jv92 sees "Guys and Dolls" (2/17 evening show)

[jv92]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 12:33am

GUYS AND DOLLS 2009, OR WHY DO BROADWAY AUDIENCES ACCEPT SH*T?

People say the perfect musical is either Guys and Dolls or Gypsy. Despite my affection for Guys and Dolls, I'd have to go with Gypsy. I always found Guys and Dolls a little too book heavy and a little clunky at times. It doesn't move quite as well as Gypsy does. Even a bad production of Gypsy moves. Unfortunately, as we now know thanks to Des McAnuff's ugly, painful and miscast production, Guys and Dolls does not move so well in a bad production
Mr. McAnuff has stupidly decided to reset Guys and Dolls, usually set in 1950 (the year the show was produced), somewhere in the 1930s and has even more stupidly, put Damon Runyon into the production walking into scenes, interacting with characters, and in some cases annoying them. Kate Jennings Grant as Sarah Brown tells the Runyon look alike to "Go away" towards the end of the show. Thank you Miss Grant. We all concur.
Mr. McAnuff has also decided to use rear projections as settings. One graphic is Times Square (a dull one), another is a side street, one is the mission exterior and so on. This "Happy Time" gone Runyon is ineffective and lacks the cartoony whimsy the piece needs. The screen used for the projections is also way too small.
Then there's the matter of the cast. Of them all, only one truly shines. That is Kate Jennings Grant as Sarah Brown. Miss Grant is extraordinary, perhaps the best Sarah Brown since Isabelle Bigley or Jean Simmons in the film. She is charming in the role, entirely effective and sings lovely. Craig Bierko as Sky Masterson does not reach the level of excellence Miss Grant does, but he fares well. At least better than my next two victims...
Oliver Platt is miscast and looks totally confused as Nathan Detroit. He is dull as petrified wood, never lands a good solid laugh and seems bored onstage. And then there is the matter of Lauren Graham. The audiences, mostly made up of Gillmore Girls fanbase, adore her. Why? Miss Graham is giving one of the most thoroughly awful performances I have ever seen in the theatre. She plays the rather ditzy, but intelligent Adelaide like she is mentally challenged in some way. Again, she never lands a solid laugh and her "Adelaide's Lament" is a waste of a good song. Can't audiences realize when they're being given a plate of ****?
Then there's the matter of "Sit Down, You're Rockin' the Boat. It's a fine number but the typically self indulgent Mary Testa needs to be restrained. Did someone actually mention the chance of her getting a Tony nomination for this work?
I'm sorry to say this revival of Guys and Dolls, with the exception of Miss Grant, did not bring me much joy at all. It obviously was a joyous time for the audience judging from their nearly orgasmic reaction to most musical numbers and at curtain call. It's funny though, they didn't laugh that much.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 12:34am

While I didn't care for Kate Jennings Grant, I agree with you on every other aspect of your review..

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 12:38am

Thanks for the detailed review, jv.
So would you guys say that the show is not even worth seeing? I'm going to NY soon and I had it on my list but from all the reviews I've read, I'm re-considering it. Miss Adelaide is my favorite character and to hear that Lauren Graham is ruining the part, really irks me.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 12:40am

Even though the production is awful, I'm still telling people to go see it...it is Guys and Dolls after all...and ruining such a great show needs to be seen to be believed...

[jv92]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 12:45am

Another quibble...

WHY on Earth would they make it seem like Nathan Detroit was the founder of Nathan's Famous Hot Dogs. Was it a joke? Was it McAnuff smoking dope and making up his own history? What the ****? And the audience giggled!

[nlm]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 12:50am

The hot dog thing peeved me off. It could also be because in the last awesome production I saw, they had Nathan selling newspapers at the end which fitted in with keeping with the bookies theme, plus news that he was finally getting married.

Ray, it's entirely up to you whether you go and see it. It's gotten a lot of mixed reviews, I enjoyed it, it wasn't fantastic but it wasn't the worst production I've seen in the past year. Updated On: 2/19/09 at 12:50 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 12:55am

Des McAnuff and Joe Mantello should be made to watch tonight's PBS documentary on Jerome Robbins over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

...until they figure out how to direct musicals.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 12:59am

I saw it tonight too, and I rather enjoyed it. I am honestly surprised by your review. Yes the show wasn't perfect; in fact it had many flaws. I honestly didn't love Kate Jennings Grant, and I (not a Gilmore Girls fan) thought that Lauren Graham was quite good. I thought Oliver and Craig were both miscast, but i thought the ensemble was quite nice. I think that the choreography was excellent, and all of the design elements came together nicely. Also your comment about Mary Testa being overindulgent and needing to be reigned in is just stupid. She has ONE funny moment in the show, and it was hysterical, so lighten up. You seem to hate on the show for the sake of hating it.

Edit to add: Also, I didn't love Titus, but every time Steve Rosen was on stage I was happy. I thought he totally nailed it. Updated On: 2/19/09 at 12:59 AM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 2:08am

Are you serious?

I guess I wasn't reading carefully enough. They have added Damon Runyon as a character, actually speaking dialogue, to perhaps the greatest, Tony Award-winning book for a musical in Broadway history?

They actually had the unmitigated gall and nerve to add crap to be best lines ever spoken on the New York stage? The script that caused Richard Watts, the reviewer from the New York Post to break protocol and tell the authors that he and Mister Atkinson from the New York Times were having a swell time?

Des McAnuff and Joe Mantello, who will never amount to one tenth of the careers of Burrows and Loesser have unilaterally decided to become their creative partners and fix the obvious (apparent only to them) glaring errors the show's creators made?

