To be fair Stephen used to workshop and edit his shows up until the very last minute. Without Stephen there through the whole process I have no doubt that it wasn’t a good thing…
Yes, I know someone who spoke about the first workshops when it was to be done at the Public--mostly of Act I (five or so years back.) They said that the team involved was not worried about Act II because they fully expected that Sondheim would write a lot of that during the preview phase while watching it come together (which of course once he separated from Prince--who would insist on having a fairly finalized show before previews--was how he worked, with Sunday having virtually no songs in Act II when the public workshop premiered, Into the Woods only getting songs in Act II during its first San Diego production as the three month run went on, etc.) I don't think Mantello and Ives are lying when they say Sondheim agreed to Act II having barely any songs--he seemed to have a lot of trouble writing Act II according to Frank Rich's article and I fully believe he agreed to this compromise late in his life--but it was not the original intention. (And if they stop singing when they realize they're "stuck" why don't they start singing at the end again when unstuck?)
Years ago I watched the two movies used as source materials. Walked out. Unbelievable. When I read that Sondheim was basing last show on the films I thought oh no.
It’s hard, because Sondheim was well-known for delivering key songs at the very last minute - to the point that he’s acknowledged that Hal Prince was often mad at him for allowing the former so little time to stage the numbers. Send in the Clowns, No One is Alone, Lesson #8 and Children & Art - all songs delivered either very late in the rehearsal process or, in some cases, while the show was in preview, out of town or off-Broadway. I feel this show would have had a stand out song had Mr. Sondheim not passed away. I don’t think critics should even review this - because it’s not really finished. It’s Sondheim’s Turandot or Requiem.
That's such a valuable point, thank you for sharing this! You'd have to imagine the final product with his consistent input would have been quite different.
Totally get your point... Although " It’s Sondheim’s Turandot or Requiem" confuses things because many consider those among Puccini and Mozart's best works, now.
Sondheim always stressed the importance of his collaborators, of course, and was happy to point out that often he would ask a bookwriter to write a scene he planned to musicalize, so he could "cannibalize" (his term!) the dialogue they wrote for his lyrics.@@Midlander83
I guess I'm a minority. I loved it. It makes perfect sense that the music is minimal in the 2nd act due to the structure of the material. No need to force music into a place that does not call for it.The material does not need to sing. I thought the music was wonderful in the first act- reminded me of Passion, which is my favorite Sondheim score. I saw Sweeney Thursday night, Merrily We Roll Along Friday night, and Here We Are on Saturday night. What more do I need?
I saw it (1-12-24) and also loved it! You simply have to go in w/o any any expectations or comparisons to other Sondheim shows, & simply view it as a new & unique work. Taken as it is, it's very entertaining.
I saw the show twice - loved it. I was there to see surrealism onstage and see the collaboration of Sondheim, Ives, Mantello, et al. I didn’t come in looking to hold it up to anything else. I came to see Here We Are. As such, I was not disappointed. That said, I think the familiar “content dictates form” axiom that governs the rest of the Sondheim library is at work here. (And certainly, a lengthy section of a musical without music was done long ago in the musical 1776.) I enjoyed the lack of song form throughout as I think it was a perfect fit for the style and a true match to the source material (at least Discreet Charm, as I have only seen that film). I actually had the opposite issue where I think the Ives book occasionally tries TOO hard to give us a moral, where I prefer the “choose your own” in this style. In general, I think assertions as to ‘what might have been’ only muddy the ability to take in what is (what Jones’s Marianne character might call superficial, “what they seem and not what they are.”) I struggled the same with complaints about the Daniel Fish revival of Oklahoma, about what Hammerstein “didn’t intend” when he died years before his art could speak on the issues the new revival made comment on. It’s impossible to compare anything to something that doesn’t exist - whether Hammerstein’s ability to approve a 2018 revival of his show or Sondheim’s further (possible) work on a show that was completed two years after his death. There may be some overblown reverence out there, certainly; but I also think there is room to objectively enjoy the show and believe it is a worthwhile piece. The one true irony I enjoy plays directly into your criticism of the state of commercial art: the high price of tickets (minus rush seats which made it affordable to me) makes this show most accessible to the rich and elite that will clamor the loudest to seem sophisticated after viewing it (maybe even the same set who howled down Sondheim’s riskier ventures from his lifetime) and are exactly those who are being lampooned within this piece. They’ll delight in the buffoonish behavior of their own mirror reflections while the rest of us debate the worth of the exercise in the first place. Maybe Sondheim is getting the last laugh after all…
Agree with all. I don’t know if the location was specifically chosen but it’s really interesting how theater itself and audience mirrors the play. That for me added to the surrealism of it all
I loved the venue and designs as well. I can’t imagine it working as well in a Broadway house. I saw it the first time from the fourth row on the aisle of the center section, and my second viewing was from the first row of the right section. Viewing elements of the action through the mirrors the second time gave me a completely different visual experience. I loved it.
I also saw it and thought exactly the same thing. It’s what it’s supposed to be and it’s fantastic. Laughed out loud several times. The show is complete, it’s more play than musical. It’s very different from everything he did before, which is true of everything he did.
Couldn't agree more. The audience is complicit. We're keeping them confined to the stage, the box, as much as the revolution. At the end, the characters/cast revolts. The last three seconds took my breath away and is a perfect return to, and echo of, the fourth wall break in act one. This isn't just meta for meta sake. It's a skewer to privilege and a critique of all of us and of the venue and of itself. We're all the problem.
I agree completely about the audience looking at itself. Is there some sort of irony in the fact that the first act is about a long, harrowing journey, and to even GET into the theater you have to navigate lines and 6 flights of escalators?? Hilarious
You’re entire review is based on the fact that you were not satisfied as it did not meet your expectations…. Which has nothing to do with the actual components of the show. I’m sorry to break it to you, but Steve wrote musicals not trying to please anyone. He was someone who took chances and wrote about real things. I’ll admit, the music is not like a traditional musical. But to say there is no notable songs is a complete lie. There are 2 very notable songs from the show- the waiters song at everything cafe, hilarious! And Marianne’s final song. Additionally, there were many “Sondheim” moments including wordplay, funny rhymes, and the music was totally Sondheim like. I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy your time at the show, but you should’ve just been there thankful and grateful you can experience any new Sondheim content.
Just saw the show tonight, and I did end up really enjoying it! Definitely not masterpiece-level, but I had a great time. Honestly, the performances alone were enough to win me over (and I also have a bias to liking surrealist-type material as well, so that helps too, lol). I get why of course, but honestly, I think conversations + reviews that revolve around it being a "Sondheim work" does this show a disservice. Like you said, expectations should be properly set as to what the music's involvement and function is here: it is forgettable in any context other than being ancillary to what's happening in the plot. But as an overall work (and not as "Sondheim's final score"), it fits in well and works to create a better experience than without. But a lot of the reception (both positive and negative) is focusing too much on Sondheim, and not the show as a whole. Again, I get why, but it does seem a little silly. That said, I appreciate the video! (Though I will say the title kind of rubs me the wrong way; but maybe that's just me!)
Show me on the doll where "Here We Are" hurt you. I thought it was the perfect final Sondheim musical - it's not 70's Sondheim or '90's Sondheim it's 2020's Sondheim and feels like the perfect end to his legacy.
I saw it last night and quite enjoyed it. But I went in with managed expectations, particularly regarding the music of Sondheim. If I'm honest, I don't think Sondheim had done really great work since "Into the Woods." I'd also read that the music peters out early in Act 2, so I was there as much to see the concept of the play borne out as I was to hear new Sondheim. And in that respect, I think the play delivers. I thought combining the two Bunuel plots worked really well, and I thought the whole play had a lot to say about the meaning and absurdity of life. As you say, the performers and set (and the direction, I would add) are all first rate. I do think the marketing of the play as a Sondheim musical as well as the very high ticket prices have raised expectations -- understandably so. But judged on its own merits, I was pleasantly surprised.
