My little women review...

[broadwayboy81]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 3:54pm

I saw it last night as well. The show is mediocre at best.... Definitely better than Brooklyn and Dracula (but is that really saying much?). I think Sutton is great in the role and she really tones down her acting (compared to Millie) which is nice. However, the story never really grabs you or gives her enough chances to shine. Laurie gets one of the best numbers in the show (mid first act... and you breathe a sigh of relief.. "finally a song to pull us into the story"). Ms McGovern sings a heartbreaking ballad so early on I thought the curtain would come down and there would be a curtain call. The score is inconsistent... sometimes beautiful, sometime very dry and forgetable. The collaborators have really taken on an impossible task. Little Women is such a detailed story it's hard to get it all in without missing key relationships. You never truly feel the four sisters are "closely connected." Suddenly in Act 2 you're supposed to believe Beth and Jo are as close as can be when the two have probably only said a handful of lines to eachother.

My suggestions for the show:
1) Give Beth more in Act 1. We need to see her relationship with Jo then. The duet they have the beginning of Act 2 is beautiful, but could be much more effective if we believed their relationship.
2) Recast Amy. This girl is horendous. Obnoxious from beginning to end. Who though to cast her in this role?
3) Open the show with music... We need something to grab us in and the song (that eventually started after several lines) was dry and underorchestrated. Not to mention Sutton mixes the whole thing. She needs something belty in the beginning.
4) Maureen's character should not have such a downer of a song so early on!!!! She has the first real solo and she's supporting. This doesnt make sense. The whole show is too "down" until Laurie comes on stage.
5) The ending is horrible and forgetable. One of the most effective scenes is in the attic with Marmee and Jo. The entire sequence is beautiful. Sommehow they should find a way to carry that drama until the end. Perhaps bring it full circle with Sutton working on writing "Little Women..." or a reprise of Astonishing. End with something musical... It starts with dialogue and ends with dialogue. That's fine in some cases, but here I think it would be more effective to start and end with music.

I could go on and on. I know it sounds like I hated it, but I really didn't. I thought it had some really great moments, but the negative moments really brought the production down. Danny Gurwin is great as Laurie and the girl who plays Beth is great as well (but we don't even get to see that until Act 2). Sutton is of course perfect, but they need to give her more of a chance to shine. One belty number (astonishing) just isn't enough. It leaves us wanting so much more. Maureen McGovern stole the show with her Act 2 song. What a singer! I wish her acting were more up to par though.

Ok... the end... for now.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 4:03pm

I think it's funny that you thought Maureen McGovern stole the show with her Act II ballad because I've seen the show twice now and both times I felt her part in the show was perhaps one of the only roles (Aside from McAlexander as Amy) which was not played to perfection. I couldn't see why they had such a big name in a part where she couldn't do anything with it.

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 4:07pm

I'm happy you semi-liked the show.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 4:08pm

I stopped reading after your Dracula comment.

Nothing to you, but we have different tastes...

[broadwayboy81]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 4:18pm

bsobw2: different tastes? as in, you like Dracula? I'm confused... I never said I hated the show... just that I think there are things that need to be fixed.

bythesword84: I agree that Maureen wasn't perfection. Her acting left much to be desired. However, it was the song and her voice that really stole the show there. I'm glad we agree on Amy though. The rest of the cast is pretty good. I just wish the book and score worked more on creating real relationships.

[Iris Chacon]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 4:30pm

Well I loved the show and I thought that Maureens character was the weakest. I do think Sutton is phenomenal in it. As to the comparison to dracula.... not even in the same league. Dracula was crap. Never belonged on broadway. Little Women does.

