MY FAIR LADY (2018) Previews

[musikman]

Broadway concierge: maybe I saw an off night, but Mr. Donica ear-gratingly sang under pitch every time he went above middle C. His lower register is fine, but come on, you can’t find someone who consistently sings on key?

My biggest problem the whole evening was that it felt so lifeless and lacking energy or forward thrust. Just watch Julie Andrews singing this. The tempo last night felt like a dirge.

https://youtu.be/-R_lv6_5Mvg

Everyone here is right. Lauren Ambrose has a *nice* voice, but that’s not what I want to hear as Eliza on broadway I guess. I don’t think she’s getting tired at all. I just don’t think she has the agility in her voice to do the score justice. The spin in her voice is often delayed (which caused her to be behind the beat so often), which to me was a sign of struggling. She still is sympathetic in the role and likable enough.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

In the preview performance I saw during one of the blizzards (which is how I got third row center orchestra tickets), I felt totally mesmerized and uplifted by Donica's performance and underwhelmed by Butz's performance until his scene with Ambrose and Donica in Act II and  "Get Me to the Church". Before that, I felt something was off with his Alfred Doolittle.

[GeorgeandDot]

Donica is flat every time on the high notes in On the Street. Also, I agree the show is ridiculously low energy and Lauren Ambrose has 0 stage presence. The Beaumont absolutely swallows her up. Also her Eliza has no fire, drive, or passion, which makes her just seem weak and pitiful. Higgins decribes her as a squashed cabbage leaf and that's exactly how she plays her.... for the whole show. The humor doesn't land and none of her choices are completely followed through. She's giving a very half baked performance. I was expected to be blown away and instead left really disappointed that Sher didn't cast someone like Laura Benanti or Betsy Wolfe or Lisa O'Hare or Ashley Park or literally any other classically trained musical theatre actress. I would have rather he had cast a complete unknown like Hailey Kilgore in Once on this Island did. I can't understand why he would cast an actress, twenty years too old for the part who can't sing it and can't act it. It baffles me.

[JIMG3]

Thank you for that stirring tribute, on the day of opening night. On behalf of those of us “invested” in this production, we applaud your thoughtful insights and unbiased critiques.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

I'm excited to see if the reviews agree with you or if they agree with those who thought Ambrose was a revelation. I have a feeling we'll be getting both sorts of reviews tonight. It seems like it's a performance one gets or doesn't. Even though you sort of had it out for Ambrose ever since the announcement because you seriously wanted Benanti in the role after dream casting her in it since She Loves Me, I don't think your opinion is too unfair once you take out the more colorful tone and sentences of your post because it's ultimately not too different from what those who didn't find Ambrose compelling to watch have said.

[GeorgeandDot]

I truly saw it through unbiased eyes. I really loved her in Six Feet Under and while I was very skeptical about her casting before, Sher has never let me down before. Her casting seemed so out of left field that I figured she must be brilliant. You wouldn't pass over a slew of great Broadway actresses for her unless she was bringing something special to the role, but unfortunately her voice is pretty weak and her presence is lacking. She just doesn't have the right qualities for this part. It's a beautiful production regardless, but it has a weak Eliza. She just seems so in over her head. She gives a perfectly fine performance, but for a much anticipated revival of a favorite musical, you need a leading lady better than just fine.

Also, JIMG3, congrats on opening, but I think you really might be the biased one here. Lol.  Aren't you an user or something at the Beaumont?  I was just riffing off of some other reviews that shared similar thoughts to me.  All of these opinions are valid and if you can't take some criticism, theatre isn't for you.

[broadwayboy223]

I haven't seen the production but it seems a little extreme to call someone a hateful shrew if they didnt like it and didnt like the casting. Especially since I've seen more then one person have a similar review

[poisonivy2]

Whoa someone who doesn't like the production is a hateful shrew? That escalated quickly.

[HenryTDobson]

GeorgeandDot's review is not hateful.  Just because it doesn't align with your opinion of the show, there's no need for name calling. 

[musikman]

GeorgeandDot. You’ve expressed precisely how I’ve felt after seeing last night’s performance.

I was saying to the other folks in my party that Bart Sher often casts actors in roles who do not have the strongest vocal chops, but more than make up for it with their acting and overall performances because they are perfect for the role. He’s an incredibly intuitive director and casts everyone appropriately and with good reason, which makes this all the more baffling. I also think that several of the other performers were miscast as well.

It’s no secret he’s been wanting to use her in another musical after the Funny Girl debacle - and I think she could be winning in several roles - but this was definitely not the right musical to do it with.

My two cents.

[Musical Master]

GeorgeandDot has a good point, just because they personally found Ambrose miscast as Eliza doesn't make it invalid. In fact I remember when The King and I was in previews back in 2015 and some found Kelli O'Hara's performance "bland" and "boring" as Anna; where I personally thought she was freaking great when I saw the show in person. 