NYT gave it a great review .. I think Mickey is showing his immaturity. He likes the predictable sequels and is out of his league when it comes to original art.
Thank you for your honesty! It had to have been hard knowing your admiration for Sondheim, your expectations, and other critics' reviews. Your thoughtful views and analysis of other reviews will help me see it with an open mind next month(also on the same day I see Merrily...). I look forward to reading comment by others who have seen it.
I really appreciate this review. If anyone would have been honest about this work it's Sondheim. He knew when something worked abd when it didn't. Even when people are genius it doesn't mean everything they do will be before.
Based on your review/not review, I'm getting the same read on this as the film AI. The last production of someone critically acclaimed, in part put together by a long time collaborator hoping to deliver a final goodbye worthy of the deceased partner's acclaim. Ultimately, I come out with the same idea. No, we shouldn't say it's good if it's not (I haven't seen it so how would I know) but to an extent, it doesn't matter if it's critically good or not? Or not that it doesn't matter, but that it's probably not the most important thing to the people who created it. That's no disrespect to you, it's more, don't feel bad if you didn't like it because the people involved will kind of decide on a more personal level if they feel they did justice to the deceased.
I watch all your Broadway critiques & videos & always enjoy them. I saw HERE WE ARE tonight (Jan 12, 2024) and I loved it! I've never been a big fan of surreal or experimental films; I often find them too esoteric or self-consciously high-brow. But HERE WE ARE worked for me. I don't know if it was the unique setting & staging (in an event space often used for fashion shows & art installations), Joe Mantello's direction, or "the cast of can-you-top-this Broadway treasures," but I was left cheering. I don't think the show suffers from being unfinished. True there are no show-stoppers in the score. But what music there is works well in the context of the show & is well delivered by an unparalleled cast. I believe you went in with a set of expectations based on other Sondheim shows you've seen. If you went in viewing HERE WE ARE w/o those expectations, as simply a new & unique work, you would've enjoyed it more. I found it funny, engaging & very entertaining.
I saw it yesterday and thought that the production's greatest sin is that any way you slice it, is that it just isn't finished. There are holes in the second act where presumably there would have been songs had Sondheim lived to write them. But the pieces of it that are fully (or mostly) realized in the first act, are pretty wonderful.
I met Stephen in 2001, and it was love at first site. We were together for the next 2 years, and that is the greatest gift life has given me. This new Merrily is so gratifying to me, knowing personally how happy he would be. We talked a lot about that show, which I was certain would emerge fully to the world when the world was ready . He did not like to be coddled, but he smiled when I said that. For me, “like it was” is its most poignant achingly beautiful moment, and of course so much more so now.
I think the reviews were really fair. It's an enjoyable show, with moments of it being great, moments of it being meh, and it does feel unfinished in some ways. I would never say I hate it or it's bad though. I think that's a little ridiculous when there's a lot there that works.
I admit that as bizarre as the storylines were, I enjoyed laughing at and applauding the performances in the first act. I enjoyed Sondheim’s use of profanity much as in the way I enjoyed stealthily listening to older family members telling each other dirty jokes, thinking they were out of ear reach of “the kids”. One bizarre point was the 2 actors going about vacuuming and cleaning the mirrored set as we entered the theater at first made my think there’s a problem with the set being addressed last minute but when it opens on them it clicks that it was likely done due to a lack of a curtain and thus an alternative to them walking out onto an empty stage and beginning their pantomime. At times it felt like a sophisticated version of Saturday night live. At others, particularly in the second act, dragged on seemingly for the sake of reaching the conclusion. I wonder if perhaps the show would have benefited from just staging the 1st act alone? I will say my larger disappointment was not having the opportunity to run into you at the show (I wasn’t able to get a ticket for any of the performances until Wednesday night) having thoroughly enjoyed your reviews. I hope your first Ny adventure was as exciting as you hoped it would be.
Some "Broadway shows" are on Broadway to increase their market value. "Title of Show" is a case in point. I saw it originally off-Broadway. It was a small intimate show. The show is too small to have been on Broadway--it looked awkward on a big Broadway stage. So, why did it go? To increase its viability to regional and school theaters.
There have been many one and two-person shows on Broadway that didn't feel "too small," but it's true that certain shows use Broadway as imprimatur to spur interest in regional productions.
@@roburbinati358 Absolutely. "The Year of Magical Thinking" was amazing, as was "Well." "A Behanding in Spokane" was another show that I found riveting with only 4 performers (with 99% just the 3 main characters.) So, there have been many wonderful shows that fit perfectly with a small cast. Also, there have been wonderful shows that were too intimate to be as effective on Broadway, as they were, or would have been, in a smaller venue. YMMV
I also saw it right before it opened (10/17). I have been to several staged readings and playwrights putting early versions of their works on their feet to see how it plays with a select audience, so I entered fully expecting that this was not a complete play that it might not be ready to unleash on the world. I didn't expect it be without problems. At first I thought the bare white stage was to give it a more workshopy feel. Like you, I also attended because I wanted to be able to say that I saw the original production of this work -- I got what I paid for. I enjoyed my night at the theatre and I am glad that I went. Was it earth-shattering, life-changing theatre - No. If the producers had thought it was, I am sure they would have cold opened onto Broadway and a thousand more tickets sold each night.
I absolutely loved this SO MUCH. It's the most original thing i've seen in forever. The performances, the direction, the themes, the lyrics, the music, but most importantly the book. I loved the David Ives of it all. Abstract surrealist theatre to me is perhaps the most exciting. I like the whole throw in all these random things and let the audience decide for themselves what it means to them. Everyone takes away something different which can say more about them than the writing. Having rich people being objectified by making them make sheep noises was brilliant. I was howling. Its an absolutely perfect show, and i hope it transfers and wins all the awards.
Thanks for doing this. I will be seeing it next month, but not expecting too much. Will see what I think. Does not seem like it will have a transfer to Broadway which is probably a good thing. I will actually be seeing Merrily later the same day in November. Have never been to a show there so am looking forward to seeing a show at the Shed. And to seeing what you guys thought of the venue if Aeron does a video. I Could tell it pained you to say this was a subpar part of Sondheim’s work. Are you sorry you saw it, or was it worth seeing his last show? Could also tell from reviews I read that most were trying to be nice regardless of what they actually saw.
I'm definitely not sorry I saw it, separated from its expectations it's still a very rich piece of theatre and now at least I can say I saw a Sondheim world premiere! The Theatre was so interesting as well, so much empty space in those corridors - Aeron will be sharing a vlog, yes!
This is so interesting-I feel like I agree with most everything you said, but experienced the opposite effect. The fact that the show subverted all my expectations of what musical theater was or even could be thrilled me! As we left, I said to my husband: "How could Sondheim STILL surprise me so much, after all this time?" I'd always felt that the rhapsodical form of having music "illuminate" dialogue without ever becoming "song" (or even "number")-started in the bench scene in Carousel, flirted with in Sunday in the Park with George, and more seriously utilized in Passion-was an extremely powerful technique that had never been fully explored. I felt like the first act of Here We Are finally explored it fully-and I loved it. And then when the second act happened, I felt like, no mater how much you think there's nothing new under the sun for a musical to do to surprise you, well... here we are-a musical with no music, and in a way that makes perfect sense! As for the content, I could not make heads or tails of the first act until halfway through the second act-at which point it suddenly struck me that the first act had been about our constant, manic chase for whatever each of us loudly tries to convince ourselves that life is all about, and how we meet every failed attempt to find fulfillment with just more of the same mindless chasing, whereas the second act is about what we find when we’re forced to look at ourselves when all is quiet and we have nowhere to run. The whole experience has been haunting me for the last 24 hours (since I first saw the show), and it's helping me process aspects of my own life that I can't imagine having been able to access in any more linear ways... As for the music itself, I have to admit that my ear is unsophisticated enough that I’ve seldom appreciated Sondheim’s scores on first hearing. I’m eagerly waiting for a cast album to come out, and to seeing, after ten hearings or so, whether any of this new music will move me to tears the way so much of his other music does. All of that said, I really appreciated your (non-)review. For one thing, I think it’s really brave to be the one to say the emperor has no clothes. And, for another, in all honesty, you may very well be right. What you referred to as critics’ being “soft” with creators who have already proven themselves I tend to see more as a natural bias to approach the work of a time-tested creator with the assumption that “surely this MUST be on purpose, so what on earth could that purpose possibly be?” (Whereas in the case of newcomers, we are far quicker to assume that if we don’t get it right away, then the simplest explanation is that the work was flawed.) While I think this assumption is generally a good thing (and would be good to adopt in the case of newcomers, too!), it can certainly lead to the kind of “look how beautiful the emperor’s clothes are” phenomenon I think you’re describing. And I certainly know that I am not immune from being a victim of that mentality myself. It is not impossible that I am duping myself. But, then again… what would that really mean?
