Broadway Rose Theatre Co.
August 5, 2006; closes August 20, 2006
More albatross than flamingo. Extraordinary amount of talent (notably orchestra and two leads), resources (impressive production elements) and energy (everyone tried), but shake-your-head book/score/concept didn’t really know if it was honest farce or crazy lampoon. Show fell flat after hitting its head on the bar trying to pull itself over the top.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
My feelings exactly. I don't think the O's Grant Butler saw the same play I did. Was there another production downstairs or something?
as far as the audience last thurs was concerned, this is a funny, funny show. they stopped the show several times with laughs lasting 5-10 seconds at times, stayed with the questionable plot all the way to the end, and took to their feet for the bows. if the criteria of "what are they trying to do?" (make you laugh) "did they succeed?" (yes, repeatedly) "was it worth doing?" (well sure) then this show seems to be a success...
The last posting was from a member of the cast, I'll bet. As for making you laugh, well, some of us laugh at Barney. Doesn't mean we enjoyed it. Was it worth doing, maybe for a cast member. Was it worth watching, only for an hour, not two. The cast was strong, but the story was very dissapointing. The two main leads were exceptional, too bad the title character's acting was not of their same style.
That last posting was from someone who didn't get cast, I'll bet.
:0) Kidding. (sort of)
My point is, I wish folks would give their reviews honestly and diplomatically without being catty - there was no reason to call out the cat or to imply that anyone who likes this show must be in the cast. The way I read the posting, in fact, was simply an objective reporting of one audience's response on one night.
of course what I meant to say was "call out the cast" :)
Why would *anyone* choose to do this inane script?
inane means silly and silly has its place. 17 million people a week watched "will & grace" and it was inane to say the least.
perhaps a way to explain the audience's warm reception of this piece is that sometimes when there are a couple of wars going on, folks crave a little inanity in their lives....somehow it is soothing...
besides, any show with lines about strindberg and fifth columnists can't be all that shallow/vacuous/devoid of substance...
also, if you had read your program, you would have learned that this was a last minute replacement for "little shop of horrors" the rights to which got pulled out from under them....
well just because you can't do Little Shop doesn't mean you have to do the Dead Flamingo Dancer ... I mean, it's not like it was the only show left on the shelf, was it?
but whoever above said it is has a point: if there are artists who will do it and audiences who will watch it ... how wrong is that?
We're regular theatre-goers, and we like a range of stuff from comedy to light opera. We go for entertainment, and this was a very entertaining show. They sang, they danced, they were funny (all at the same time!) and the plot was delightfully silly. We had a great time, friends liked it too, and I sent several relatives off to see it. They thought it was great. Sure, it's not high art, but who cares? I'd much rather spend my money on something fun than waste it on some heavy, depressing, 'arty' production elsewhere.
I don't think anyone is complaining that the show wasn't "arty" enough. It was just a stupid, stupid show, albeit finely performed. The Musical Comedy Murders of 1940 is "delightfully silly." This was just f-ing dumb!
Post a Comment