GENTLEMEN'S GUIDE TO LOVE & MURDER -- Previews- Page 2

[dave1606]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 12:13am

Sorry to also ad a negative voice here, but I found this show just ok. It seems strange to bring something that is so similar to Drood in nature, style, and aesthetics, a year after Drood was not a commercial success. I was reminded of Drood many times, but kept being disappointed to how this paled in comparison.

Jefferson Mays had the strongest amount of buzz that I had heard going in from the previous runs and while he certainly is good, just doesn't have the tour de force performance I was expecting from playing all of these multiple roles. None of these characters that he plays stay long enough to make much an impression, and he all but dissappears in the second act. I actually thoroughly enjoyed Bryce Pinkam though and thought he held the considerable stage time he has (he is pretty much onstage the entire time) very well. He was in good voice as well.

For me the biggest let down was the score. It felt as if the Chaplin music team wrote this. Nothing uptempo, and very little variety. I started to have a hard time distinguishing one song from another. Everything sounded very pleasant, but you forget it instantly.

The show takes a very long time to get going, and when it does it seems to be fractured in tone. Bryce Pinkam's character is so serious. Where I needed broader humor, and the show seemed to take things deathly seriously. Sometimes he is a take no prisoners revenge character and other times he seems to be doing it for the money or to impress his girl?

Overall I can't say that this is a bad show, it is perfectly competent, but it is not particularly exciting either. The staging has a few nice tricks (the skiing scene was fun and the pictures coming alive was too), but then a few frustrating choices (why does Bryce Pinkham have to climb to the top of the stage for no reason? He looked uncomfortable with it and so was I). The costumes were lovely though, the dresses in act II were particularly stunning.

EDIT: I should be remiss that there were two moments I truly loved. The staging of the two women's scene in the opening of Act II was wonderful and the closest the show got to being farcical. The big dinner scene that followed was also a lot of fun. But the fact that it took getting to act II to get to these moments is still an issue.

Updated On: 10/23/13 at 12:13 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 12:21am

Look, there are many people who clearly love it, so it's entirely possible you will go and have a fantastic time.

For my money, however, this show would have been much more successful if the writers had either adhered to more classical British farce structure, or taken a cue from something like how to succeed in business, which brilliantly features a likable antihero actively clawing his way to the top of the ladder through inspired action, tempered with increasing moral debate through his growing love interest

I didn't find the main character in this play either charming, or very likable, certainly not someone that you felt compelled to root for. And as Whizzer says, the biggest problem is he's not even that actively involved in most of the deaths, at least not in the way that is really delicious. It felt like the writers wanted this to be something between farce and an Oscar Wilde play (in the second act) but it didn't really work as either, in my opinion.

Updated On: 10/23/13 at 12:21 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 12:30am

Sayitsomehow, I agree that the first 20 minutes are slow, but I chalked it up to necessary exposition before the murders began. He has to find out he's a D'Ysquith (that song went on too long), introduce the girl and then sing an "I Want" song. It's all necessary, but I kept thinking, they better be building to an amazing star entrance for Mays with an knockout song to boot. I believe he entered a few quick times before anyone realized it was him.

Mays' first number is the sixth song in, and it's probably too long for us to wait. The number is a bizarre one too: I Don't Understand the Poor. The audience is given no context about the heir singing it, and he seems to be singing it to the audience rather than interacting with Pinkham. I don't know why he's telling us/Pinkham what he thinks about the poor; it feels like a random topic. The song ends. The mini curtain goes down and that's that until he shows up near the end of act one.

dave brings up a good question about Pinkham's motivation. Why is he killing all the heirs? His beloved is concerned with social status and wealth, and it initially seems like he's going to be killing to gain her favor, but a different love interest is introduced and the motivation seems to shift to an Emily Thorne revenge plot to avenge his wronged mother; she was disinherited when she married outside her social group.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 12:37am

Lisa O'Hare's character is truly problematic. It's setup almost from the get-go that she decides to marry another man for his station and yet even though she continues to have an affair with Monty, it's never suggested that she will leave her husband to be with him if he becomes the heir- so what are the stakes? Why do we spend so much time setting up their relationship?