Exactly this. And even before sometimes! Sir Paul McCartney wrote Yesterday, The Long and Winding Road and Let It Be. He also wrote Wonderful Christmastime. 😏
What did you make of the last scene of the show? The characters are mid stage at that point and don't seem to be able to continue walking towards the light, while all these very loud explosions are going on outside. Are they trapped again?
I interpreted that as the group is no longer trapped, able to continue their lives, but they also have to remember that they have no escaped death and that it is still coming for them.
Thank you so much! Your reviews are wonderfully thought out and thorough. I was hoping this would be a fantastic show, given that it’s Sondheim. I really appreciate your honesty on all the shows you critique, even when it’d hard. I’ve been fortunate to see a number of shows on Broadway, but would love to see a show at the West End. Could you could give some guidance for Americans on what shows to look for, where to get tickets, best restaurants, etc and anything else you would suggest. I hope you had a great time in New York!
How did you enjoy the cast album? As with most of Sondheim's shows, I hated it the first time I listened, but as I kept listening I fell in love with it!!
Agree to disagree. It IS good. It's not for everyone, but I'm sorry... a raging standing ovation is a show of success. A deep, dark story. A jewel. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this.
I don't know how there can be a debate about it being unfinished. There was essentially no singing in the last... 45?... minutes of the musical. Of course it's unfinished! (I know that they try to explain this away in the story with the non-functioning piano, but it should be noted that this is was not in the Buñuel film... I suspect it was developed to hide the gap.) Anyway, I loved hearing your thoughts on the show. I agree that it has many, many problems. I would call the biggest of them "Act 2." But I thought Act 1 was charming, full of Sondheim's indelible wit, and I enjoyed several flourishes throughout the show that called back to his more iconic works. Denis O'Hare's song was definitely a standout for me, though more as a fun patter song than as one of Sondheim's unforgettable ballads. Act 1 would get 5 stars from me. Act 2 perhaps 2 stars if I'm generous.
This was a great watch, even if just to get such a different opinion on the show. I will say I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the critics and audiences who liked it are essentially forcing themselves to like it because it's Sondheim, his last show, and they don't want to look like they didn't "get" it. (Though judging by the comments on the New York Times review, a lot of people agree with this take.) Sure, people are interested in it mostly due to Sondheim's involvement, and a lot of people like it due to that. But I also have no doubt they genuinely do like it--and if a lot of that is to try to piece together how it fits with past Sondheim works, etc, I think that's still more than fair. You don't outright say this, but I have read people asking if anyone would like it if it wasn't Sondheim. And I think that's irrelevant, frankly. Sondheim's importance has meant that even his minor pieces are worth examining and are works many fans can find joy in. I'm not sure I'm making *any* sense lol That said, Passion is one of my top three Sondheim shows, and I see it largely as a bookend of Sondheim's best work (25 years from Company to Passion--quite a run.) It was the last time Sondheim really seemed to be trying something new (with none of the songs having a proper tonal resolve until the very final chord) and I just find it perfect. But even many Sondheim fans disagree with me. Bounce/Road Show (and I like a lot more about Hal Prince's Bounce than Doyle's Road Show) is a nice coda, with a slight "Sondheim's greatest hits" type score. It's worthy but doesn't fit into his main canon to me. As for this show? I can't say yet, and I may very well agree with you. But I still insist it is a sticking point to me to insist that people who disagree with you are fooling themselves because they HAVE to like Sondheim's last show at all costs. (And I think it's a bit of a false narrative to act like Sondheim didn't have success in his younger years. Ignoring WSS and Gypsy, and the fact that Forum was a big success even if he didn't get much credit for it, Company made a tidy amount of money and absolutely put him on the map. A Little Night Music, despite not running for years and years, made even more and already he was getting all star tribute concerts in New York. Sweeney may not have made a profit till the tour, but it was sure talked about. Yes, it's relatively recent that he's become almost, maybe, *mainstream* outside of the musical theatre scene--I can remember as a teen in the 90s living here in Canada and becoming obsessed, even my friends at my theatre school mostly didn't know Sondheim, which would never be true now--but a lot of his shows had healthy original runs--and it's hard to compare with the recent Broadway revivals which have done spectacularly but are mostly shorter *limited* runs. Of course Sondheim himself sorta subscribed to this--he was always quick to point out that West Side Story wasn't a hit, except for a sort of cult following, until the movie became a phenomenon. Never mind that the original cast album charted well on Billboard, the original production turned a profit, had a hit tour, and then returned to Broadway to complete nearly 1000 performances, the London production was a blockbuster turning in MORE than 1000 performances, etc, etc...)
Oh Mickey Jo, you've put me in a conundrum...I was going to splurge on tickets for this for Christmas but now I don't know if it's worth the nearly $300 I was going to spend. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece or anything, and I think I have a higher tolerance/enjoyment of surrealism then you may, but still...makes the decision a bit harder!
Personally I think you're being a bit harsh on a musical we all know wasn't finished before Sondheim died. No it's not a masterpiece but it's something we can enjoy as it is, because we won't be getting anymore Sondheim musicals.
I didnt quite realise until you listed off the cast what a great company it is, and with Mantello at the helm def seems it had good grounding. I feel the show you have seen was a first draft....unfortunately never to be cleaned up, editted and completed
I saw it a little after you, and went in expecting something unfinished and at peace/looking forward to that. The ending especially felt like a placeholder for something that was meant to be written later. I went from heart eyes when Fritz first appeared to gradually building rage over the course of their character arc. There were certainly a lot of choices there. And when I was trying to relate what had impressed me, I ended up largely mentioning set design. From that point of view, moving it is hard to imagine.
You are saying We Are Are is the only Sondheim musical to not have a single memorable song, but it's likely the only Sondheim musical you've only heard the score to literally once. Of course it's not going to be as memorable as shows you've listened to the soundtrack to dozens of times. Now it's completely possible you'll feel the same way after hearing the music a few times, but in my experience Sondheim songs are usually complex enough that the first impression isn't the only impression.
Richard Rodgers himself said to Andrew Lloyd Webber: audiences thought "The King And I" was a weaker score than "South Pacific", when the show first opened, because they'd only just heard it.
There are many beautiful songs in HERE WE ARE, but like PASSION, they are not listed in the program, and many weave in and around the dialogue extensively. That said, (and I'm guessing at the titles) the entire opening sequence ("Perfect Day?"), "Sorry, Madame," "It's All The Same," "The End of the World," "Marianne," "I'm a Terrible Priest," and "Superficial" are lovely, as is the copious and beautifully orchestrated underscoring. Your point is well taken. It's way to early to make determinitive judgements on the music.