BTW I did hear some audio (long since gone) of Lauren Ambrose as Eliza, and so far I am freaking blown away with both her acting and singing.  If some didn't like her then that's fine, it's not the end of the world; I for one cannot wait to finally see the show in person come May 30th.

[Someone in a Tree2]

I'd be curious to learn how many of those with a negative review of this show were seated farther away from the stage when they saw it. I think particularly regarding Lauren Ambrose's Eliza, being up close and personal was the ticket to catching the greatness in her performance. I myself was in the loge 3rd row center, and watched the show through binoculars the whole night long to not miss a nuance or subtle look.

Isn't it the actor's job to convey those subtleties to the back row regardless? Sure, and in this perhaps the show fell short. My binoculars made all the difference in totally enjoying what I saw. 

(And no, nothing would have saved the horrific drag routine in Act II, save maybe leaving the lens caps on the lenses completely.)

[broadwayboy223]

I totally think in some situations casting someone who's a stronger actor then singer is appropriate for certain roles, but Eliza is not one of those. I haven't listened the audio because I was hoping to see the show in person when I was in NYC last week but alas it was sold out and I didnt win the lottery. Still hoping I can make it back this summer to see it so I can make a judgment after seeing it.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

I'm not talking about Ambrose specifically but jut generally about Eliza. I think we've had so many Elizas who sing in the way we expect to hear (strong soprano) and totally sing out all of her songs without much in the way of progression from "Loverly" to "Without You" and who I found lacking in the depth department when it came to their portrayal that I would find it refreshing that a director would go actor first so long as the actress isn't inept at singing.

[poisonivy2]

Someone in a Tree2 said: "I'd be curious to learn how many ofthose with a negative reviewof this show were seated fartheraway from the stage whenthey saw it.I think particularly regarding Lauren Ambrose's Eliza, being up close and personal was the ticket to catching the greatness in her performance. I myself was in the loge 3rd row center, and watched the show throughbinoculars the whole night long to not miss a nuance or subtle look.

Isn'tit the actor's job to convey those subtleties to the back row regardless? Sure, and in this perhaps the show fell short. My binoculars made all the difference in totally enjoying what I saw.

(And no, nothing would have saved the horrific drag routine in Act II, save maybe leaving the lens caps on the lenses completely.)"

Actually this is interesting -- when I went to the first performance I was at first sitting in the last row of the Loge and then after intermission (as it was snow day and the auditorium was half-empty) I moved to the orchestra. I agree that Ambrose read better up close than up in the Loge.

A few weeks later I went back and Ambrose's performance was broader, more exaggerated, played for laughs. A bit of nuance was gone but the performance probably read much more to the entire auditorium and not just the first few rows.

[RippedMan]

I bought a LincTix for this back in March and didn't realize it would be the first performance post-Tonys. I was kind of hoping they'd pick up an award or two, but alas. I saw the show from second row, and was thrilled to be so up close and personal. But I'm a bit "eh" on the show itself. I love the show and find it infuriatingly fascinating. I think Higgins was sensational, and almost felt like it was his show. I was just on the journey with him. Mrs Pearce was brilliant. She conveyed so much with so little dialogue. Pickering was great. Mrs. Higgins was brilliant in her subtly and delivery. 

What I'm baffled by is Ambrose. I saw her performance on the Tonys and it she came off a little...Laura in the Glass Menagerie. Now seeing it in context, I get it a bit more, but she really has some baffling choices. She does a lot of extended hand acting. Her singing, while not bad, just wasn't what I wanted. Her "Shouldn't It Be Loverly" was just eh. I wanted it to be infectious. That's when we fall on Eliza's side. But it just wasn't underwhelming. And I was 2nd row, so those saying she is better up close...And that's to say, she wasn't bad at all. She just didn't quite have that spark I wanted. When she was left alone on stage to sing, I felt my gaze wandering around the set. 

The set/direction was good, but not great. I loved South Pacific, loved The King and I's restraint. But I'm kind of sick of seeing stage hands have to move his sets around the stage. The study whirling into place was cool at first, but them lumbering after awhile. Besides the study set, there really wasn't anything that was all that gasp-inducing. Watching these chorus girls struggling to push around a lamp post was just awkward. 

All that to say that I really enjoyed myself. I loved watching Higgins and Elize spare. And I really enjoyed the scene after the gala, I just don't know that Ambrose is a stage actress. She seemed to play baffled the whole time. 

[OlBlueEyes]

Since I've started to favorite shows more than once, I've been surprised by the different audience reaction to what seems to me to be two equally performed shows. I saw Bandstand when Julia's climactic number received a reception of applause and cheering equal to any I had ever experienced. On some subsequent night the reaction was fine, but not record breaking by any means

I wonder if the person who sees the show once with an extraordinary audience comes away with a higher opinion of the production than the person who comes on a day when the audience is a little tepid.

