| Yeah, one can’t say you’re wrong, but…. | |
| Last Edit: ShowGoer 09:34 am EDT 06/23/24 | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 09:29 am EDT 06/23/24 | |
| In reply to: Am I going to Theatre Jail for not really liking MERRILY? - DistantDrumming 01:00 am EDT 06/23/24 | |
|
|
|
| That’s a legitimately crazy take. You’re surely the first person in the history of the world seeing Merrily who, love it or hate it, ever said they couldn’t wait for Sondheim’s songs to be over so they could get back to the book scenes. As far as “Sondheim does Hamlisch”, I can only assume you’re speaking primarily of Good Thing Going, which is supposed to be a 1970s-era song by a Marvin Hamlisch-type composer straddling Broadway and Hollywood. (I can’t think of anything else in the show that’s even vaguely redolent of anything Hamlisch ever wrote.) I also have to push back on some of the responses here, both the ones that agree with you - (“it just felt like a lot of cabaret songs” - aside from the fact that 2 or 3 songs in the show are either set in a cabaret or specifically written for a cabaret performance, if you genuinely feel like a good chunk of the show feels less like a theater score and more like a bunch of cabaret songs, I’d suggest that’s because for the past 40 years you’ve probably been hearing half a dozen of them in, uh… cabarets?) - as well as some who disagree with you. (The production did not become a huge hit only or even primarily because of Daniel Radcliffe - he’s been on stages here so many times. Lifespan of a Fact hovered around 75-80% capacity for most of its run, Cripple of Inishmaan was lower still at 65-70%, and I could be wrong but I don’t even think the run of the play he did off-Broadway at the Public Theatre sold out entirely. And before you say “well those weren’t musicals” - sure, but there’s no reason to think people are showing up for Radcliffe’s singing voice either. And if it IS because Radcliffe’s doing a musical, I’d wager it’s because it’s one by Sondheim, since ever since his passing every production of a show of his has been a hit to one degree or another. Which only means that a Sondheim musical is a bigger draw than Harry Potter. Because Into the Woods did business that was basically as strong in a much larger theater…. and even if Daniel Radcliffe is in fact “one of the most famous people on the planet”, Sara Bareilles and Brian d’Arcy James, well, are not.) This was just the perfect storm - A show that had a high degree of awareness but one that many hadn’t seen, extremely good reviews and sensational word of mouth off-Broadway, the strong appetite for every NY production of all things Sondheim since his death, and the alchemy among all three of its leading performers, who did the talk show circuit masterfully and despite Mendez’s absences were on seemingly every TV host’s couch in the last 8 or 9 months. But as good as Friedman’s work was I agree with one thing said here - I love the show and to one degree or another always have, but above all else and not to take anything away from his co-stars, it was the casting and performance by Jonathan Groff that finally made it work. Because that role is so unlikable that over the years it more or less stymied very likable performers from Victor Garber and John Rubinstein to Malcolm Gets and Colin Donnell. Groff is somehow the first one to fully pull it off.) I’m sorry you didn’t get more out of it and were impatient for the dialogue to resume but George Furth would sure have loved to hear that. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Am I going to Theatre Jail for not really liking MERRILY? - DistantDrumming 10:11 pm EDT 06/23/24 |
| Next: | re: Yeah, one can’t say you’re wrong, but…. - DistantDrumming 09:15 am EDT 06/24/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.046714 seconds.