Hubris growls on the Great White Way tonight.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 3:51am

nlm,
The script specifies that in the final scene, Nathan is working a newspaper stand that he now runs, so it wasn't just the production you saw.

As far as the rest, the show has one REAL fault. I have said it before and I will say it again. Des McAnuff should not have been allowed anywhere NEAR this show.

The one alteration I do not mind, that I have heard so far, is placing the show in the 1930s, which is when Runyon's original stories take place.

As far as adding Runyon in as a chanracter, it is not needed in this show and sounds very forced.. as if he wants to beat it into the head that this show is based on a collection of tales.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 5:54am

I sincerely believe you cannot, in any way, shape, or form, improve on the original script of Guys and Dolls. The script is utter perfection in every way, more than Gypsy, better than My Fair Lady. How on earth can adding Runyon to the show improve it? I was willing to accept the change of period - grudgingly because the late 40s-early 50s is so wonderful for the show and it didn't need to be done - but adding new characters is like trying to draw thicker lips on the Mona Lisa.

What possessed the rights holders to allow this? Have they no respect for the jewel they have been enlisted to protect?

This is as bad as Max Reinhardt having the nerve to list the following credit: "A Midsummernight's Dream" by William Shakespeare. Additional dialogue by Sam Taylor." He never lived the shame of that down.

Neither should these guys.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 6:53am

The script has not been changed. Only a few lyrics have been altered to reflect period changes.

[DrVincento2]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 9:09am

You all need to calm down.

It's a solid production with exception for Ms. Graham and Mr. Platt. Do they ruin the show? Almost. But is the entire show ruined? Certainly not. I enjoy Ms. Graham's intentions with her characters it's just a shame she doesn't know how to deliver a single line. Mr Platt, unfortunately, is hopeless.

What do you see from this production is how GREAT the book is and how it really is about Sarah and Sky. At the end of the day Nathan and Adelaide are simply a comedic device, there is no true conflict between them (and I've seen other productions) because the circumstances are so ridiculous, you not shocked (engaged for 14 years? Of course they are going to get married).

Thankfully, you have Mrs. Grant who is truly magnificent. I really enjoyed Craig Bierko as well.

Mary Testa certainly does not stop the show and she is indulgent only to the fact that she's Mary Testa and the audience eggs her on....because thats what the majority wants to see.

The choreography is great. The sets are impressive and the lighting is exciting. The back wall is a LED screen, not rear projection, and it didn't bother me whatsoever (with exception for the pipes as it was going down into the sewer, they looked a bit technical-school-first-time-animation-student work.

Things that need work? Hot Box Numbers....something is missing.

[DrVincento2]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 9:12am

Also, the Damon Runyon bit doesn't not detract from the production. Does it need it? No. Does it bother me? No.

Also, I'm not sure if any of you believe in karma but feel free to critique all you'd like with the show but to wish career ill-will is simply just putting bad energy out into the universe. Be careful before someone drops a house on you too.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 9:14am

Is it worth seeing? I'm debating buying a rear mezz ticket for Saturday (I don't think I'd get there early enough to get the acceptable rush seats)

[DrVincento2]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 9:19am

Yes. Make an opinion for yourself. Rear Mezz are great seats as you can see the large marquee signs in full view.

Enjoy.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 9:38am

The best view is from the mezzanine. I'd stick the critics there if I were the producers.

[jv92]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 12:27pm

DrVincento, leave myself and the others who weren't particularly thrilled with the show alone and stop talking about karma. The show, in the opinion of some individuals, is rotten and we have the right to express our opinions whether you like it or not. Thank you.

[DrVincento2]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 1:02pm

I never objected to being critical of the show. It does have flaws. But really, to say anything is perfect is a recipe for disaster. And to put such a grandiose faith into a show like Guys and Dolls is like expecting a night of laughter out of 'Night Mother. And I was speaking to the group not specifically you jv92.

"Des McAnuff and Joe Mantello, who will never amount to one tenth of the careers of Burrows and Loesser...". If that's not bad karma, then I need to do some more research.

As for career, not only is Des have significant directing credits (Jersey Boys, I Am My Own Wife, 700 Sundays, How To Succeed, Tommy) and accolades but he is a primary producers for Dodger Theatricals which produced the hit productions of Jersey Boys, I Am My Own Wife, Urinetown, 42nd Street, Music Man, Tommy, Guys and Dolls (the last revival), Secret Garden, Big River... to name a few. He's hardly a hack.

[DrVincento2]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 1:03pm

Not to mention he's artistic director for La Jolla Playhouse which is one of the premiere regional theaters in the country.

[Tigger]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 3:16pm

...WAS the artistic director of La Jolla...now he is the director of Canada's Stratford Shakespeare Festival...

[DrVincento2]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 3:25pm

Thank you. Not to shabby of a place either.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 3:35pm

"Des McAnuff and Joe Mantello, who will never amount to one tenth of the careers of Burrows and Loesser...".

And while Joe Mantello has had a few flops (what director hasn't?), he did win two Tonys for Assassins and Take Me Out. I don't remember you winning two Tony Awards...

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 4:16pm

Just for the record, Des McAnuff did not direct I AM MY OWN WIFE.

Moisés Kaufman did.

[zooxanthellae]

Posted: 2/19/09 at 4:32pm

Too bad they couldn't just get Ellen Greene to play Miss Adelaide!


I'm still looking forward to this production, but thoroughly disappointed in Lauren Graham... Maybe she'll be able to pull it together.
Glad to hear Grant and Bierko are holding their own!
Updated On: 2/19/09 at 04:32 PM