There is an opera of The Exterminating Angel that is far more successful, by the sounds of it (although I have minor issues about that as well). Perhaps opera is better placed to incorporate surrealism? Fascinating. Thank you.
"Having a good time at the theater is all about managing your expectations." So true and even truer today with so many theater goers--and especially critics (this is true of film today as well)--being so susceptible to the enormous PR and publicity machines telling you what's good--and what--and how--you should think. This is a wonderful rumination, though, and you do make this show sound very interesting.
I’m rereading through Sondheim’s Lyric collection books, and there’s a quote where he talks about clarity that I think applies to this show, “If it’s only mysterious, it’s condescending and pretentious and soon monotonous.” I think this show is exactly that, too mysterious in both book and lyrics. While I found the music to be gorgeous and there were some clever lyrics everything just felt like it was trying to be too quirky and high minded. I will say the show mostly suffers from the second Act which probably would have been improved had sondheim still been alive so who knows what it could have looked like. I did truly enjoy the show though I wouldn’t say I hated it, but it just feels like it could be clearer.
They didn’t change anything between previews and opening. That I can assure you. I also felt the same as you did: it didn’t make me happy. It made me cringe, quite frankly- at its worst it’s a mess and it’s not funny, it’s hokey and the jokes are dated. Worst of all the songs all blended into one big mush. Occasionally the songs were charming but they just don’t line up to what you want to expect from Sondheim. Even as a play on its own without music, it was kind of a jumble. I, too, was kind of surprised by the mainstream reviews. Unlike you, I really wasn’t expecting too much- I think they set the bar pretty low.
Well the two movies that the play is inspired are really surreal, and in very opposite time in Buñuel artistic journey, so I don’t know how they can blended. Both films had not a clear story, with very blurry endings, and never explained what happened.
Well, in a way the two films are kind of similar- as Sondheim said, one is about searching for a place to eat and the other about not being able to leave- but those are two different surrealist concepts and I think both films are masterpieces. While there are inherently comic elements to both films- especially Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie- Here We Are just smooshes them together and plays it all for very cheaplaughs.
There were minor changes. "Perfect Day" was reprised at the end of the show for the first Saturday preview, then was removed and the ending was restaged.
I vastly appreciate the bold honestly and intellect you bring to this commentary (I know better than to call it a "review," based on your ethical delineation). I was willing to, and wanted to, purchase a ticket to "Here We Are" at The Shed when they went on sale, but I had the sense, even then, that there was something fundamentally wrongheaded about the entire project. To be clear, if there's someone out there who reveres and truly loves the life work of Stephen Sondheim more than I do, I don't know who that would be. Maybe that's what caused me to hesitate and ultimately, to not buy a ticket. I would gladly shell out a handful of bucks to hear a cast recording, on the chance that there could be some hidden gems among the completed songs, but I'm not willing to risk the exorbitant cost of a ticket price to see a show that could in any way dishonor the oeuvre of such an extraordinary artist.
I was hoping for another "Road Show." But this reminding me of "The Frogs." A book with more political commentary than character development and ornamental songs that make little impression on the first few listens.
Thank you for the honest review. You are on point that other reviewers seem to tred lightly as any harsh criticism might be Spitting on his grave. Disclaimer: I have not seen HERE WE ARE. I did see the 2 movies which it was based. Also not a fan of surrealism. Some red flags for me were noted in the Frank Rich piece that talked about the long process and the constant self admitted procrastination of Sondheim, self doubting from Sondheim, the admission that time ran out to write songs for act 2. I was nervous about the “surreal” musical being pulled off, but then again, I thought, who knows, if anyone can do it, why not Sondheim? It is true that Sondheim’s last great show was Assassins (1991). Many will point to Passion (1994) which I personally hated. It took another. 14 years for his next musical, Road Show (2008), and we know how that turned out…. So for his last show there was a 15 year gap. Just seems if it takes that long to write and develop a show (at least in Sondheim’s case) it may not turn out all that great. Micky, you mentioned that you were tired of seeing shows portraying leftist as hypocritical. Can you name some examples? I don’t see that at all in musicals. In fact, I see a lot of political preachiness and virtue signaling. If creators are calling out wealthy priviledged leftist, that would be refreshing especially with the prices of tickets that essentially have eliminated most of us the opportunity to attend a Broadway show.
I personally think it's great, but each to their own. However, does it mean the show is "not good"? Absolutely not, objectively it's very good. I think you just don't like it, and that's okay too. I'd argue it's one of the freshest and most interesting Musicals to come on the scene in the last 25 years, and if we're taking hints from every other Sondheim show ever written which people didn't initially like that then became Musical Theatre favorites, I think it's probably better than alot of people realize. Even in death Sondheim will forever divide the audience.
I've been waiting to watch this until after I experienced the show for myself, and now that I have, I feel I have to respond. I will start by saying I did not love the show, although I didn't hate it. In some ways I'm still making up my mind and my jury is still out, but I'm currently leaning towards the negative. That being said, I do agree with a number of your criticisms, but what I absolutely and vehemently take exception to is your calling it "not good" and/or "bad" over and over again. I have seen plenty of bad shows, and this is NOT a bad show. Experimental, yes; incomplete in certain respects, absolutely; but by your own admission you don't care for surrealism, so you were already (possibly unknowingly) predisposed to not like the show before it even started given what it is. You also by your own admission went in with certain expectations of what you wanted the show to be and your expectations were not met, leading you, I believe, to take the show not for what it is, but for what you wanted it to be. As a parallel example, similar to your distaste for surrealism I don't care for serial music at all when it comes to classical music. Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern all leave me cold and often with a headache afterwards. Nevertheless. Do I enjoy "Wozzeck" or "Lulu"? No. Do I appreciate the skill and artistry it took to create them? Yes. They are not bad despite the fact that I personally hate them, and I think that's an important distinction to make. Perhaps this is coming down to semantics, and you're using "not good" and "bad" to equate with your personal dislike for the material (i.e. surrealism), but in doing so, you're essentially advising people that the show is not worth seeing. I get that's what critics are generally supposed to do, but I don't agree that the shortcomings of "Here We Are" add up to enough that the show deserves to be called "bad". Even mediocre Sondheim is better that some people's best. Perhaps a more fair assessment from you might have been the well-known quote, "This is the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing." For myself, I personally enjoyed the more comic surrealism of Act 1, although to be fair Act 1 is where the bulk of the music resides, so I have a bias there. The "Cafe Everything" sequence was probably my favorite part of the show. It strongly reminded me of both the Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch and the restaurant scene in "A New Brain", while the overall tone of Act 1 was very reminiscent of any number of things from Firesign Theater. I felt Act 2 was somewhat unfocused, but I enjoyed the exchange between Marianne and the Bishop in particular. To conclude, I don't know that you will ever read this since it's very much a wall of text and I'm definitely late to the party, but I hope that you do, and if you do, I hope that you'll consider some of my points. I usually enjoy your videos, but I couldn't let this one pass by without comment. Thanks, and have a Happy New Year!
Appreciate your thoughts very much here and you are of course correct. There was definitely a desire to counterbalance the critics whose reviews felt disingenuous in their praise, but it's also true that I had expectations on arrival. Re people acting on my criticisms, it always goes without saying that whatever expressed is my opinion and people can buy tickets as they see fit. And I concur re the highlights, especially the exchange in the second act, I just wish there was more music of real strength.
Maybe we can find a psychic medium who can ask Sondheim to finish it. It’s worth a shot. (Edit: In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m 100% joking about this. Well, maybe 99%).
Thank you for your honesty. I also don't particularly enjoy surreal / abstract, so glad I held off buying tickets,. Grateful Merrily is already in the diary... roll on December 😀
You’re argument comparing this to merrily is also garbage. The show that showed in 1981 is completely different than todays version. I shouldn’t have to explain it, but you should listen to the original cast recording and also do some research on the casts and changes that were made. Steve workshopped that show and it’s completely different now. If you don’t get “here we are” you’re not dumb. People can have opinions. But there’s objective truths and subjective truths and you’re giving a subjective opinion. It’s ok if you don’t like experimental musicals and need traditional structured musicals (that Sondheim pioneered).
