Monday, July 28, 2008

Dames at Sea

Broadway Rose Theatre Co.
July 25 - August 3, 2008


A would-be chorus girl arrives in New York with only a pair of tap shoes in her suitcase and dreams of stardom in her heart. Calamity strikes during rehearsals but the show must go on and it does-on the deck of a battleship. It’s an engaging, tap-dancing, musical comedy satire.


Anonymous said...

it's official.
broadway rose is out of ideas.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the thoughtful review. How about if you go SEE the show, then make an informed comment.

Or were you only interested in making snarky comments about genres that you don't happen to care for in order to feel smart and superior?

I'm amazed how many people on this blog lack even a smattering of manners.

Anonymous said...

i love how people who are offended by what they see as snarkiness, respond with snarkiness while condeming snarkiness.
i did see the show, thank you, and that IS my sole response.
it is a vapid show, beneath them and they need to pick better material.
happy now?

Anonymous said...

A good production of a lousy show. however, the leads bring nothing to their roles that we have not seen them do already. taphorn is doing "chicago" michlete is doing "flamingo dancer" and palomino is using the same characterization she used in both "42nd st" and "singinng in the rain" in fact palomino is profoundly pedestrian. her husband has the better singing voice.

Anonymous said...

This show was absolutely awful. I got the impression that instead of a "camp" musical it was more of a musical where they were making fun of and degrading the musicals of that era. The only redeeming quality about the whole show was Dan Murphy (who is just hysterical) and Lyndsay Michelet (who is a wonderful actress and a fantastic singer). Other than that the show was awful!

Anonymous said...

I agree. To go from something like Les Mis, to... this, is just, well, embarrassing. This is not a dig at either performer, musician, or otherwise, but the material itself. There's a reason this show is rarely produced. The performances were fantastic, but the show itself is dreadful. I agree with the above commenter in that respect, but I will say again that the performances were as great as the material allowed them to be.

Anonymous said...

i can't believe WW liked this show.
well on second thought, i guess i can.

Ben Waterhouse said...

WW went in with reasonable expectations. WW also has a soft spot for theatrical parody.

Anonymous said...

This show is not "rarely produced". In fact it's the second time Broadway Rose has done it. I saw it previously with Cherie Price and thought it was delightful; a small scale tap parody of 42nd Street. I am planning to see this incarnation as I'm a big fan of Miss Palomino's work and I rather like the show.

Dames at Sea is about as opposite Les Miz as a show can possibly be and I think that's the point; to offer some variety within the genre of musical theater. Personally, I've always thought Les Miz was a bit overblown. It goes on and on and is really just too melodramatic to take very seriously. Dames at Sea doesn't expect you to take it seriously and is, or at least should be, light, charming, playful and fun. That's my expectation going in to it, and I hope the show delivers.

Anonymous said...

I don't feel BRTC has run out of ideas. A lighthearted fun show like Dames following a more heavy Les Mis was a good idea. Both shows excellent and full of talent and extreme opposite. For you posters that compare the actors actions to other shows they've done is shallow. I was entertained. Bravo to all performers.

Anonymous said...

"For you posters that compare the actors actions to other shows they've done is shallow."

that really is the point.
the performances are shallow.

without variety or depth.
without thought or effort.
superficial, flat.

if you want to entertain your audience in a variety of roles, you need to bring variety to the rendering of those roles.

dan murphy has had countless roles there and he always brings something new to them.
he is not a lazy or limited performer.

Anonymous said...

the difference between someone who brings something new to every role as opposed to someone who does not is the difference between an "actor" and a "performer"

dan murphy is an actor, amy palomino is a performer.

they both have value. it's just that one bears repeated viewings and one not so much.

Anonymous said...

an opinion cannot by definition be "shallow"
it can be ill-informed, but it can't be shallow.
it is the writer's estimation of what they saw.

Anonymous said...

I'd much rather watch miss palomino 'perform' than mr. murphy 'act'.

Anonymous said...

