BE MORE CHILL (Broadway) Previews- Page 4

[Kad]

Posted: 2/14/19 at 12:54pm

I'm shocked by the runtime... this really seems like something that would need a tight 90-100 mins, like Little Shop. The run time suggests that there's a lot of extraneous material, or a looser focus. 

[haterobics]

Posted: 2/14/19 at 12:57pm

If any non-stan has been to the Off-Broadway and now Broadway run, can you tell if anything has changed that merits another visit?

[Impossible2]

Posted: 2/14/19 at 1:32pm

WhizzerMarvin said: "I’ve been thinking about the show this morning and have a few other thoughts.

I think they mishandled the writing of the squip, who basically acts as a Faust/Damn Yankees plot device. Jason Tam is a very likable performer- great voice and plenty of charisma- but the version of Mr. Applegate he has been given to work with is very much lacking.

Adler/Ross/Abbott were smart to make the devil charming and funny, and were especially shred to give him a few numbers to endear himself to the audience. It’s a missed opportunity to not let Tam’s squip have a chance to take center stage and either bring the audience in on his plans or lament to the audience about how stupid humanity has become a la “Good Old Days.” I would also have gone for a fun duet between Jeremy and the squip in act one that could explore his powers in a comedic way that is maybe reprised in act two in a scary way. The squip, like Applegate, should be in the running to steal the show, but the character never gets to blossom fully.

I think the runtime will be cut down- the intermission alone took up a bit of the length- but I think the reason I felt every minute of it was because there is very little straying from the standard teen musical template here. There’s a big opening number about how hard it is to fit in at school, Jeremy gets harassed by a bully, ignored by the cool kids (and later entangled in their romantic shenanigans), etc. Jeremy had a fellow loser friend...I wonder if he will have to betray this friend as a price to pay when he becomes cool!

If you’re going to cover such well-trod ground, it better be in a super fresh and creative way. “The Smartphone Hour” (an homage to The Telephone Hour that makes one appreciate Charles Strouse’s talents like never before) was already done in 13 as “It Can’t Be True” when the gossips make a telephone to spread the word about Evan and Kendra. It’s like the same song! How many retreads can we have?

"

I had the same feeling about Everybody's Talking About Jamie which I saw this week.

It had an excellent first half, but then they felt the need to cram every single bit of anti gay harassment, hurt and pain possible into the 2nd half which turned a previously valiant effort into an overly cliched mess.

In the end all that was missing was being dumped by a cheating boyfriend and getting HIV. Thank God he was only a teenager or I'm pretty sure they'd have got them in there as well.

It was really unnecessary, we were already on his side he didn't need so much misfortune.

 

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 2/14/19 at 8:43pm

Two questions:

1. Whizzer, how do you manage to find the time and resources to see previews for almost everything on Broadway. I am continually amazed by and admire your tenacity for the cause. :)

2. Generally, what kind of shows benefit most from being intermission-less? Is it teen musicals? Few-character plays? Some other factor?

[ccbway]

Posted: 2/14/19 at 9:46pm

This was an adaptation of a book, which they mostly adhered to. Seems like people complaining about retreading old material should really be a complaining about the source material.

As for the complaint that somehow similar songs being in other musicals somehow makes it invalid also assumes that everyone who watches this musical has seen 13. That seems especially presumptuous not only for the target audience, but really even for other theatergoers. Or it could be considered a modern homage to something that has already been done. There are literally dozens of musical tropes constantly used and re-used in every musical. Seems like the critique should really be whether or not it was done well or not, not whether or not something similar has been done previously. Updated On: 2/14/19 at 09:46 PM

[haterobics]

Posted: 2/14/19 at 11:15pm

Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "Generally, what kind of shows benefit most from being intermission-less? Is it teen musicals? Few-character plays? Some other factor?"

Ones without enough to say to justify the length of a two act. Leave them wanting more, not wondering why they're still going on about it...

[supersam1026]

Posted: 2/14/19 at 11:22pm

Was able to walk up to the BO at 6:30 tonight and get a rush ticket (Orch F12). Slid over to F10 right as the lights went down. From there, I saw probably 98% of the show. I'm guessing F12 wouldn't have been too much worse, but the 2 seats past that would have probably been REAL bad! Seemed like a handful of empty rush seats, but the views would have probably been pretty rough.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 2/14/19 at 11:27pm

ccbway, my point of view is that if it has been done before then it hasn’t been done well the second (fourth or twelfth) time around. There have been countless books, movies, plays and musicals about teens coming of age- also about the civil war, vampire romances and the Holocaust. It’s not that we can’t have new plays/movies about these subjects, but if you aren’t going to approach the subject in a new way, then what’s the point of doing it, even if it’s competently done? That’s why something like Life is Beautiful felt so fresh at the time because it was a shock to see the Holocaust presented through the lens of a romance/rom-com. If you decide to write another rom-com Holocaust screenplay it better not be a retread of Life is Beautiful, not because 100% of the population has seen that film, but because it has already been conquered before.

