Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Recommended Posts

I can post here on Hairspray since it has dancing in it, right? :clapping: I must live in a different world than theatre critics do. I went to see it on Sunday since it was advertised as having won 8 Tony Awards. Well, I almost fell asleep during the first act. The second act was moderately entertaining, but still why all the fuss? I seriously considered leaving at the intermission because the plot was so unimaginative that I knew what was going to happen without having to watch. If this was one of the best plays ever, I'd hate to see one of the worst.

Link to comment

I saw it a couple of years ago at Hollywood Pantages, and enjoyed it, but...I hate to say this, when I see things in LA, I tune out a lot of critical faculties (except for opera and concerts), because I'm not working and I just want to be amused. I enjoyed it like a TV show that was pretty good, but I agree, if that's the best, I'd hate to see the worst. Hairspray is nothing special, and the Tonys prove what has happened to the American musical.

Link to comment
I can post here on Hairspray since it has dancing in it, right? :) I must live in a different world than theatre critics do. I went to see it on Sunday since it was advertised as having won 8 Tony Awards. Well, I almost fell asleep during the first act. The second act was moderately entertaining, but still why all the fuss? I seriously considered leaving at the intermission because the plot was so unimaginative that I knew what was going to happen without having to watch. If this was one of the best plays ever, I'd hate to see one of the worst.

The Other Arts forum was set up to talk about arts other than dancing and so it's not necessary for dancing to be involved in a given topic. Of course, you can always feel free to bring it up. :)

Never saw Hairspray myself but from what I have read your reaction does not sound out of bounds.

Link to comment

I actually liked "Hairspray" a lot, definitely one of the better musicals I've seen in the last 20ish years or so. (As a barometer, my favorite original musicals during that period were Cy Coleman/David Zippel/Larry Gelbart's "City of Angels" followed by a tie of Lucy Simon/Marsha Norman's "The Secret Garden" and Sondheim's "Passion").

I think, though, that when productions have been up for several years and have been through replacement cast after replacement cast, a lot of the energy that can make a production special in the beginning is lost. What was good about "Hairspray" when I originally was it was its energy, the sharp performances by many of the cast, and (in my opinion only) the better than average score and book. This far into the run, the energy's usually gone, and the reviews I've heard of the replacement casts have been mixed. I would be rather surprised if the production weren't tired at this point.

For some reason, I didn't see "Rent" until years into its run on Broadway, and was severely disappointed when I finally saw it. The production was SO tired... it was actually sad.

As far as worst, let me tell you about the "Jesus Christ Superstar" revival a few years ago...

Link to comment
Thanks for the reminder ... to re-visit the John Waters film. Some things are best seen in their original incarnation. :)

Waters paced the original film so that there was some simple, almost innocent periods. (In it's campy way)

The show rachets up the energy level to flood this kind of repose away. It's very HIGH ENERGY. Too much, I think.

Link to comment

Not every play has to be provocative and challenging, and there's nothing wrong with something that is merely entertaining (I was the one and only person on the upper balcony who didn't think that Hairspray was fantastic - everyone else gave it a standing ovation. Perhaps the cast deserved a standing O, as they were from my perspective doing as much as could be done with the material they were given). I'd probably have a better attitude about it if I had known what to expect. What I don't understand is what the motivation(s) of critics is(are). Do they really believe that it's as good as they've claimed? Were they just anticipating that it would be popular and writing good reviews so that they'd agree with their readers?

Link to comment
What I don't understand is what the motivation(s) of critics is(are). Do they really believe that it's as good as they've claimed? Were they just anticipating that it would be popular and writing good reviews so that they'd agree with their readers?

