lack of an intermission is quite deliberate and brilliant. The show within the show has an intermission, but we don't, thus allowing the Man in the Chair to discuss the play some more in front of the curtain, and of course then to suprise us with the wrong Act 2 opening number.

Luckily, the show is so enthralling that probably very few mind sitting in their seats for its 100 minute running time.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 10:33am

eslgr8 --- The lack of intermission didn't bother me, either. First of all, I was prepared, because it was posted in the lobby (along with the warning of fog and strobe light usage). Other musicals have been "one giant act" as well (A Chorus Line, 1776...). I consider it an artistic choice, rather than a format obligation. Many plays from the 1920s and '30s had THREE acts (Kaufman & Hart's plays come to mind, and so does "The Most Happy Fella" in the 1950s). This show is perfect with us sitting through the "intermission" on stage. Again, something I've never seen before.

I guess lacking an intermission would only bother me in a show if it were a 3-hour-plus running time... or if the seats were too tight. Or if the play was crappy.

steveshack --- I'm sure there will always be baffled audience members coming to Chaperone who wonder why they didn't just do "Anything Goes." Nothing wrong with "revival-esque" shows, but I've seen "Anything Goes" and their modern incarnations (Crazy For You, Millie, etc.), many times... this was something unique and unexpected... in a GOOD way... not an I-want-my-money-back-because-it-wasn't-Anything-Goes way. Still, I guess I could smile if I ever met these lost patrons, and nod sympathetically... and show them the exit door quickly.

I'm still thinking about your comments regarding "sweet" and "un-cynical." I know what you mean, but... I think the Man in the Chair IS cynical to a point, but his cynicism is always presented in a "you don't have to agree with me" way. He tells us how he feels when he's unhappy or upset by something... but ANGER is not at the root of his thoughts... an UNDERSTANDING and forgiving heart is. That's the major difference. For cynics, the ultimate point is their cynicism. That's where the thought ENDS. With the man in the chair, his opinion may start with cynicism, but then it's given a perspective and often a keen rationalization to land on, in the end.

I DO think cynicism needs to be part of any light-hearted story, even childhood fantasy or frothy musicals. It helps with the overall perspective of plot, mood and characters. We need a frame of reference. If everything around us (in a story) is good and sweet and innocent, then how do we really know it is? We have nothing to compare it too on the "canvas." (I'm using a painting metaphor here, but applying it to all art.) You need a little "darkness" in spots to show us where the "light" is.

(To paraphrase Sondheim from Into the Woods, if life were to be filled seamlessly with these wonderful "moments in the woods," how would we reallly know we HAD one?)

That's my "nutshell" opinion, at least.

(Take a look at any frothy Fred & Ginger musical again... Ginger usually is very bitter and jaded in the beginning of these stories. Charming and innocent "nonsense" is going on all around her. But she has seen it all and heard it all before... and she isn't "taken in" by it. That was her trademark character. Tough and uncompromising. Then we can see the sweetness of the story unfold using HER as the anchor. We take the journey with her, and warm up with her as she goes through the plot. That, to me, is why it works.)

EDIT: I'll even go a couple of steps further. For Chaperone, even the play-within-the-play has its resident "cynic" in the chaperone herself. And as Man in the Chair points out, she's his favorite character.

Also the set design is even rooted in cynicism. The Man in the Chair's apartment is deliberately drab, dirty and "forgotten." Using this as the backdrop then, we can see the colorful, stylized set pieces glide in and we have our "perspective." If he lived in a penthouse on Fifth Avenue, the set pieces would get lost or muddled. It's only with this contrast between his apartment and the stage show's sets that it works.

Updated On: 11/24/05 at 10:33 AM

[steveshack]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 11:23am

12bars, that's a brilliant analysis of the "cynicism" in Chaperone. I love the way you're able to express things. My overall point, which you underscored, was that the show itself is not cynical. God deliver us from shows without a resident cynic articulating, for us, the things that drive us crazy. (In The Last Session, our resident cynic was a character named Vicki who was an alcoholic ex-rock singer turned Mary Kay salesperson).

But yes, Man In Chair's cynicism is GREAT fun, especially since, in my view, it's coming from a person whose life is so drab that he uses his cynicism to at least give himself SOME sense of control. And we LOVE the cynicism of the drowsy chaperone herself. I love that she brought her own bar.

Personal note: I'll be on retreat for a couple of weeks. Leaving this morning. I just posted an update in my diary with pictures of our awards week. We're flying high from all the kudos our little "Merman" show received this past week. And hopefully, we'll be in NY in the Spring. Have a great Thanksgiving.
Bonus Round Diary of Steve Schalchlin

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 11:27am

steveshack---Congratulations to you! I've meant to say this many times before, my apologies. I will have to see your work sometime soon!

...And a very Happy Thanksgiving to you, as well.

EDIT: (I hope that didn't sound offensive to you! Due to the hand of fate, I have not seen your work yet. I would rather tell you this than either stay "strangely silent" or make up some sort of fabricated fawning.)