Be More Chill is at a bit of a disadvantage because in the past 5-7 years we have seen a glut of teen dramas produced in New York, so if you’re trying to find you’re place amongst the ranks, you had better significantly stand out.

Ado Annie, I keep all first preview dates marked on a big calendar and I attend the shows with my two best friends, so it’s just as much of a social thing as it is a love for theater.

To your other question, I think shows that a light, fluffy and breezy usually work better as a 90 minute show, especially when it comes to musicals. Something like Head Over Heels would have greatly benefited from being 90-100 minutes. Same with Disaster. Material like that can only sustain so much of a runtime before the audience grows weary.

For the record, I think Be More Chill is totally fine as a two act musical. There’s clear space for an act break and intermission. At the same time, there is no reason for it be Coast of Utopia meets The Flick length either. After two try-outs I’m not sure how much they will change at this point.

[Danielle49]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 12:53am

For anyone interested, it looks like the 92Y will be doing a Conversation + Performance Highlights in May with cast and crew (it’s also worth checking out their calendar for theater stuff — there’s a Come from Away event and Gavin Creel in concert coming soon).

https://www.92y.org/event/be-more-chill

Can’t link it because I’m mobile. With their XYZ Under 40 program, some seats are $20.

[Ledaero]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 1:54am

I saw the first preview last night as well. I've been a moderate fan of Joe Iconis for the past 8 or so years, so I was interested to see what I'd think of the piece after hearing from friends that, frankly, the Off-Broadway run was terrible. And I agree, the show was a hot mess. Now I didn't see the original run in New Jersey back in 2013/14 or whenever it ran, but after listening to the cast recording I think I was able to pinpoint some of what may have worked then that doesn't work now. 

One of the biggest things I noticed was the orchestrations. Joe Iconis has always been rooted in like an 80s punk background, and his instrumentations tend to be a rock band. The off-broadway score has much more of a garage rock feel to it, and it allows for the ridiculous lyrics and music to come across as tongue-in-cheek. It felt like a stylistic choice then, and not bad writing. But since moving to Broadway, Charlie Rosen has re-orchestrated it tremendously. And while on the one hand I think his work is great and interesting, the fuller sound of the band makes the music less ironic and eliminates any form of tongue-in-cheek that may have been present 6 years ago in Jersey. 

The score was also not written for Roland's voice. It's evident that it was written for Will Connolly, who is naturally a higher tenor. Keys were not adjusted, so even though Roland is still quite the tenor, he was often flipping into head voice or speaking the lyrics to keep everything natural. Connolly sounds far better in the music than Roland does, and they should adjust the keys to make it fit better.

The score has a handful of different songs, and the worst inclusion being the new Act I Finale. It appears that the Jersey production ended with Upgrade, which is the natural Act I finale. But there is now another song after it, presumably written as an expansion to give Jeremy (Will Roland) a big epic song to have. But the song is absolutely pointless. It doesn't give any new information, and what it provides could be said in a single line. And yet we're left with an Act I finale that is boring, poorly written, and far too long.

I agree with the criticism that a lot of the songs could cut some verses. I think this goes back to the fact that Joe Iconis has always written rock songs, and when singing rock it's normal to repeat verses and choruses for the effect of style and feel. And that works in his cabaret settings, but now in the structure of a full length musical the pandering verses and all of the "woah-oh-oh's" don't serve to advance the story forward.

A huge apparent difference in the book is that they are now catering the musical to the internet, fandom, and pop culture. There are so many things in the show that are pointless that need to be removed, like Gerard Canonico randomly coming out as Bi at the end for no reason, or the Ruth Bader Ginsberg reference, or getting political about female roles in high school plays. Yes, these are fine things, but they are irrelevant to the narrative and sent my eyes rolling like a ferris wheel in the back of my head.

The Broadway budget has also tanked this show a bit. As others have said already, the costume design and the set design are just too much. It's all rather unbelievable spectacle, and I think the style would've worked much better when it was low budget in Jersey. Once again, I think it was tongue-in-cheek absurdity and now it's just bad. 