I can't speak for other productions (including the one I saw in LA, of which I read no reviews), but that year, either 2002 or 3, was pretty desertlike in terms of musicals to open on Broadway, even though I find them all to be by now literally of almost no interest compared to what else is available. But at least this year, there is already the interesting-sounding revival of 'company' and Kristen Chenoweth in 'the Apple Tree' plus a couple of other things (whose titles escape me at the moment) that have sounded a little more bold and less bland than usual, even if nothing has really stimulated me yet. I do think your questions are good about why critics write certain kinds of reviews for what might seem obviously mediocre works. In film, I have often thought they write to flatter certain picture people for personal reasons, but it's never quite possible to pin it down. There's a big stretch into getting into those positions, and part of this may mean that your perceptions change almost as part of the job description, even though you might never be aware of this very much. If some higher-up is insisting that you do some of this is probably not going to be all that explicit about it, you have just have to know how to be reasonably politic about it. But there have been plenty of years in the last 3 decades when it was nearly impossible to find a single musical worth nominating for a Tony. Things like that.

Link to comment
I can't speak for other productions (including the one I saw in LA, of which I read no reviews), but that year, either 2002 or 3, was pretty desertlike in terms of musicals to open on Broadway, even though I find them all to be by now literally of almost no interest compared to what else is available.

Sadly enough, the 2002-2003 season was actually one of the better ones for musicals in my recent memory. Taking a quick scan of the Tony nominees that year, besides "Hairspray," other productions that season included Twyla Tharp's "Movin' Out," the Sam Mendes revival of "Gypsy" with Bernadette Peters, Michel Legrand's "Amour," the Roundabout's revival of "Nine," Baz Luhrman's "La Boheme," and "A Year with Frog and Toad." I can remember several recent years where there were barely sufficient number of productions to fill all the nominee slots.

I think that out of the likely productions, "Hairspray" was by far the most likely to win. Twyla Tharp's "Movin' Out" divided a lot of people in much the way that Stroman's "Contact" did earlier, and "Amour" was far too slight, whimsical and French (I didn't have a chance to see "Frog and Toad"). The "Gypsy" revival was the most likely to be its critical rival (on sheer pedigree), and frankly it wasn't that good, poorly directed and miscast.

I think to an extent, it probably also benefitted from the desire for "fluffier" entertainment in the wake of 9/11. I can still remember the ecstatic review the "New York Times" gave "Mamma Mia!" that season.

But yeah, I'd still say that "Hairspray" is definitely one of the better original musicals I've seen in the last ten years. It has a pretty good book, decent score, great performances and energy (in the original cast, at least,) and I think at least in its original incarnation, a nice sincerity that I don't see that often in commercial musicals these days. That's just my opinion, though.

Link to comment
I can post here on Hairspray since it has dancing in it, right? :wink: I must live in a different world than theatre critics do. I went to see it on Sunday since it was advertised as having won 8 Tony Awards. Well, I almost fell asleep during the first act. The second act was moderately entertaining, but still why all the fuss? I seriously considered leaving at the intermission because the plot was so unimaginative that I knew what was going to happen without having to watch. If this was one of the best plays ever, I'd hate to see one of the worst.

It was like deja vu. I went to see The Light in the Piazza today, which was advertised as having won 6 Tony Awards. The first act was AGONY. I don't think that I've ever been more bored in my entire life. There wasn't a single memorable song in the entire play.

Link to comment
Thanks for the reminder ... to re-visit the John Waters film.

Yep.... ah, and let's not forget :shake: (now that we're in the John Waters subject), to take a look back at "Pink Flamingos" too :wink: ...thanks for the reminder...Now, back to topic, any thoughts on the new movie anybody...?...What about John Travolta's part...? ( I haven't seen it, since i'm not particulary interested in "Hairspray", but since there's a topic already about the musical...)

Link to comment
Thanks for the reminder ... to re-visit the John Waters film.

Yep.... ah, and let's not forget :shake: (now that we're in the John Waters subject), to take a look back at "Pink Flamingos" too :wink: ...thanks for the reminder...Now, back to topic, any thoughts on the new movie anybody...?...What about John Travolta's part...? ( I haven't seen it, since i'm not particulary interested in "Hairspray", but since there's a topic already about the musical...)