The Wednesday matinee audience was pretty lukewarm through the "Rain in Spain," "Could Have Danced All Night" climax, but they turned it up beginning with Ascot.

I bring this up principally because I was recalling the February, 2017 one night production of Crazy for You at Geffen Hall. The audience that night, full or Susan Stroman well-wishers no doubt, put out the energy of a low yield tactical nuclear weapon. As I recalled the show from the one time long ago that I saw it, I remembered a show pretty corny with a lame plot. Rescued by some good song and dance number.

But I was swept away by the show that night like everyone else. Tony Yazbeck was one explanation for the enthusiasm. He fit that role perfectly and the audience loved him. I still am left wondering, though, if Crazy for You could regularly reproduce that huge audience response on a full run.

[RippedMan]

I did a production of "My Fair Lady" last summer and our Eliza went up at the end of "I Could Have Danced All Night" and so, in a Broadway setting, I'd expect that Eliza to match her note for note, and she didn't. She gave a fine performance, but it wasn't one that I left leaving like YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS, which made me look at Sher like, why? Why her? I didn't get it. There has to be a hundred actresses who could do what she did. Maybe it was her red hair? I don't get it. 

[VintageSnarker]

RippedMan said: "What I'm baffled by is Ambrose. I saw her performance on the Tonys and it she came off a little...Laura in the Glass Menagerie. Now seeing it in context, I get it a bit more, but she really has some baffling choices.

All that to say that I really enjoyed myself. I loved watching Higgins and Elize spare. And I really enjoyed the scene after the gala, I just don't know that Ambrose is a stage actress. She seemed to play baffled the whole time."

I thought she was excellent in the book scenes at the end. I don't think the problem is that she isn't a stage actress. While she wasn't struggling to sing, I think she was so focused on the technical aspects of singing that it didn't give her a lot of room for acting. I saw the special quality in her in the book scenes that I didn't quite see during the musical numbers. I do think she starts to hit her stride around The Rain in Spain but unfortunately that means a bunch of lackluster performances of excellent songs before that.

[RippedMan]

"Loverly" is like one of the easiest moments. Just be funny. And she wasn't. And she wasn't charming. I didn't get why Higgins would pick THIS girl out of the bunch. I just wanted more. 

[Dancingthrulife2]

RippedMan said: ""Loverly" is like one of the easiest moments. Just be funny. And she wasn't. And she wasn't charming. I didn't get why Higgins would pick THIS girl out of the bunch. I just wanted more."

"Just be funny"? Seriously? It's the community song that shows the harsh condition of being a flower girl in London back then and the unembellished camaraderie among the have-nots. 

Also, Higgins didn't "pick" Eliza. SHE went to Higgins's house asking for lessons. SHE is the enabler of HER journey, not Higgins.

[DramaTeach]

I understand what Ripped Man is saying because that how I felt about Matchmaker in Sher’s Fiddler revival. It’s one of the lighter moments in a heavy show (and yes, I know they’re lamenting how problematic it is to not have choice in their own relationships), but Sher made that song a heavy one too, and it became a bummer. Let Eliza dreamily sing about how nice life could be. Glad I saw it with the understudy.

[greenifyme2]

I stopped reading this thread after I was attacked for saying I didn’t like it... popped back in here and wow.

[Dancingthrulife2]

I get that some people might prefer a more lighthearted interpretation and generally a fun night out. But this revival is the first and only one production of the musical that the lyrics of Wouldn't It Be Loverly made sense to me. It was the first time I actually believed that all Eliza wants "is a room somewhere far away from the cold night air." Neither Hepburn's nor Andrews's interpretation did the magic Ambrose's grounded humanity did on me, not to mention the subpar touring and regional productions I've seen. It seems that many productions start intending to recreate the world in the movie or the obc, instead of going back to the text where you'll be surprised by what you'll find if you really dig into it.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

greenifyme2 said: "I stopped reading this thread after I was attacked for saying I didn’t like it... popped back in here and wow."

That's because Rippedman's criticisms and others are stemming from the production choices and acting choices (or perceived limitations while others see them as strengths) while you attacked the actual score and book. You didn't even understand that Higgins' songs were written that way purposefully which made people question your understanding, taste, and possibly age. Not to mention mentioning some anonymous unprofessional usher who you thought would give credence to your opinion, who I hope was reprimanded for his behavior.

I don't agree with some of what RippedMan says and I do think there is another reflection of some anti-Ambrose sentiments that started since her casting was announced, but I DO understand where they come from and I respect his opinion because he has a different idea of how My Fair Lady should be produced and what Eliza should sound like.