Be More Chill has a long ways to go in terms of improvements. Did anyone see the Jersey production? Are these speculations accurate, or was it just as bad back in 2013? Would be interested in a comparison between the two. It's so interesting how Be More Chill was a forgotten regional musical on the bookshelf, and Tumblr not only brought it back, but brought it to Broadway. It's a new era of musical theater, and the future of it scares me. All of the sound bites for this show say that this is the future of musical theater, and I'm genuinely scared that that is correct. 

Anyone have a guess as to how it'll get reviewed? I could see it going either way with the Times. I thought the Prom was just as horrid, but that ended up being a critics pick. Everyone around me at Be More Chill, from tweens to elders, were all talking about how fantastic it was afterwards. So who knows...

Updated On: 2/15/19 at 01:54 AM

[Alex M]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 8:09am

At the rush line because i don’t have class on Friday’s. 8:10 right now and am 8th in line. Saw the show off broadway and thought it was fine but nothing I’d spend a lot of money for again....just hoping the “stans” aren’t screaming around me like they did last time.

[ccbway]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 8:50am

WhizzerMarvin said: "ccbway, my point of view is that if it has been done before then it hasn’t been done well the second (fourth or twelfth) time around. There have been countless books, movies, plays and musicals about teens coming of age- also about the civil war, vampire romances and the Holocaust. It’s not that we can’t have new plays/movies about these subjects, but if you aren’t going to approach the subject in a new way, then what’s the point of doing it, even if it’s competently done? That’s why something like Life is Beautiful felt so fresh at the time because it was a shock to see the Holocaust presented through the lens of a romance/rom-com. If you decide to write another rom-com Holocaust screenplay it better not be a retread of Life is Beautiful, not because 100% of the population has seen that film, but because it has already been conquered before.

Be More Chill is at a bit of a disadvantage because in the past 5-7 years we have seen a glut of teen dramas produced in New York, so if you’re trying to find you’re place amongst the ranks, you had better significantly stand out. "

I guess my point is the old "is anything original anymore?" the mere fact that half of all shows are movie adaptations can be put to the same argument of unoriginality. Sometimes something well executed can be just as enjoyable as something done with an original twist.

I think the expectation of originality just seems misplaced, especially in an environment like Broadway where there is literally an entire portion of work that is purely revivals and restagings.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 8:56am

ccbway said: "This was an adaptation of a book, which they mostly adhered to. Seems like people complaining about retreading old material should really be a complaining about the source material.”

I disagree here. An adaptation doesn’t have an obligation to include every single word of its source material, warts and all. An adaptation has a chance to improve and expand upon its source material. If something from the source doesn’t work or isn’t as strong as it could be, the adapters should absolutely rework it as much as necessary. Saying, “well, it was in the book” is a lazy get-out-of-jail-free card for criticism. 

[Kad]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 9:55am

For those interested, I just passed by the theater and there looked to be about 20 people in line. It’s the Friday before a holiday weekend, so I’m not surprised there were more.

[CT2NYC]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 9:56am

Danielle49 said: "For anyone interested, it looks like the 92Y will be doing a Conversation + Performance Highlights in May with cast and crew (it’s also worth checking out their calendar for theater stuff — there’s a Come from Away event and Gavin Creel in concert coming soon).

https://www.92y.org/event/be-more-chill

Can’t link it because I’m mobile. With their XYZ Under 40 program, some seats are $20."

Thanks for the info about Gavin. I had no idea!

[ccbway]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 10:11am

TheQuibbler said: "ccbway said: "This was an adaptation of a book, which they mostly adhered to. Seems like people complaining about retreading old material should really be a complaining about the source material.”

I disagree here. An adaptation doesn’thave an obligation to include every single word of its source material, warts and all. An adaptation has achance to improve and expand upon its source material. Ifsomething from the source doesn’t work or isn’t as strong as it couldbe, the adapters should absolutely rework it as much as necessary. Saying, “well, it was in the book” is a lazy get-out-of-jail-free card for criticism."

One person's lazy is another person's faithful. I don't recall ever saying that adaptations HAVE to stick word for word to the original - but it's also a choice, and frankly a lot less controversial one. I'm not sure exactly what criticism you're defending here, if you specifically saw issues with this particular adaptation, but for every one person that thinks "gee this seems like it could work better if ____" there might be 10 more in an uproar that you changed said thing. I guess my point is, critiquing the staging or the songwriting, or the casting, etc. is one thing but something like "oh god another show about how hard it is to fit in in high school" doesn't seem like a valid critique of the show, but of the source material.