I have no plans to see it, either, but I'd be curious to hear from anyone who has. I like Travolta a lot; he's a very good actor. Unfortunately, he never met a script he didn't like.

Link to comment

I've found some Broadway shows to be wonderful on tour and others just don't work outside of their Broadway house.

Wicked in Chicago is excellent, same with The Color Purple. When I saw the first national tour of NINE at LA's Music Center it lacked every bit of talent and charm that had made it such a smash on Broadway. It was boring. That show needed the extraordinary talents of the broadway cast and that was hard to duplicate. I adore The Light in the Piazza. I saw it with the original cast and then once again with the replacements for its final performance. To me that show is magic and I love the score. I can't imagine anyone other than Victoria Clark as Margaret Johnson. I can't imagine LITP working in a big house. It needs to be an intimate experience.

I enjoyed HAIRSPRAY very much on Broadway. I did see it early in the run and it was exciting and energetic. I saw the movie a few weeks ago and was very happy with it. The Good Morning Baltimore opening was kind of bland but the film picked up from there and turned out to be extremely pleasing. The dancing was wonderful and dang what a beautiful cast. Come to think of it, I enjoyed the film of HAIRSPRAY much, much, much more than the film of DREAMGIRLS. Travolta looked computer animated to me. It was strange, but the man knows a thing or two about film acting and he was very good in the role.

I liked the Mendes direction of Gypsy. I also liked 99 per cent of the cast. I liked the Mendes revival much more than the Tyne revival.

Link to comment
I have no plans to see it, either, but I'd be curious to hear from anyone who has. I like Travolta a lot; he's a very good actor. Unfortunately, he never met a script he didn't like.
The film was enjoyable -- with bouncy tunes -- but made me very much miss the sincere wackiness of Water's world view in the original.

I left the theater thinking that the two performances that would stay in my thoughts were those of Queen Latifah, as Motormouth Maybelle, and Christopher Walken's, odd and touching as Tracy Turnblad's father.

Among the film's problems (for me at least).

-- Nikki Blonsky, though sweet and perky, had almost no screen charisma, and was not at all as interesting or as moving as Rikki Lake in the original;

-- The film's theme: the need to "accept people who are different." All the the world's injustices will disappear if we accept our bodies, accept other people's color, give ourselves over the the "new" (early 60s !!!) music, participate in peaceful demonstrations, and engage in happy, integrated street dancing. What was a lovely little dream in Waters becomes a heavy-handed, naive lesson, heavily hammered home by the movie musical.

-- And what about Travolta? More emphasis is given to Edna's own problems than in the original -- especially to her own "coming out". A stay-at-home laundress, we learn that she has always had the dream of owning her own coin-operated laundromat. (I don't believe it's in the original, but the film Edna tells us that she hasn't left the house in 10 years because she's ashamed of her weight).

As to Travolta's performance, I have to go along with David Denby, writing in The New Yorker (July 23):

I admire John Travolta, but using this movie star, rather than the show's Harvey Fierstein, as Edna Turnblad, Tracy's hefty mother, is an idiocy on the same level as replacing Julie Andrews with Audrey Hepburn for the movie version of My Fair Lady. Both Fierstein and Divine, who played Edna in the original moveie, worked as female impersonaters who confidently let us in on the joke. ... But Travolta does a wistful imitation of the female sex. Buried in a full-body fat suit and various silicone prosthetic appliances, he looks rounded, smooth, and cute, rather like Miss Piggy, and he speaks in a light, high female voice ... The role demands exaggeration rather than modesty, yet Travolta, with a misbegotten ssense of duty, tries to give an authentic performances as a working-class Baltimore housewife of forty-five years ago -- a shy, guarded woman who is embarrassed about her weight. It's a touching attempt, but the lunatic joke that started with Divine has almost vanished.
Can you imagine Divine never leaving the house! Fat chance!