And if it this is supposed to be a love triangle shouldn't we see why these women want to be with him? What is their motive? Is it because he's such a great guy, or because he's suddenly rich? And what are the motives for his desire to become heir? Is it revenge, because that means the play should be one thing, or is it to win his love's affection, because that means the play should be something else These are the kind of questions that the show never answers and I think it never does because it can't decide what it's trying to say or be...





Updated On: 10/23/13 at 12:37 AM

[bstrumwasser]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 1:34am

The show is amazing. The cast is working their butts off for a very fun night on Broadway. Run and get your tickets to this witty amazing show.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 1:36am

Add me to the list of people you just thought it was fine. It really is problematic that a good 10-15 minuets pass by before there is a really big laugh in what is supposed to be a musical comedy.

I think one of my biggest problems with it was that the stakes of having an actor play so many character were never that high. At no point did it seem as if there was any risk of any of those characters running into each other at all, but I guess I have been spoiled by seeing The Mystery of Irma Vep. I wish the whole show was a but more like the scene in the second act with the two women.

On the plus side it sound gorgeous! Some of the best ensemble singing that I have heard in awhile that doesn't sound like it's being run through a sound system, and soprano singers of the world rejoice there are two new amazing roles in the musical theater cannon for you.

I will try to revisit the show later. I just hope that they can tighten it up, get rid of the projections, and the voiceover narration.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 5:03am

There also really isnt any kind of villain or foil standing in Monty's way as he knocks off the members of the family one by one. An investigator from Scotland Yard shows up in the last ten minutes of the play but wouldn't it be more exciting if there were someone on to him and his scheme much earlier? Where's Bud Frump when you need him?

And I agree about the narration. It really gets in the way of making the central role a show stopper because half of his dialogue is on a tape as tinny voice over. Why can't he just speak those lines to the audience? Surely there is a more witty solution...

Updated On: 10/23/13 at 05:03 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 7:25am

Ouch.

[Luv2goToShows]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 7:57am

Oh no, sorry to hear this, I too have high expectations. I was hoping for a cross between Drood and One Man, Two Guvnors, which was a joy to watch and had me laughing more than I thought I would. Not seeing GGTL&M until next month, going to be interesting to read all the feedback.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 8:05am

Before I join the chorus of disappointed readers, I have a question for everyone who had a so-so experience: Are you familiar with/Do you like either “Kind Hearts and Coronets” or the book it’s based on, “Israel Rank: The Autobiography of a Criminal”?

I haven’t read the novel, but I adore “Kind Hearts and Coronets.” The first time I saw it, though, I was disappointed because, from all I’d heard about Alec Guinness’ fabled performance(s), I expected something madcap and farcical.

It sounds like that’s what a lot of people here are/were expecting from the musical, but if this show is a pretty straight adaptation of the film, it should be remembered that farce isn’t what Ealing Studios did. They specialized in dark, tightly wound, stiff-upper-lip class satire. They’re very funny, but not for slamming doors.

Movies like “Kind Hearts and Coronets” and “The Lavender Hill Mob” and “The Ladykillers” have setups ripe for farce, but none of them play out that way, and descriptions of this show (even “cold and intellectual”) sound close to that. And maybe for some people that will still be unsatisfying in and of itself. But I’ve seen “Kind Hearts and Coronets” many times, and it wasn’t until I stopped expecting it to be zany that I started to appreciate it.

I’m really excited for this show, so maybe I’m looking for apologies for it, but this seems like a reasonable curiosity.

[Luv2goToShows]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 8:35am

themysteriousgrowl, I am not familiar with the book or any of those movies. I will try to watch one of those movies before I see the show. I am curious to hear how it compares after you see it.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 8:57am

Growl, I haven't read the novel, but I do like the film. I agree that it's not a madcap, frenzied farce, and perhaps I wrongly assumed the musical would be because it seems the only way to dramatize the material and make it work for a live audience. Maybe my expectation was unfair and I set myself up for disappointment, but setting aside the debate as to whether this is farce or not the score and book weren't up to snuff.

I assumed there was so issue with getting rights to the film (either that or the creators weren't in love with the movie) because there is very little in common other than the basic premise. The name of the family has been changed from D'Ascoyne to D'Ysquith and all of the murders are completely different in the stage show from the film.

SPOILERS for the film********************************

Dennis Price takes a more active role in the murders of his heirs than Pinkham does in the musical. Price goes so far as to admit he killed 6 heirs already to the one he catches in a snare before shooting him with a shot gun. Price takes time to get to know the heirs, hatches a unique plan and then executes. Pinkham is forced to be a more passive killer/leaves the deaths more to chance.