[getupngo]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 10:42am

Saw this with Cap4852 last night. I hadn't seen the off broadway or really knew much about this show other than the crazy stans people keep mentioning here. there was some obnoxious girl in the front row DOING ALL THE CHOREOGRAPHY. Like b**** are you IN the show or watching it? lol

Other than that, the show was okay. They handed out pins of the SQUIP to a random row (apparently they do that every night the usher said) I definitely don't see how it is "the most hyped new musical in America" or whatever that pull quote was. We've seen this a million times. It was very Little Shop of Horrors meets Dear Evan Hansen meets Mean Girls.

I was super excited to hear the Michael in the Bathroom song (since a few people on the board have raved about it and its the only one I listened to before the show). And while (IMO) he is adorable and totally steals the show in the first act (he got MASSIVE applause and cheers when he walked out), the song fell super flat. I don't know if he was sick or just got over being sick but he was strug.gl.ing to hit those notes big time. I've seen him at 54Below and know he's a great singer but he was way off his game last night. But I could see him maybe get a supporting nom for this.

Other than that, it's cliched and lazy at times but had its funny moments. I LOVED the two dumb blonde characters, they have some HILARIOUS songs. The guy who plays Rich was SUPER obnoxious, but I guess thats the character he's supposed to play? if so, great job cause I hated him LOL  And I didn't really care for the Jake character at all. :) I really don't see this blowing up and taking off on BWAY the way DEH or MG has but time will tell.

Updated On: 2/15/19 at 10:42 AM

[a12la]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 10:45am

ccbway said: "This was an adaptation of a book, which they mostly adhered to. Seems like people complaining about retreading old material should really be a complaining about the source material.

As for the complaint that somehow similar songs being in other musicals somehow makes it invalid also assumes that everyone who watches this musical has seen 13. That seems especially presumptuous not only for the target audience, but really even for other theatergoers. Or it could be considered a modern homage to something that has already been done. There are literally dozens of musical tropes constantly used and re-used in every musical. Seems like the critique should really be whether or not it was done well or not, not whether or not something similar has been done previously."

I'm a huge fan of the book (much less so of the musical), and it really isn't a very close adaptation. The first half remains mostly the same, but all the incredibly cliche plot elements like the Squip being evil and trying to take over the world, and Jeremy betraying Michael to become popular aren't present in the book.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 11:36am

ccbway: 

I guess my point is the old "is anything original anymore?" the mere fact that half of all shows are movie adaptations can be put to the same argument of unoriginality. Sometimes something well executed can be just as enjoyable as something done with an original twist.

I think the expectation of originality just seems misplaced, especially in an environment like Broadway where there is literally an entire portion of work that is purely revivals and restagings."

Yes, I do believe we can expect and demand a fresh take on things. Just because something is a movie adaptation, doesn’t mean it isn’t fresh or original. Take Nine for example. 8 1/2 is one of the greatest films ever made- truly fresh and original if there ever was such a thing. Nine is anything but a retread of the film. The creators of the musicals found ways to be fresh and original all on their own using the Fellini’s film as inspiration and not a blueprint. 

Likewise, who said revivals can’t be fresh and original. Just to single out John Doyle, his stripped down versions of Company, Sweeney and Color Purple were all wildly different than their original productions and totally creative and original in their own right. Whether or not you found them successful is subjective, but they weren’t lazy. 

It’s fair to ask is anything truly original anymore, but we can hope to tell stories in a fresh way. Fun Home felt fresh and original. So did Natasha, Pierre. So did Passing Strange. 

There’s nothing wrong with telling another teen drama/coming of age/Faust story (Faust has been adapted countless times, so why not!), but if someone chooses to go down a well-worn path, they must work even harder to maintain some freshness, otherwise what’s the point. 

Just one more example, but if you decided to write a new biography on Alexander Hamilton, you should have something new to bring to the table, no? There are dozens of biographies already and now a really famous one that many feel is definitive. Of course, if you discover some letters a descendant has been holding onto that make us re-examine Hamilton and his legacy, by all means write it, but if you’re only going to rehash what has already been written, then again, what’s the point? 

[Coe2020]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 11:46am

Was there last night (2.14). Walked in at 6pm for rush, told to come back later. 6:45 snagged orch right, row G seat 12 marked partial view. Full view of everything, but any closer or in the two further right seats would have been heavier partial. 

I listened to the soundtrack ahead of time, and I'm slightly near the target demo but a bit older. It was certainly entertaining, and I enjoyed the intro montage song, the bathroom song, and even the pants song at the end. 

Second act there was a mic problem it seems during Halloween, with heavy feedback for around 5 minutes. Also agreed with the random forced topical references, like the random bi at the end (any mention of two moms or bi got like a 5 second cheer - it is great to see representation but felt a little lazy). Voices overall felt decent, Michael was strained during his song for sure which was disappointing. 