The most over-praised scene in the film: Walken and Travolta dancing in the backyard among the lines of drying laundry. Walken's song and soft-shoe dance are truly moving. Travolta is light-footed, but makes almost no impression, rather like a prop that Walken needs to carry around even though it obviously doesn't fill its intended purpose.

Most offensive re-write compared to the oriiginal: In Waters' film, Rikki Lake is demoted to the class for "slow kids," which truly IS integrated, with more white kids than black, as I recall. In the film musical, Blonsky sent to a detention room (for bad kids who don't want to learn) that is all-black. There she finds cool dancing and lots of style. (what? no monitor? no work assignments? nothing so much as a book?) Soon lots of other white kids want to go to detention and have a party. Fun -- until you think of just how demeaning this feel-good image is.

Link to comment
As to Travolta's performance, I have to go along with David Denby, writing in The New Yorker (July 23):I admire John Travolta, but using this movie star, rather than the show's Harvey Fierstein, as Edna Turnblad, Tracy's hefty mother, is an idiocy on the same level as replacing Julie Andrews with Audrey Hepburn for the movie version of My Fair Lady.

Naturally, I feel just the opposite, both about Travolta and Audrey Hepburn (who I think made the movie really work--no offense to Julie Andrews fans, and obviously this is only personal taste--she's wonderful in 'The Sound of Music' and 'Mary Poppins'--but I don't see her as a great film star after those two films--and my vote for idiocy goes to most of Denby's writing, which I've always hated, he of the original chorus of 'Paulettes.' In any case, the 'My Fair Lady' lines were long ago drawn, and I think bringing it up again is especially tedious of Denby.)

At any rate, I think this is the best film adaptation of a Broadway show since 'Hair', most likely. The material and score are lightweight, but they're directed, choreographed and sung and performed by such a superb cast with imaginative editing and sets that somehow it all comes together in an inspired way that not a single other American musical I've seen in the recent decades even approaches, except maybe 'Yentl', but that was made for the screen. (The one recent musical I've seen that is also superlative is not American, France's 'Pas Sur la Bouche' from 2003, and stupidly, never shown anywhere except at festivals. It's brilliant.) I had seen and enjoyed the show at the Hollywood Pantages in the National Company in 2004, don't remember who did Edna, but these kids in the movie were all good, all the pretty cute ones, all the fat cute ones--and they can all do their jobs, which is a lot more than can be said for any of the leads in 'Chicago', who then got awarded for it. I can't speak for 'Dreamgirls', but this 'Hairspray' was also light-years beyond 'Rent', pretty much DOA; and no mention even for such drek as that 'moulin Rouge' thing with animation and Nicole Kidman.

The first hour is absolutely hilarious, one thing after another, Travolta is funny, Tracy is funny, all the kids are funny, then there is the march, and we get a chance to come down from that much of a high after all that excitement, so that we can enjoy a big climax of giant Hairspray tubes and multicultural dancing.

The score is much more attractive than I remembered it from the show, but this kind of show in which you are trying to recreate styles of songs gone by, works primarily, in the case of the score, within the show and within the show only, because, when pressed, almost anyone would rather hear the original songs from which these imitator-songs were derived (shows like 'Grease' come to mind, for which I cared little on B'way or onscreen). Still, 'Welcome to the Sixties' and 'You're Timeless to Me' rang a clear bell--the latter which was, as I recall, a sort of soft-shoe thing in the stage version. But I've literally never thought about the show again. The movie, was for me, therefore, a radical improvement on both the stage musical and even the original movie. I don't take this sort of show seriously in terms of social message--of course, even though 'Gentleman's Agreement' had great people like Kazan and Moss Hart, not to mention a stellar cast, it does go back to 1947, and yet is still very intelligent about the subject of bigotry (in that case anti-semitism), and 'Hair' is a lot more persuasive in the social-protest mode and has a much more powerful score with songs that work within the show and also outside it--they are not so derivative. (I need to remember to put 'Hair' on my 'musical score' thread, because I think it's one of the greatest ever written, and sounds like no other.) But still, since 'Tommy' and 'Hair', I'm hard-pressed to think of Broadway shows that have been so perfectly adapted (actually, 'Tommy', may not have preceded the Ken Russell film as a show, but rather the Who's rock opera...I don't know all the pre-history at the moment, and didn't keep up with the B'way stagings that came later.)