[notforthelifeofme]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 4:40pm

bwayboy, i completely agree with what you said, especially about adding music to the beginning and end. both seem rather abrupt. all of a sudden there's the professor onstage (is there even an overture?), although i am glad they let sutton come out later for entrance applause. unfortunately, when i saw the show, the understudies were playing the roles of Marmee and Laurie, and I never felt any connection to their two songs that people always seem to praise. i was so depressed because i had seen a clip of maureen singing "days of plenty" and it was so wonderful. then i saw the understudy and she def didn't bring it to its full potential. i don't understand why people don't like the girl playing amy. it seems like it has more to do with the character itself than her actual acting skills (plus, she was really nice at the stagedoor!)

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 5:17pm

bwayboy, I also agree with your assessment of the show, although I think it left more of a negative impression on me (probably because Sutton was out when I saw it). There are definite problems. They cut down the length after previews at Duke, and some issues seem to stem from that fact. It seems a little choppy now, and some parts are underdeveloped. Maureen McGovern was the highlight of the show with "Days of Plenty."

[ElphieDefiesGravity]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 6:01pm

Actually, they didn't really cut that much from the show at Duke. If anything they added more. The show is about the same length, maybe a few minutes shorter, but they added a lot of stuff to make it less choppy. It is a much cleaner and well-developed (character-wise) show than it was at Duke.

[WiCkEd4LyFfE]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 6:03pm

Im going to see it in Febuary hopefully i will have no complaints :)

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 6:18pm

If it's now cleaner and better developed than it was at Duke, I would hate to see that production...

[MatureDignity]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 6:40pm

Can someone who saw both productions tell me if they got rid of that "I'll Love You Anyway" song?

[showstopper]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 9:03pm

I saw it last night and I agree with you...recast Amy. I actually wrote that on the suggestion sheet. I think they should build the relationship between beth and jo more and forget the capecod scene and sing the duet while beth is dying in her bed. I think it would make better sense than seeing her walk to a rickety old wheelchair after she flies a kite and says let me go and you never see her again. I agree, sutton needs better songs. alot of them are too choppy and not really memorable. I think it should end with a big belt number. I loved the way sutton played jo. She was terrific and so real. the rest of the actors were very good but I thought maureen was a lousy actress. They started clapping when she appeared and I was expecting this great actress and she ended up disappointing me. susan sarandon played a better marmee. Dont jump down my throat...this is just my opinion. Updated On: 1/14/05 at 09:03 PM

[rubydoo]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 10:48pm

Thanks, broadwayboy81. Enjoyed your review.

I find the diversity of opinions on this show extremely interesting. In addition to this site, check out what the people are writing in the New York Times Reader Reviews section. It runs the whole gamut: one to five stars.

I'd like to comment about the role of Amy, the Cape Cod scene, and the differences that I've observed in the show's appeal by audience age.

I was very reluctant to say that I liked Amy because there seems to be an overwhelming majority that thinks she is a terrible actress and that the way she plays the role is annoying. I think, though, that it's a combination of the role, the way she's been directed and the fact that we know that she's really an adult woman. Perhaps it would have been better to cast the young Amy with a real child. The pouting wouldn't appear as annoying if a truly young girl did it, and there would be greater distinction between the young Amy and the grown up one. Probably a case of the producers trying to save money. Don't kill me, but I liked Amy anyway. And I was gratified to read that at least one whole other person liked her, too. Blame the producers and the director!

Someone -- whoever it was -- didn't like the Cape Cod scene. I thought the background, and especially the lighting, were superb. I heard lots of sniffling and saw many a teary eye during this scene, and it wasn't because they thought it bad! To take this out and put a dying Beth in bed, as it was suggested? No way.

There seems to be an appeal-by-age factor in this show. The very young and the older than thirty-five crowd generally seem to like it more than people in their late teens, twenties and early thirties. Maybe part of it is the "Wicked" factor, i.e. they are expecting a megamusical, a gigantic production. Little Women is more musical than Blood Brothers, but it has none of the overproduction -- like "Wicked" and "La Cage", for example -- that many of us know and love and have come to expect in a Broadway musical. It's an ensemble piece and, obviously, from what we've seen, either people are going to love it, or leave shaking their heads in bewilderment as to why the people who do are such theatrical lunkheads.