Updated On: 11/24/05 at 11:27 AM

Posted: 11/25/05 at 1:21am

Many will sit through a 2 hour plus movie and not flinch, so no intermission is tolerable, especially if it's as enthralling as Chaperone.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

[steveshack]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 12:02pm

We're on the East Coast and leave out tomorrow so I borrowed a computer.

> EDIT: (I hope that didn't sound offensive to you! Due to the hand of fate, I have not seen your work yet. I would rather tell you this than either stay "strangely silent" or make up some sort of fabricated fawning.)

No offense taken! Not to worry about not having seen my stuff. The Last Session was 7 or 8 years ago, and The Big Voice played in little tiny places without publicity because it was still, in our minds, in development. We were flabbergasted that all the Ovation voters found us. Seriously. And to win???!!!?

If you look at the video I shot during the awards, you'll see how utterly shocked we were. Like Chaperone, The Big Voice owes its praise to Jim Brochu's wonderful storytelling more than my score, not to sound falsely modest. (I like my songs, but I'm not Sondheim, though I think there is one really great love song in the score that never fails to bring down the house.)

But thanks for the congratulations. We might do the show a few times more in LA on some odd nights just to let people see who missed it before we open in NY in the Fall.

Posted: 11/25/05 at 1:14pm

I adored THE BIG VOICE and so did the friends with me. Glad to see that more will witness such a lovely piece.

[DancNdaMoonlite]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:21pm

"saw the show on the 22nd and LOVED it. i was there for the wedding too. i was completely waiting for them to be like 'JUST KIDDING' but then they never did, and me and my friend were like, 'is this actually real?', and bob martin getting certified on the internet, omg, soo funny. he is just, amazing!!!! and after the show we went to the stage door and asked for the brides autograph-ha- and then this woman from the NY times interviewed us. it was a good night."

Sorry Jess, I wanted to say the exact same thing -cause I was "the friend" in that story lol
(we went together...)

Posted: 11/25/05 at 5:38pm

And u liked it too I trust?

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 11/28/05 at 2:15am

Does anybody have an idea how the box office receipts are looking for Drowsy? The word about the show is spreading so I am anticipating a pick up in sales.

[TimeSuckage]

Posted: 11/28/05 at 2:50pm

Just saw it last night and thought it was enchanting. I didn't notice the "no intermission" postings and was glad I didn't because that whole bit came as a nice surprise. I wasn't in love with the ending, I felt like it just kind of petered out, but I was howling through most of what came before it. During the roller skating/French thing when the Man says "This scene couldn't be more ridiculous" I just lost it (I'm giggling now just thinking about it). It reminded me a little of "A Day in Hollywood/A Night in the Ukraine" just for its charm. I think the creative team is very gifted because good satire that doesn't ridicule its subject matter is tough to pull off. I hope it goes to Bway and does smashingly well because it's so refreshing to see an ORIGINAL musical.

As for box office receipts, the back orchestra was pretty empty last night. Like the last ten rows.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/28/05 at 7:38pm

TimeSuckage---Thanks for posting your thoughts on the show. I'm glad you enjoyed it too.

I may have been mistaken about the "no intermission" sign being posted in the lobby. I know the fog & strobe light warning was. I may have lumped the two together in my mind. In any case, I did learn before the play started that it was a "one-act." So, I must have read it in the program.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/2/05 at 9:41am

Katherine2 --- Thanks so much for sharing your comments and thoughts... and your perspective from seeing a previous Canadian production. I can possibly help clarify or enlighten you on a couple of things you pointed out...

While the "Man in the Chair" does stop the action early on (in the L.A. production) to talk about what happened to the actor playing "Robert," he doesn't kiss him on the cheek here. He tells us a story about an ancient Robert being wheeled out to celebrate his own birthday, and not knowing where he was or who he was. It was very funny. However, Man in Chair is clearly infatuated with this actor throughout the show, and often stares at him longingly, then catches himself "in the act" and tries to play it off. At the very end of the show, when he is welcomed into the "cast," he throws his arms around "Robert" and clings to him. It's funny, a little surprising, and an incredibly sweet moment. I was pretty teary during this whole finale segment. It's very emotional (at least it was to me).

NOTE: I'm really glad they don't call him "Creepy Man" anymore. First of all, he's not really creepy here. He's an eccentric, sweet, mild-mannered, sometimes bitchy misfit... who above all else is charming and funny. To call him "Creepy Man" would be off-putting as well as a little insulting to anyone who can identify with him and his passions (myself included).

Regarding the "non-singing, non-dancing" potential winner of a Tony for Best Actor in a Musical... I'm glad the Man In The Chair doesn't sing and dance. It makes him more of an "every man" for all of us. He is the gateway to all things musical. For the show happening on stage, he is the audience observing (in his mind). And audiences don't sing and dance while watching a musical show (unless it's Rocky Horror and you're stuck doing the Time Warp again).