I have not read many of the mainstream reviews, but while I love Travolta and Queen Latifah and James Marsden andZac Efron and Amanda Bynes and Nikki Blonsky PLUS a great bit with Jerry Stiller (!), the ones I read did not concentrate on Michelle Pfeiffer. I remember thinking what a strange casting choice--and yet, for me, she steals the show. They try to make her a hag and a bitch, and can only succeed with the latter. She is hilarious, has true diva creds by now, and I leave it to someone else to tell me if she did her own singing. I simply had no idea she could do this kind of thing. And with all that attempt to make her into the Evil Plastic Selfish Harridan, they cannot cover up the fact that she is still probably the most beautiful of all the current Hollywood stars. I mean, I did not go to see this expecting to 'discover' Michelle Pfeiffer--but now that I have, I can just see either Glenn Close or Nicole Kidman not managing to pull off half of what she did. It was either a much enlarged role from the stage show, or she brought it to life, because I only see a shadow or two when I look back to the show, only a few years ago.

Edited to add: I think I'll slightly retract some of the 'social tolerance' part as regards to 'Hairspray'. While it's not bad on racism, so many others have been so much more profound it's mostly just a pleasantry here. However, it does have something to say on 'fattism' or whatever the term for intolerance of fatness. Lord knows, I have to work at this far more than racism or sexism or any of the other intolerances, although I don't think I've ever done anything overtly hurtful in front of someone overweight.

Link to comment

Thank you for the review, papeetepatrick.

and my vote for idiocy goes to most of Denby's writing, which I've always hated, he of the original chorus of 'Paulettes.'

I’m not his biggest fan, either. (Forgive me, bart, but as soon as I read Denby’s review I thought, “The movie must be pretty good after all. Must check it out.” )

I leave it to someone else to tell me if she did her own singing. I simply had no idea she could do this kind of thing.

Don’t know about this movie, but Pfeiffer did her own singing in “The Fabulous Baker Boys” in the long ago, including a torrid version of ‘Makin’ Whoopee’ performed by her in a red velvet dress while slithering around atop Jeff Bridges’ grand piano. It was sensational. Her voice wasn’t big but it was pleasing.

Link to comment

Just for the record, I was agreeing with Denby on the casting of Travolta -- not of Hepburn. I really loved her in My Fair Lady. :)

Hairspray has grossed over $100,000,000 so far, so the Travolta casting certainly worked at the box office.

Link to comment
and no mention even for such drek as that 'moulin Rouge' thing with animation and Nicole Kidman.

I liked it better than you did, but then I would be favorably disposed toward any movie featuring Jim Broadbent singing ‘Like a Virgin.”

Link to comment
Thanks for the reminder ... to re-visit the John Waters film.

Yeah, thanks for the reminder...I actually bought it, along with "Pink Flamingos" and "Female Trouble." I know.... :clapping:

No, it's not really off topic, cubanmiamiboy don't be too hard on yourself......

Link to comment
I mean, I did not go to see this expecting to 'discover' Michelle Pfeiffer--but now that I have, I can just see either Glenn Close or Nicole Kidman not managing to pull off half of what she did. It was either a much enlarged role from the stage show, or she brought it to life, because I only see a shadow or two when I look back to the show, only a few years ago.