So the cast album has dropped.. I really really like it I was expecting less The score is very self-referential, isn't it? Full of quotes and hints at his previous works - lots of Anyone Can Whistle and Merrily and Company in the first act...and constant refernce to Move and We Do Not Belong Together in act two. I wonder if we will get a staging here in London
Too bad. I didn't care for Road Show either. It's sort of like coming up with those last Kander and Ebb musicals. some of which are okay, but not quite top drawer. Sondheim was a genius; and Merrily is a much better memorial.
I’m so mad at you for this video that I don’t know how long it will be until I can even look at your face. The show is so good and fascinating. Not totally finished, but that just adds to its mystery.
Oh no! Sorry to hear that, but you don't need to agree with everything I say on here. Glad you enjoyed, I look forward to a second opportunity to try and connect with this show, I went in with the wrong expectations.
@@MickeyJoTheatre I’m sorry. I was having a late-night musicals queen meltdown. I’ve been obsessively listening to the “Here We Are” original cast recording all week, getting more and more out of it, about to watch the Bunel films it’s based on and otherwise just wallowing in its beauty. Still, my rudeness wasn’t acceptable. Rumour has it that National Theatre might do it next year and broadcast to movie screens, and that is the dream I am currently living for.
In terms of surreal, one year the Tony's rejected Lightning Thief (a musical), but included "music" from the Harry Potter (a play), so maybe this was Sondheim's way of one final flipping the script moment by having art imitate life …
No doubt the fact that Sondheim's death affevted the full vission of the show, as he was still writing it. But, as someone from Buñuel's country, he's certainly overrated and some of his movies barely stand any fine study. A combination of a weird story, difficult to understand, let alone, adapt to a different medium, and people trying to figure out what someone else's would have done, or had thought, is a recipe for disaster
Knowing the extremely surreal characteristics of the source material is important here. They are two movies that are HARD to follow. When you go with certain expectations, and not that aware of the route the play will take, I can see how you feel very disappointed. Further, once one is confronted with the unmatched expectations, it is hard to enjoy the show and to see its value. Now add the fact that Sondheim’s work is incomplete which probably explains the lack of THE ONE iconic song. This doesn’t seem like a material to be for Broadway musical. Maybe with a limited run with star power and advertised as a musical play, emphasis on the PLAY.
I agree with your assessment of the show. I saw it the day before its official opening, and was similarly disappointed. I have seen every Sondheim show (except Anyone Can Whistle), and have been delighted or moved by almost all of them. Given his pattern of creating new songs and rethinking others late in the tryout period , I am certain the score would have been quite different had he been involved in the full creative process. Your feeling about the plot is also perceptive. I thought the actors were wonderful, but the show needs much more if it were to transfer to Broadway.
I really liked the first act (the zany surrealism did hit for me!) but the second act really fell flat, and was even painful at times. I didn’t realize that each act is based on a different movie, but it makes sense because both acts were so tonally different.
I haven't seen the original Exterminating Angel film, but I've seen the Met Opera production for the 2017/18 season. Having that experience and then hearing you review the musical makes me want to quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park about stopping to think if they should.
Do you find that the care in which NY critics treated this show has a correlation to how UK critics received Cinderella? I feel like there's some common ground here.
I think you personally didn’t like it because as you said, you don't enjoy surrealism and you might be judging it from that stance. It might be too nuanced for you and thats ok. Not every single piece of theater is for everyone.
I know I'm straying from the main topic, but it's really curious to me that Sondheim would ever think of *that* Sweeney line in the first place, when looking for an opportunity to slip in an F-word. It would've stuck out like the sorest thumb.
Oddly enough, having an f-bomb in that lyric would have worked for the 2023 revival. Since, Groban and Ashford have both said, their versions of the characters are sleeping together. Meaning, Sweeney is using sex as a way to manipulate Mrs Lovett and vice versa.
I appreciate your review of Here We Are as well as the disclaimer that this type of absurdist theater is not your cup of tea. BTW I love Pinter. However I think these critics are holding to the old adage of not speaking I’ll of the dead and not giving a balanced review as they would anyone else’s work. 👍🙏😎
It felt a lot like a twilight zone episode to me…it was definitely different. I would not go see this again. But that’s theater, like some, don’t like some.
I’m looking forward to this even more after seeing your review which lets me know it’s ok if I am not crazy about it. My expectations have been reset. Thank you
Have loved your videos for years. Have you ever considered releasing the audio version of your videos as well? Not that I don’t want to see your lovely face, but I enjoy listening to the videos on my dog walks and I have UA-cam open with my phone in my pocket.
Just saw the show tonight at the shed. amazing cast and venue, what a dud of a show. Riding the escalator down after the show others were going WTF....
Expected this show to be boring, but I found it really entertaining and thought provoking. That being said. I don’t think the songs added a single thing to it. The cast was ultra lux. The set did way more than I thought it would. I left the theater quite satisfied. Your knee jerk opinion is delightfully hubristic in a youthful sort of way.
Yes to all of this!!!! I was in NY this weekend and only had one night to see a show. Naturally I picked, as you di, the opportunity to see the world premiere of Sondheim's last show. Little did I know how utterly disappointed I would be. I have vented long and loudly about this since, and have managed to narrow my thoughts to this. If they tried for satire, they missed. If they wanted surreal, it felt forced. And so much of the writing felt lazy. (We have no dialogue so just have the actors repeat their lines, or stand quietly and looked puzzled). My review has been "I've seen bad fringe festival shows that were better than this.". Actually there was a better show done in Blaine, Missouri...but I digress. So, no, you are not alone. And I completely agree that good sets and acting does not mean it deserves to be called a good show.
I saw this show and I was so disappointed in it. It felt very disjointed and unfinished. It honestly felt like a play with music more than a musical. Esp Act 2. Micaela's character definitely read as non-binary but unfortunately written by someone without that perspective. And a lesbian falling for a man is yikes. Like you I am not into surrealist theatre pieces. Give me something with a beginning, middle, and end please I feel like the ONLY reason why any of the critics are giving it high (very baffling) star ratings because Sondheim was involved and it feels very disingenuous on their part. Thank you for being honest and respectful.
Sadly, there seems to be more than a hint of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ about this show. In other words, nobody wants to be the one who doesn’t ‘see it.’ Personally, taking on board everything you’ve said, I think ‘Old Friends’ or the success of ‘Merrily’ are infinitely better tributes to Sondheim than something that is clearly unfinished. Also I feel it sets a dangerous precedent if critics are going to stop being truthful in their assessment of a show. It’s obviously perfectly understandable to be respectful and burst with admiration for such a great composer-but that belongs in an opinion piece not a review. Thankfully, the back catalogue of Sondheim is filled with such treasures that ‘Here We Are’ cannot tarnish them. Thank you for your honesty and I can only imagine the level of your disappointment when you left the theatre and felt somewhat deflated.
Come on, we know he was imperfect! I saw Roadshow then too and was baffled and not amused 👎🏻👎🏻 Saw Anyone Can Whistle and felt much the same! You can only become an innovator by trying lots of different things and they're not all going to succeed the same.
I am so impressed at your level of professionalism. I am an old timey former performing arts critic, started at the college paper, wrote for a living for a short time, then papers started disappearing. There are so many people who don't understand what the rules are (that keep it fair) and thank you thank you thank you. And I love the original movies by Bunuel (the opera of Exterminating Angel is amazing).
