Any word on how it is?
Sad I can't see this one, mostly because Matthew Wilkas is...sexy.
Thanks for the detailed review, conealpetterson! I have tickets for it the first week in October, and I'm very excited. I'm glad I bought my $30 tickets when I did- as most seats seem to be in the $110+ range now. I love this show, and I am excited about the cast. I'll post my thoughts once I see it. Sounds like they had a strong start, and I hope they get more comfortable as time goes on.
I would love to see this, but damn wrong coast. Still I always dislike when productions use more modern clothing for this show, it's like having Hairspray with modern clothes, it doesn't make any sense. I am very curious at the puppets and sets as I've seen some stuff on Instagram, but not a super good look at either. Like is it a bare set, or do they just not have anything before curtain and at curtain call?https://www.instagram.com/p/B2ixzH3lVLL/https://www.instagram.com/p/B2ixFyEDwKT/Also wondering about the puppet if this is rehearsalhttps://www.instagram.com/p/B2he70pnhc7/
conealpetterson said: "I really couldn’t understand the creative reasoning behind giving Audrey such boring costumes. "Maybe because they wanted to make her more everyday & approachable? To reflect like the sort of people who are in the audience? That’s the only reason I can think of. But Audrey is supposed to counter the nerdy, nebbish Seymour. She’s supposed to be over-the-top & the opposite of Seymour. Having her act & dress pedestrian defeats the purpose. Such bad direction.
Saw this last night, and we didn't like it very much. Ronnette, Crystal and Chiffon all sounded great, were well-utilized and had excellent stage presence, especially Crystal. And Amber Riley was great for Audrey II, imo. But the stage design was pretty ugly all around, as were the costumes, and I didn't like the way they handled Audrey II. Most of the time, she was a normal sized plant (as seen in the preview pics), but they changed it up every time she ate people, and only one of those variations worked well. I get that this isn't supposed to be a slick or glitzy production, but in many ways, it looked amateur. George Salazar was fine as Seymour, but his singing wasn't very strong. Mj Rodriguez was affecting as Audrey, but noticeably rushing and flubbing her lines throughout. I thought Matthew Wilkas was okay as the dentist, but my husband hated his over-the-top performance. Mushnik was fine. I know they only started performances a week or so ago, and I am sure the performance issues will improv a little over time. But a lot of the problems with this production are deeper than that.We're seeing the NYC edition next month, so I am eager to see how that one differs.
I have to say, judging only by the production photos, that this looks like the ugliest production of Little Shop I've ever seen.
sm33 said: "We're seeing the NYC edition next month, so I am eager to see how that one differs."Yeah I'm seeing the Off-Broadway production in a couple of weeks. I've been avoiding reviews & spoilers but I'm hoping (confident, really) that this production will wash the taste of Pasadena out of my mouth!
I'm feeling torn whether to see this production or not. Little Shop can be gritty but still needs to have some camp in it.https://ew.com/theater/2019/09/24/mj-rodriguez-little-shop-of-horrors/
Good on them for trying something new. The idea of a realistic and gritty LITTLE SHOP does sound intriguing and after the success of OKLAHOMA! I’m glad to see other works are being stripped back with new layers attempting to be found. Even if the finished product isn’t successful I still think the company should be lauded. Personally I’d have reinvented LITTLE SHOP by performing it site specific. Having a full functioning flower shop as the setting since the show itself is supposed to be a tiny production.
Wildcard said: "I'm feeling torn whether to see this production or not. Little Shop can be gritty but still needs to have some camp in it."I agree. Little Shop can certainly have grit but it definitely needs camp. This production has neither. The camp is just about nonexistent. And it's less gritty than it is ugly. (Ugly set; ugly costumes; ugly plant puppet.) As I mentioned earlier, Audrey is played earnestly with nary a trace of camp or humor. That doesn't make it feel "gritty" or "edgy;" just boring & misguided. I'm still glad I saw this production-- I happened to be in LA last weekend and didn't realize previews had already started, so I bought a ticket-- but I'm very cautious about recommending it. There are some bright spots (Seymour; Mushnik) but overall it's a big miss.
Plannietink08 said: "Personally I’d have reinvented LITTLE SHOP by performing it site specific. Having a full functioning flower shop as the setting since the show itself is supposed to be a tiny production."There is a production that did that earlier this year. It was in Ithaca. https://www.broadwayworld.com/central-new-york/article/Photo-Flash-First-Look-At-Site-Specific-LITTLE-SHOP-OF-HORRORS-At-Bools-Flower-Shop-20190501
This production was a perfect example of press release casting and misguided direction.It looks terrible. It's played straight (well, by some). It's totally missing the point of the show.
This is so unfortunate because I was really excited by this casting and I wish we'd gotten Rodriguez/Salazar/Gray in NYC as opposed to the casting we've gotten here.My thinking on it is this--I think they got so caught up in the diverse casting that they sacrificed the material for it. I think it would've been way cooler for them to have color conscious casting and still do the show in the 50's (60's?) as written. because that in and of itself, is a statement. Modernizing the show without updating any of the references, which legally they can't do, is lazy. If LSOH were written today, it would inherently be a different show. Someone compared the likeness of the design to the recent anchronized OKLAHOMA--and I can't exactly explain why it doesn't bother me as much with OKLAHOMA to have anachronisms than LSOH--but it really does. Also, LSOH can be done scaled back--it's written as a chamber piece--but my god, is thisd design just ugly as all get out. It just looks so uninspired and lazy all around. A real let down.
missthemountains said: "I think it would've been way cooler for them to have color conscious casting and still do the show in the 50's (60's?) as written. "60's, as the original movie is from 1960 and I think the movie hints that the events take place around 1964.
© 2019 Wisdom Digital Media