It's a little bit of both. The seduction of Wilbur subplot is an addition to what was in the stage show, and I don't think much if any of her part was trimmed from what was onstage (I think almost everyone else's was trimmed a little bit to compress the story because of time constraint reasons). But much of it is that Michelle Pfeiffer is an actress who really can make her part important by sheer dint of her star quality. (Conversely, for me, Zac Efron's Link really shrank to the background to a surprising degree in a part that's usually pretty sizable.

And as far as I could tell from the credits, everyone did their own singing.

I finally saw the film over the weekend, and liked it a lot. It's not perfect, and I don't love all of the cutting that was done (I felt like there were a few jumps in characterization now), but by far the best musical adaptation I've seen in a while. I felt like Shankman really embraced the goofiness of the original and he didn't shy away from the musicalness in the way that I felt Condon did with "Dreamgirls." I felt like he trusted the material (which makes sense considering his dance and musical background).

Link to comment
Don’t know about this movie, but Pfeiffer did her own singing in “The Fabulous Baker Boys” in the long ago, including a torrid version of ‘Makin’ Whoopee’ performed by her in a red velvet dress while slithering around atop Jeff Bridges’ grand piano. It was sensational. Her voice wasn’t big but it was pleasing.

Thanks so much for calling attention to this, dirac. 1989 was all struggle for me, and I not only missed most things, but didn't even know what it was I missed. This is a quite wonderful movie in itself, because it treats such an unusual subject--small-time duo pianists whose time has come to an end, and as such reminds me of such diverse films as 'Bye Bye Braverman', of which I'm very fond, and 'Prairie Home Companion', of which I'm not at all fond (it's 1% Altman and 99% just Garrison Keillor, I was dragged to a live performance of his in 2002, and I just don't find any of it funny). But these are all about one-of-a-kind obscure things that disappear. This one even made me remember Ferrante and Teicher, who used to put out their duo-piano versions of 'Exodus Song' in sheet music.

Still, the highlight was what you said--Michelle decides as a film actress to forget the small-time circuit of the character and goes up on the piano and gets as minxy and gorgeous as possible. The rest of the time, she sings well as in 'Hairspray', and what you have is primarily a voice which is very adequate for musical comedy, even though she's not a great singer-stylist, of course, and that little extra touch of energy that I keep wanting to see in certain other performers--well, on that piano, Michelle shows you exactly what that's all about. She is simply La Divina for me. Another version of that sort of 'just a touch more energy' was noticed by a friend of mine when we were re-watching 'Damn Yankees' a few years and Verdon/Fosse dancing together in it. I kept saying 'he's really a good dancer, but she's better, but I can't figure out why'. and she said 'hers has just a little bit more energy'. But that word hadn't occurred to me, because it was more in the domain of 'sharpness', and there was no huffing and puffing or even any show of effort you could see. Verdon simply had the energy inside her, and her dancing in that film is a pure pleasure to watch.

Link to comment

I’m glad I could send you to a movie you liked. I’m fond of it, too. The premise isn’t terribly plausible – after all, if J. Bridges is such a great jazz pianist, I’m sure he could do as well playing that as he does making the rounds of the lounges, and it’s not clear why Pfeiffer didn’t give up hustling years ago if she had a voice – but you let it pass because the film has style and snappy dialogue and the principals are fun to watch.

Still, the highlight was what you said--Michelle decides as a film actress to forget the small-time circuit of the character and goes up on the piano and gets as minxy and gorgeous as possible.

Yes, she (and the writer-director Steve Kloves) just pull out all the stops and it’s great.

I kept saying 'he's really a good dancer, but she's better, but I can't figure out why'. and she said 'hers has just a little bit more energy'.

Which is another way of saying , I guess, that Verdon was a Star and Fosse wasn’t. He’s a very appealing performer but his dancing doesn’t have a lot of kinetic impact, not for me anyway. In the segment of ‘From This Moment On’ in Kiss Me Kate, it’s Carol Haney that catches my eye, not Fosse.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...