I doubt I’d find any enjoyment in & Juliet, purely because Max Martin isn’t really my cup of tea - but I know enough about it to know that it’s one of the better modern examples of the jukebox genre. There’s no shame in liking it - it aims for its target and executes it well. Shows aren’t judged on a sliding scale of how similar or dissimilar they are to Sondheim.
@@MickeyJoTheatre I don’t mean to sound snobbish. I found &Juliet to be patronizing and instead of being queer inclusive- it exploited the queer characters at the expense of the straight protagonists. the entire character of May felt so insulting to non-binary and questioning queer folks that I couldn’t find any enjoyment in that show. Maybe that’s my cis white savior complex- but I thought it played into the stereotype that non-binary folks are “confused” and not owning their identity. On the counter, i thought Here We Are we a pretty clear comment on the wealthy class and their willing ignorance to the world ending around them. Was it a finished show? No but it has something to say that’s worth saying. Is it the best Sondheim show- hell no. But the set, the cast, the jokes- I found it to be a solid piece of theater. I love a dumb night out as much as the next mo, Once Upon a One More Time was exactly that- while to me &juliet felt like it was made for white women who have their bachelorette parties at gay bars and have gender reveal parties in the same month.
I think the thing that disturbed me the most about your "review" is your assumption that just because you didn't like it, the critics must be lying. I can't begin to tell you how wrongheaded that is. Also there were critics who didn't like. The New York Post panned it. You even read the headline. Sondheim shows are usually never fully appreciated during their original run. I hated Passion and Merrily when they first opened and I love them now. Maybe because I'm older and I understand them better because of all the life experiences I had since then. Maybe in 10 or 20 years you will like it
In fact, that was not my assumption whatsoever. It was that the reviews' recognition of vital shortcomings and positive overview were at odds with each other. Yes, I agreed with the post, particularly the sections I read.
I will say that I keep wondering when Sondheim's team will remember that he has one other unproduced musical waiting in the vaults... Sondheim and William Goldman finished (at least finished all but *one* song) an original movie musical in the early 90s, planned for Rob Reiner, Singing Out Loud. Some, but by no means all, of the songs have gotten recordings (although not in their complex film versions) and among us fans several drafts of the script has been circulating. Nathan Lane, who did a demo recording, even said the amazingly complex song-scene, Lunch (full lyrics are in Sondheim's Look, I Made a Hat volume) was the best thing Sondheim ever did. It wouldn't work as a stage musical as its reliant on film technique, but I don't know why Netflix or somewhere similar doesn't snap it up and make it--it's truly great stuff and I won't shut up about it until they do do something with it.
I’m not sure I have an opinion on this - but the thought occurs - if something is ‘in the vaults’, should we take this as a sign the artist wanted it left there? We’re then left with a dilemma - do we respect the output the artist curated for themselves, or publish it all to get a better idea of their creative life? I’m not sure there’s a right answer but there’s probably still an interesting discussion to be had!
It's definitely the eternal question. I can speak about Singing Out Loud, the movie musical I mention, to some extent because I've done so much research on it for various projects. Sondheim (and famed screenwriter William Goldman--of course who is the brother of James Goldman who wrote Follies and Evening Primrose with Sondheim) worked on the movie musical steadily for several years in the early 90s. Rob Reiner, who was on a hot streak at the time with hits in every genre (When Harry Met Sally, Misery, Princess Bride--those last two having screenplays by William Goldman) was keen on tackling an original movie musical. Of course in the early 90s studios were hesitant about live action movie musicals (the few that did come out like Newsies were big bombs) but were willing to trust Reiner. But Sondheim said Reiner cooled on the project, and then had several BIG failures (like North, if anyone remembers that) and the project just died. But, like I said the latest draft of the script I was able to find in the archives, the fourth (with Sondheim's hand written corrections on it) is almost complete. The exception is one key complicated song which Sondheim just explains (over two pages) but doesn't offer final lyrics for, which obviously could be a problem (but does show it was far more complete than Here We Are was.) Sondheim also published most of the lyrics in his lyric collection (volume 2, Look I Made a Hat) and in that the notes on those lyrics he actually says that he is truly sorry the film never got made. William Goldman is gone as well, and I have no idea what his final thoughts were (though I did find literally hundreds of pages of notes he made to Sondheim about the film,) but I think it's safe to say Sondheim did want the film out there. (The recorded songs from it are the great 90s style pop ballad Water Under the Bridge which Debbie Shapiro sang wonderfully--it's on UA-cam--and then two of the more minor pastiche songs for the musicals "movie within a movie" Sand and Dawn--but the script has 8 songs plus the unfinished one.) But I think it IS a fascinating dilemma and discussion to have in general. I hate to say it, but often I think in the final analysis we decide depending on how good the work is. Few people seemed satisfied with the Harper Lee novel that was discovered and published a few years ago. But already mentioned here are Puccini's Turandot and Mozart's Requiem, two pieces which are often considered among the most important compositions by both composers...--@@Midlander83
@@EricMontreal22 Those songs were the standouts on the Sondheim at the movies album. The film would have been interesting, sort of a 90s spin on a Merrily type story. Don't forget Sondheim was also working on All Together Now which he was working on at the same time as HWA, though for all we know only 1 song was fully written.
@@EricMontreal22funnily enough, Harper Lee’s novel was exactly the example I had in mind! It’s now accepted as a first draft rather than a sequel to Mockingbird I believe? I think on reflection context is probably key here - as long as we know an artist didn’t publish a work during their lifetime, we can add speculation as to why into any discussion of it. Fascinating to hear the story behind this other work of Sondheim’s though - thank you for the insight!
Yeah the script of Singing Out Loud is very clever. In many ways its lighter than what we usually expect from Sondheim (a romantic love triangle and much talk about how to make a movie musical work in the then modern age--I think if they filmed it now it would have to firmly be set still in the early 90s) but of course allowed Sondheim a concept he reportedly adored--which was that initially aside from the songs shown within the movie musical they are making (the title's subtitle is "A Musical Movie about a Movie Musical That's In Trouble") which are shown in different styles, for example Sand goes from being a Fred Astaire style night club number to a "Madonna" style garish music video in a desert and then back again depending on the whims of the people making the musical. But the actual character songs all start off as being sung only as voice over "thoughts." As it progresses and the characters comfort and self awareness grows this moves into sung "out loud" private monologues and finally culminates with the characters being able to fully "sing out loud" to each other. (In his notes Sondheim mentions that the concept could be corny but he felt they could really pull it off--another reason why it had to be a film and not a stage work.) I totally forgot that apparently at least a few songs from All Together Now are out there...@@opal817
That's pretty obvious by how much he says he doesn't like surrealism. And how bad he thinks he it is. Seems like he's pissed off that people don't share his opinions on this, and that doesn't mean it's bad. It just means that you personally don't like it. First review of mickeys I found completely biased instead of an actually honest review. It comes off as more of a rant of I hated this show and you should to, it came off very unprofessional
You should see it again. Your expectations tainted your experience. IMHO, it's much better than you suggest. Also, it's inappropriate, and frankly, pointless to second-guess other critics, especially since many of the reviews were mixed, which challenges your thesis
Even the positive reviews are "mixed," not raves. And as you acknowledge, your friends enjoyed it more than you did, so why wouldn't some reviews skew positive? You are obviously entitled to your opinion and your disappointment, but trying to identify motives behind other critics' reviews is silly, and beneath the high standards you've set for yourself. xxRU
Good point Mickey Jo. And you shouldn't have to be. Most audiences won't have heard of Bunuel. But it should be noted that the goal was not to be "faithful" to Bunuel, whatever that means. "A Little Night Music" is not faithful to Bergman, as Bergman pointed out when he saw the show. Here We Are has to stand on its own merits. And IMHO, despite its flaws, it does, gloriously. I find it fascinating that this late in his life, Sondheim wrote his most experimental show, and one that will, alternately, confound and dismay and delight audiences for years to come. @@MickeyJoTheatre
So sad and a disappointed a lesbian who ended up with a man not a woman, so clickbait. @MickeyJoTheatre . I thought Anne and Juliet were going to end up together in & Juliet. Thanks so much for your honest review hopefully it won't ruin his legacy. At least Sweeney Todd and Merrily are heartwarming and going strong.