Price's motives are much clearer in the film. He is doing it avenge his mother. That scene in the shop where one of the heirs insults him and gets him fired is necessary and a turning point for Price. There is no similar scene in the show, and I think the addition of such an exchange would not only give Mays more to do, but also let the audience see why Pinkham feels justified in killing them.

Back to the comparison of Emily Thorne and her red sharpie, I really missed the family tree Price makes in the film that he crosses off each member as they perish. It helps bring some cohesion to piece and let's us visually countdown to the goal.


END FILM SPOILERS**************************

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 8:59am

The original film is an elegant witty satire- a comedy of manners that could have lent itself to a smart, wry, dark musical comedy but that's not the tone the writers chose for the musical which is more low brow, music hall farce-- the comparisons to Drood are warranted. But in the same breath, they want the tone of the second act to be something else- a kind of breezy Oscar Wilde romantic comedy- but it doesn't have the structural tone in the 1st act to make that direction work.

The opening of the second act called "why are all the d'ysquiths dying" came closest to the kind of witty macabre dry humour that I think would have served the tone of the overall piece more than the sort of lowball camp that involves most of Jefferson Mays' material.

Updated On: 10/23/13 at 08:59 AM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 9:14am

Thanks, Whizzer and Michael, for the detailed and well thought out responses.

I'm now considering replacing this with AFTER MIDNIGHT on my November list, which is something I wouldn't have thought I'd be doing in a million years.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 9:17am

It probably should be noted that there are apparently contractual issues that prevent this from being a straight forward adaptation of the film and so no doubt some of the changes made were done so to prevent liability, but I think they should in turn have just used the original source material as inspiration and taken more liberties with the story and structure.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 9:25am

MB- I agree that this wants to be English Music Hall, but I think it should have been a little more Charlotte Sweet than Drood.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 10:09am

The musical is based on the novel not the film :

a rights dispute with the copyright holders of the film. After that, the musical’s creators went back to the original source, the Horniman novel.
Love, Murder and a Couple of Mensches

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 10:23am

If anyone rushes this, please let us know how it goes! I'd like to try and see it this weekend but trying to figure out how early to get there.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 10:24am

Thanks PJ. It makes sense now why everything is so distanced from the film!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 11:18am

Here is the court's decision ruling in favor of Steve Lutvak and Robert Freedman and dismissing the film company's claim of copyright infringement.


Find-a-Case: Canal Image Uk Ltd v. Steven Lutvak and Robert L. Freedman

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 11:32am

I've read the novel ISRAEL RANK and enjoyed it a good deal. There are significant differences, of course, between the novel and the film, largely in tone. The novel is a good deal more sinister than the film -- Rank is not even remotely appealing, he's a slimy little social-climbing egomaniac, without any of Louis Mazzini's charm.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 11:33am

Not to sound snarky but truly, the entire story of getting gentleman's guide to Broadway is almost better fodder for an involving and thought provocative Broadway musical then the adaptation they have come up with. The question of the lawsuit is fascinating, and while I'm glad the law was on their side, you can still feel the ball and chain binding them to the basic conceit of the film adaptation just as they can't actually use it to completely make good on their concept for the musical. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to basically complete your adaptation of a movie and then have to go and completely unravel it to avoid a law suit.

[Cruel Logic]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 12:07pm

I was at the show last night and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I was wiping away tears from laughing so hard. I didn't think it started too slow, I would agree with Whizzer that there is necessary exposition. I think overall the show is definitely worth seeing and from what I could tell from the people around me, they all seemed to enjoy it as well.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 1:20pm

It's similar to what Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman went through to get Wicked onstage without trespassing on MGM's copyright. I believe there have been other, similar legal maneuverings on other musicals.

I saw it in Hartford and loved it and I'm looking forward to seeing it again Saturday.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/23/13 at 7:56pm

Bstrumwasser, I can't help but notice that you joined on 6/6/06.

If I believe you that it was amazing, I wouldn't be taking advice from the devil, would I?



Cruel Logic, you joined today to post your rave review, so don't be surprised if some of us find this a bit suspect. Every time a show opens, a few new people join to shill for the producers. I'm not saying you are a shill. I'm just saying you sound like one.