Oh Acting!
is that what he was doing in back during that last number? I know it bore no resemblance to dancing just as Mr Palomino's voice bore no resemblance to singing.
In order to "spoof" a particular style you need be be able to do it VERY well.
It certainly proves to be Ladies day over at the BRTC with this one. 3 super talented musical theater performers doing what they do best.

Tony G Palomino said...

The only things worse than Mr. Palomino's singing are the cowardly comments of the 'anonymous' followspot user(s). Turd burglars, the lot of you! What would your mother think of how mean and petty you've become?

Mr. followspot, if you didn't get a chance to make it out to see Dames, I'm sorry you missed it! In my humble and objective opinion it was quite possibly the single most intellectually and emotionally fulfilling experience to ever grace the galaxy. I can't wait for the sequel.

Anonymous said...

cut me a slice of that lindsay michelet!

Anonymous said...

when you get as good as b'way rose has become, folks like to take shots at you --- especially those folks whom you did not cast.
personally i can't wait to see what they do in their new second space.
i guess it cost about 3 mil -- and opens soon, later this year.....
fingers crossed.

Anonymous said...

tony palomino, i love you.
see sometimes anonymous people can be nice!

Anonymous said...

and i am not your wife and i am not even female, and it's totally fraternal....
but i love you man.

Anonymous said...

A.) I love you because you are a great person AND amazingly talented, and b.) you used "Turd Burglars". Does it get any better?
- Jill Westerby

Anonymous said...

Forget a slice of Lindsay Michelet, I want the whole cake! She's Yummy.

Anonymous said...

Why do the people at BWR spend all they're time fighting with people on this blog? The snarkiness coming from Tigard smacks of unprofessionalism and I wish it would stop. The reason people pound your shows is that they’re very average in all ways but in your eyes they’re theatrical brilliance. This is what people are reacting to….the unfounded arrogance.

Joey Klei said...

A big YEE HAW and HOT DIGGITY, that's what I have to say about this stylized musical comedy of an era long gone. All six actors showed off wonderful singing, dancing and acting chops in a satiric parody that does present its own challenges.

Singapore Sue left me uncomfortable, but fixed that by looking at the beautiful costumes, awesome fan waving and gorgeous set.

Thank you Broadway Rose for helping me forget about the woes of the real world and kicking back to watch some cheese that gets forgotten about in this time of realism and point.

Peter said...

Okay, let's get my biases out of the way in advance. First, 'Dames at Sea' was the first musical I ever saw live, in multiple performances at Portland's storied "Production Company" back in the '70's.

Second, I'm an unapologetic "Amy Palamino" fan. Take that as you will.

And third, and most important, I adore works of homage -- from Prokofiev's 'Classical' symphony, to the Scrubs episode 'My Life in Three Cameras', to 'The Musical Comedy Murders of 1940' -- whether they're huge successes in their own right, or just something worth a raised eyebrow and an occasional giggle. Sometimes I like my genres scrambled.

All that said, I rather enjoyed the Broadway Rose production of 'Dames at Sea".

I'm most impressed by the diversity of opinions here in this blog about the quality of the show, the production, and the cast. I wonder if perhaps some of the strong negative impressions arise from the fact that in one major sense this production is seriously misplaced, or rather, too correctly placed. 'Dames at Sea' is supposed to be an exceedingly small-scale sendup of enormously large-scale musicals. Yet there we were in the Deb Fennel Auditorium, looking at a fairly grand staging. I think the feeling that something is out of place might be needed for the joke to work. Perhaps the show was just too well produced as a 'period' piece for people to truly appreciate it as a sendup.

One could be left taking seriously Dames' merits as a big 'period' musical, and it definitely has some weaknesses on that score, though, actually, I found the tunes rather catchy.

All that blabbering over, I enjoyed both the show and the performances. It would take a lot more, or a lot less, to sour me on the Broadway Rose.

Anonymous said...

Dames is a silly, lovely, quirky musical in it's own right- despite the fact that is parodies and even borders on mocking several other well-known musicals. The fact remains that the production was delightful, the cast was endearing and talented, and the Broadway Rose continued to brighten the spirits of the theater performing and viewing community. Entertaining the people is what theater is about, right? Although it's closed, I still had to give my props to Dames- absolutely charming!