The show is deeply critical of all its characters, not just Fritz. In the first lines of the play, Claudia and Paul carp and complain about their cab driver, and the doorman in ugly (although comic) classist ways. If Fritz was the only character who was ridiculed, you would have a point. But they are all satirized. If you want a show where a lesbian ends up with a woman, write one!
It's one thing to not like a show...its another thing completly to claim every other reviewer is wrong about liking the show and is just hiding their opinions. You even admit yourself you came in with too high expectations and don't particularly enjoy surrealist theatre so that could easily explain why you had such a differing opinion. Just my thought tho :)
I think he justifies why he thinks that by pointing out that so many reviewers who supposedly loved the show can't seem to articulate what is actually good about it in their reviews. And that one reviewer who said that the "latte" line was one of Sondheim's cleverest bits of wordplay ever... That's just idiotic.
This video sent me into an intellectual and almost philosophical tailspin about the nature of theatre criticism, Sondheim’s experimentation in theatre, death of the author (in this case literal) and how dissonant that all is in this situation. I feel like I need to draw out a mind map. Thanks for your thoughts- I’m thinking of writing a Substack article on this topic (not necessarily a review of the show, more a query) and will be sure to reference this. :)
I think I’d love this, based on your comments. I’m an even bigger Ives than Sondheim fan, and I love surrealism. Thanks for being honest instead of hedging your opinions. It helps your viewers know what to expect.
To be fair Stephen used to workshop and edit his shows up until the very last minute. Without Stephen there through the whole process I have no doubt that it wasn’t a good thing…
An excellent point!
Yes, I know someone who spoke about the first workshops when it was to be done at the Public--mostly of Act I (five or so years back.) They said that the team involved was not worried about Act II because they fully expected that Sondheim would write a lot of that during the preview phase while watching it come together (which of course once he separated from Prince--who would insist on having a fairly finalized show before previews--was how he worked, with Sunday having virtually no songs in Act II when the public workshop premiered, Into the Woods only getting songs in Act II during its first San Diego production as the three month run went on, etc.) I don't think Mantello and Ives are lying when they say Sondheim agreed to Act II having barely any songs--he seemed to have a lot of trouble writing Act II according to Frank Rich's article and I fully believe he agreed to this compromise late in his life--but it was not the original intention. (And if they stop singing when they realize they're "stuck" why don't they start singing at the end again when unstuck?)
@@EricMontreal22 I embrace you fellow nerd. You have travelled long to get here.
Thanks! (I think ;) ) @@PhimbleG-d
Years ago I watched the two movies used as source materials. Walked out. Unbelievable. When I read that Sondheim was basing last show on the films I thought oh no.
It’s hard, because Sondheim was well-known for delivering key songs at the very last minute - to the point that he’s acknowledged that Hal Prince was often mad at him for allowing the former so little time to stage the numbers. Send in the Clowns, No One is Alone, Lesson #8 and Children & Art - all songs delivered either very late in the rehearsal process or, in some cases, while the show was in preview, out of town or off-Broadway. I feel this show would have had a stand out song had Mr. Sondheim not passed away.
I don’t think critics should even review this - because it’s not really finished. It’s Sondheim’s Turandot or Requiem.
That's such a valuable point, thank you for sharing this! You'd have to imagine the final product with his consistent input would have been quite different.
Totally get your point... Although " It’s Sondheim’s Turandot or Requiem" confuses things because many consider those among Puccini and Mozart's best works, now.
I had no idea about this! It shows what a collaborative process MT is. Thanks for sharing!
Sondheim always stressed the importance of his collaborators, of course, and was happy to point out that often he would ask a bookwriter to write a scene he planned to musicalize, so he could "cannibalize" (his term!) the dialogue they wrote for his lyrics.@@Midlander83
They are presenting the work as a finished show, so it has the right to be reviewed.
I guess I'm a minority. I loved it. It makes perfect sense that the music is minimal in the 2nd act due to the structure of the material. No need to force music into a place that does not call for it.The material does not need to sing. I thought the music was wonderful in the first act- reminded me of Passion, which is my favorite Sondheim score. I saw Sweeney Thursday night, Merrily We Roll Along Friday night, and Here We Are on Saturday night. What more do I need?
You need "The Frogs" at Master Voices/Jazz at Lincoln Center in November!
This is awesome. Full Sondheim weekend. Much love ❤️⚡️✌️
I had a great time, too!
I saw it (1-12-24) and also loved it! You simply have to go in w/o any any expectations or comparisons to other Sondheim shows, & simply view it as a new & unique work. Taken as it is, it's very entertaining.
@@RaymondNYC1 Not just that. It's a most welcome overhaul of the genre. Hope is that it will inspire the current and upcoming crop of writers.
I saw the show twice - loved it. I was there to see surrealism onstage and see the collaboration of Sondheim, Ives, Mantello, et al. I didn’t come in looking to hold it up to anything else. I came to see Here We Are. As such, I was not disappointed.
That said, I think the familiar “content dictates form” axiom that governs the rest of the Sondheim library is at work here. (And certainly, a lengthy section of a musical without music was done long ago in the musical 1776.) I enjoyed the lack of song form throughout as I think it was a perfect fit for the style and a true match to the source material (at least Discreet Charm, as I have only seen that film). I actually had the opposite issue where I think the Ives book occasionally tries TOO hard to give us a moral, where I prefer the “choose your own” in this style.
In general, I think assertions as to ‘what might have been’ only muddy the ability to take in what is (what Jones’s Marianne character might call superficial, “what they seem and not what they are.”) I struggled the same with complaints about the Daniel Fish revival of Oklahoma, about what Hammerstein “didn’t intend” when he died years before his art could speak on the issues the new revival made comment on. It’s impossible to compare anything to something that doesn’t exist - whether Hammerstein’s ability to approve a 2018 revival of his show or Sondheim’s further (possible) work on a show that was completed two years after his death.
There may be some overblown reverence out there, certainly; but I also think there is room to objectively enjoy the show and believe it is a worthwhile piece.
The one true irony I enjoy plays directly into your criticism of the state of commercial art: the high price of tickets (minus rush seats which made it affordable to me) makes this show most accessible to the rich and elite that will clamor the loudest to seem sophisticated after viewing it (maybe even the same set who howled down Sondheim’s riskier ventures from his lifetime) and are exactly those who are being lampooned within this piece. They’ll delight in the buffoonish behavior of their own mirror reflections while the rest of us debate the worth of the exercise in the first place.
Maybe Sondheim is getting the last laugh after all…
Agree with all.
I don’t know if the location was specifically chosen but it’s really interesting how theater itself and audience mirrors the play. That for me added to the surrealism of it all
I loved the venue and designs as well. I can’t imagine it working as well in a Broadway house. I saw it the first time from the fourth row on the aisle of the center section, and my second viewing was from the first row of the right section. Viewing elements of the action through the mirrors the second time gave me a completely different visual experience. I loved it.
I also saw it and thought exactly the same thing. It’s what it’s supposed to be and it’s fantastic. Laughed out loud several times. The show is complete, it’s more play than musical. It’s very different from everything he did before, which is true of everything he did.
Couldn't agree more. The audience is complicit. We're keeping them confined to the stage, the box, as much as the revolution. At the end, the characters/cast revolts. The last three seconds took my breath away and is a perfect return to, and echo of, the fourth wall break in act one. This isn't just meta for meta sake. It's a skewer to privilege and a critique of all of us and of the venue and of itself. We're all the problem.