Updated On: 1/15/05 at 10:48 PM

[alterego]

Posted: 1/14/05 at 11:38pm

Just to hear Mareen Mc Governs voice would be worth the ticket price for me. This show doesn't sound like it last the distance.
Are we taking bets yet on how long it will last?

Posted: 1/14/05 at 11:47pm

Iris, how long ago did you see LITTLE WOMEN?

[Kris2]

Posted: 1/15/05 at 2:05am

showstopper, I think a duet between Beth and Jo at that point in the manner you described would be extremely melodramatic and cheesy when played out on stage though.

rubydoo, I have to disagree about the target audience. Little kids did not seem to be responding well to the show. I sat behind two little girls and they seemed bored out of their mind. In general, it seems to hit well on the sentimental, family type of any age, but usually more mature. The producers did not cast a child as young Amy because it's probably not worth it. She's gotta grow up and that's an extra person to cast. Plus, kids have too many rules and restrictions about how much they can work and such. I just didn't think the one playing her was all that great an actress.

I'm just as critical as broadwayboy81, but I still enjoyed the show a lot as they did. Perhaps a little more. Have to agree about the ending though. Needed work.

[Iris Chacon]

Posted: 1/15/05 at 2:24am

Jose,
Ase una semana y media.

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 1/15/05 at 9:38am

I'm not sure about your age assessment either, ruby. The older couple sitting next to me left after intermission, and I heard the middle-aged couple sitting behind me decide to stay after intermission only because McGovern had a solo in Act 2. At the performance I attended, it seemed to get fairly negative reception across the board. The people I've talked to that loved it are actually in their late teens/early 20s.

[rubydoo]

Posted: 1/15/05 at 1:24pm

It's even more obvious now that it's hard to agree on anything about this show. Oh, well. I through in my 25 cents. Anyone going to opening night? Last time I checked Telecharge, there were some seats available in the back of the balcony. Cheers, everyone.

Updated On: 1/15/05 at 01:24 PM

[Michelleruth2]

Posted: 1/15/05 at 2:06pm

I'm going to the matinee on the 26th of this month......I was really excited about it...but after reading this thread, I hope I won't be disappointed.

[broadwayboy81]

Posted: 1/15/05 at 3:20pm

rubydoo:

I question whether you really read my review. I absolutely do not think the capecod scene between Beth and Jo should be cut. That was one of the best scenes in the show. I was just saying that if the script established Beth and Jo's relationship more in Act 1 it would be even more effective than it already is.

showstopper: My friend and I put "recast Amy" on our evaluation sheets as well...

[rubydoo]

Posted: 1/15/05 at 9:29pm

Oh, sorry, broadwayboy 81. I must have misinterpreted what you said, but I definitely read your review and liked it a lot. In fact, I think I confused what someone else said and attributed it to you.

#1Elphie, on the age thing, I'm pretty sure that the primary target audience was women over 45 who read the book or saw any of the film versions. Seconday target was mothers with daughters who are old enough to have read the book, are reading it or could read it. Men were not a target audience for this show but since women over 45 buy most theater tickets, some might bring their husbands or sig others. The young girls that attended when I did, especially the ones who were seated directly in front of me seemed to be having a great time. They were maybe nine and eleven.

Broadwayboy81, I'm going to remove your name from the reference to the Cape Cod scene. Again, sorry.

Posted: 1/17/05 at 9:25am

Sounds disappointing. I heard a couple of tunes from it on Broadway XM channel and was looking forward to seeing it...and the hopeful thought of a show like that featuring so many females one day being available for me to direct in a high school production was cause for optimism as well.

[ken8631]

Posted: 1/17/05 at 9:32am

Wow - wife and I saw it and loved it - especially Sutton (another Tony) and Maureens solo in second act.

Astonishing!