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 11:59am

There was a Mic problem with the teacher I act 2 when i saw it.

Also Co2020, just have to say this....it is the Original Cast Recording, no the soundtrack!

[ccbway]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 1:29pm

WhizzerMarvin said: "ccbway:

I guess my point is the old "is anything original anymore?" the mere fact that half of all shows are movie adaptations can be put to the same argument of unoriginality. Sometimes something well executed can be just as enjoyable as something done with an original twist.

I think the expectation of originality just seems misplaced, especially in an environment like Broadway where there is literally an entire portion of work that is purely revivals and restagings."

Yes, I do believe we can expect and demand a fresh take on things. Just because something is a movieadaptation, doesn’t mean it isn’t fresh or original. Take Nine for example. 8 1/2 is one of the greatest films ever made- truly fresh and original if there ever was such a thing. Nine is anything but a retread of the film. The creators of the musicals found ways to be fresh and original all on their own using the Fellini’s film as inspiration and not a blueprint.

Likewise, who said revivals can’t be fresh and original. Just to single out John Doyle, his stripped down versions of Company, Sweeney and Color Purple were all wildly different than their original productions and totally creative and original in their own right. Whether or not you found them successful is subjective, but they weren’t lazy.

It’s fair to ask is anything truly original anymore, but we can hope to tell stories in a fresh way. Fun Home felt fresh and original. So did Natasha, Pierre. So did Passing Strange.

There’s nothing wrong with telling another teen drama/coming of age/Faust story (Faust has been adapted countless times, so why not!), but if someone chooses to go down a well-worn path, they must work even harder to maintain some freshness, otherwise what’s the point.

Just one more example, but if you decided to write a new biography on Alexander Hamilton, you should have something new to bring to the table, no? There are dozens of biographies already and now a really famous one that many feel is definitive. Of course, if you discover some letters a descendant has been holding onto that make us re-examine Hamilton and his legacy, by all means write it, but if you’re only going to rehash what has already been written, then again, what’s the point?"

So much to unpack here, and I'm not trying to by antagonistic, but by these standards, something like Hello, Dolly! or My Fair Lady should be thrown into the "nothing original" / "lazy" category of revivals, I guess? While I can honestly say there was probably almost nothing fresh or original about either of these revivals, they were both executed very well. Sometimes fresh staging or casting, IMO, is enough.

I think the issue is the gauge of what a "fresh take" means seems purely subjective - I could easily argue that the "fresh take" on this "coming-of-age/Faust" story is just the modern setting or the younger target audience.

There's nothing wrong with expecting or appreciating originality when it comes to shows, I'm sure your examples can be argued. But I would just that a critique that amounts to "just another teen drama" or "god, another song where rumors are spread by phone" or whatever is sort of just as lazy. I would still argue that just use of standard musical/drama tropes doesn't really invalidate anything. Again, I can argue entire plays/musicals/movies/books that use these standard tropes or plot devices at this point can all seem repetitive or unoriginal. But if someone executes a really great, say romantic comedy, it can be rewarding/enjoyable in itself without requiring anything particularly fresh or original about it. One could argue a large portion of the entire movie industry at this point is based on this. Again, I'm not saying fresh or original is bad, just that I don't think it has to be some kind of requirement like you might.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 1:39pm

Surprised this isn't selling better. Lots of available seats this weekend. It's up at TKTS for tonight and tomorrow's matinee at 50% off. Did all of its fans see it Off-Broadway?

[haterobics]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 2:54pm

uncageg said: "There was a Mic problem with the teacher I act 2 when i saw it."

Hmm, I'm going to hold off on seeing it until they resolve that...

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 2/15/19 at 3:17pm

ccbway said: “One person's lazy is another person's faithful. I don't recall ever saying that adaptations HAVE to stick word for word to the original - but it's also a choice, and frankly a lot less controversial one. I'm not sure exactly what criticism you're defending here, if you specifically saw issues with this particular adaptation, but for every one person that thinks "gee this seems like it could work better if ____" there might be 10 more in an uproar that you changed said thing. I guess my point is, critiquing the staging or the songwriting, or the casting, etc. is one thing but something like "oh god another show about how hard it is to fit in in high school" doesn't seem like a valid critique of the show, but of the source material.”

That’s fair, you didn’t explicitly say that. What I meant to imply was that critiquing a piece of plotting (or character development, anything really) in the show and then having that critique explained away by “well, it’s in the book” lets the creatives off the hook. Personally, I’d rather risk a few angry fans if it means changing something so the storytelling is strengthened. 

I should also say that I’ve not read nor seen Be More Chill and I was speaking of adaptions in a broader sense, not necessarily this specific piece.