I agree completely about the audience looking at itself. Is there some sort of irony in the fact that the first act is about a long, harrowing journey, and to even GET into the theater you have to navigate lines and 6 flights of escalators?? Hilarious
You’re entire review is based on the fact that you were not satisfied as it did not meet your expectations…. Which has nothing to do with the actual components of the show. I’m sorry to break it to you, but Steve wrote musicals not trying to please anyone. He was someone who took chances and wrote about real things.
I’ll admit, the music is not like a traditional musical. But to say there is no notable songs is a complete lie. There are 2 very notable songs from the show- the waiters song at everything cafe, hilarious! And Marianne’s final song.
Additionally, there were many “Sondheim” moments including wordplay, funny rhymes, and the music was totally Sondheim like.
I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy your time at the show, but you should’ve just been there thankful and grateful you can experience any new Sondheim content.
Just saw the show tonight, and I did end up really enjoying it! Definitely not masterpiece-level, but I had a great time. Honestly, the performances alone were enough to win me over (and I also have a bias to liking surrealist-type material as well, so that helps too, lol).
I get why of course, but honestly, I think conversations + reviews that revolve around it being a "Sondheim work" does this show a disservice. Like you said, expectations should be properly set as to what the music's involvement and function is here: it is forgettable in any context other than being ancillary to what's happening in the plot. But as an overall work (and not as "Sondheim's final score"), it fits in well and works to create a better experience than without. But a lot of the reception (both positive and negative) is focusing too much on Sondheim, and not the show as a whole. Again, I get why, but it does seem a little silly.
That said, I appreciate the video! (Though I will say the title kind of rubs me the wrong way; but maybe that's just me!)
Show me on the doll where "Here We Are" hurt you. I thought it was the perfect final Sondheim musical - it's not 70's Sondheim or '90's Sondheim it's 2020's Sondheim and feels like the perfect end to his legacy.
Right on your money! He reinvented FOR THE FOURTH TIME the American Musical Comedy.
I saw it last night and quite enjoyed it. But I went in with managed expectations, particularly regarding the music of Sondheim. If I'm honest, I don't think Sondheim had done really great work since "Into the Woods." I'd also read that the music peters out early in Act 2, so I was there as much to see the concept of the play borne out as I was to hear new Sondheim. And in that respect, I think the play delivers. I thought combining the two Bunuel plots worked really well, and I thought the whole play had a lot to say about the meaning and absurdity of life. As you say, the performers and set (and the direction, I would add) are all first rate. I do think the marketing of the play as a Sondheim musical as well as the very high ticket prices have raised expectations -- understandably so. But judged on its own merits, I was pleasantly surprised.
NYT gave it a great review .. I think Mickey is showing his immaturity. He likes the predictable sequels and is out of his league when it comes to original art.
This is Assassins slander of the highest order
Thank you for your honesty! It had to have been hard knowing your admiration for Sondheim, your expectations, and other critics' reviews. Your thoughtful views and analysis of other reviews will help me see it with an open mind next month(also on the same day I see Merrily...). I look forward to reading comment by others who have seen it.
Very glad you're seeing it and looking forward to hearing what you think!
I’m also seeing two shows on the same day
I loved the show! Sondheim approved the version that is on right now. Please read the Frank Rich article.
I really appreciate this review. If anyone would have been honest about this work it's Sondheim. He knew when something worked abd when it didn't. Even when people are genius it doesn't mean everything they do will be before.
Based on your review/not review, I'm getting the same read on this as the film AI. The last production of someone critically acclaimed, in part put together by a long time collaborator hoping to deliver a final goodbye worthy of the deceased partner's acclaim. Ultimately, I come out with the same idea. No, we shouldn't say it's good if it's not (I haven't seen it so how would I know) but to an extent, it doesn't matter if it's critically good or not? Or not that it doesn't matter, but that it's probably not the most important thing to the people who created it. That's no disrespect to you, it's more, don't feel bad if you didn't like it because the people involved will kind of decide on a more personal level if they feel they did justice to the deceased.
I watch all your Broadway critiques & videos & always enjoy them. I saw HERE WE ARE tonight (Jan 12, 2024) and I loved it! I've never been a big fan of surreal or experimental films; I often find them too esoteric or self-consciously high-brow. But HERE WE ARE worked for me. I don't know if it was the unique setting & staging (in an event space often used for fashion shows & art installations), Joe Mantello's direction, or "the cast of can-you-top-this Broadway treasures," but I was left cheering. I don't think the show suffers from being unfinished. True there are no show-stoppers in the score. But what music there is works well in the context of the show & is well delivered by an unparalleled cast. I believe you went in with a set of expectations based on other Sondheim shows you've seen. If you went in viewing HERE WE ARE w/o those expectations, as simply a new & unique work, you would've enjoyed it more. I found it funny, engaging & very entertaining.
I saw it yesterday and thought that the production's greatest sin is that any way you slice it, is that it just isn't finished. There are holes in the second act where presumably there would have been songs had Sondheim lived to write them. But the pieces of it that are fully (or mostly) realized in the first act, are pretty wonderful.
I met Stephen in 2001, and it was love at first site. We were together for the next 2 years, and that is the greatest gift life has given me. This new Merrily is so gratifying to me, knowing personally how happy he would be. We talked a lot about that show, which I was certain would emerge fully to the world when the world was ready . He did not like to be coddled, but he smiled when I said that. For me, “like it was” is its most poignant achingly beautiful moment, and of course so much more so now.
I think the reviews were really fair. It's an enjoyable show, with moments of it being great, moments of it being meh, and it does feel unfinished in some ways. I would never say I hate it or it's bad though. I think that's a little ridiculous when there's a lot there that works.
Thank you for your honesty. This is why we respect your opinion. Is there going to be an episode about location The Shed?
I admit that as bizarre as the storylines were, I enjoyed laughing at and applauding the performances in the first act. I enjoyed Sondheim’s use of profanity much as in the way I enjoyed stealthily listening to older family members telling each other dirty jokes, thinking they were out of ear reach of “the kids”. One bizarre point was the 2 actors going about vacuuming and cleaning the mirrored set as we entered the theater at first made my think there’s a problem with the set being addressed last minute but when it opens on them it clicks that it was likely done due to a lack of a curtain and thus an alternative to them walking out onto an empty stage and beginning their pantomime. At times it felt like a sophisticated version of Saturday night live. At others, particularly in the second act, dragged on seemingly for the sake of reaching the conclusion. I wonder if perhaps the show would have benefited from just staging the 1st act alone? I will say my larger disappointment was not having the opportunity to run into you at the show (I wasn’t able to get a ticket for any of the performances until Wednesday night) having thoroughly enjoyed your reviews. I hope your first Ny adventure was as exciting as you hoped it would be.
Some "Broadway shows" are on Broadway to increase their market value. "Title of Show" is a case in point. I saw it originally off-Broadway. It was a small intimate show. The show is too small to have been on Broadway--it looked awkward on a big Broadway stage. So, why did it go? To increase its viability to regional and school theaters.
A very interesting point!
There have been many one and two-person shows on Broadway that didn't feel "too small," but it's true that certain shows use Broadway as imprimatur to spur interest in regional productions.
@@roburbinati358 Absolutely. "The Year of Magical Thinking" was amazing, as was "Well." "A Behanding in Spokane" was another show that I found riveting with only 4 performers (with 99% just the 3 main characters.) So, there have been many wonderful shows that fit perfectly with a small cast. Also, there have been wonderful shows that were too intimate to be as effective on Broadway, as they were, or would have been, in a smaller venue. YMMV
I also saw it right before it opened (10/17). I have been to several staged readings and playwrights putting early versions of their works on their feet to see how it plays with a select audience, so I entered fully expecting that this was not a complete play that it might not be ready to unleash on the world. I didn't expect it be without problems. At first I thought the bare white stage was to give it a more workshopy feel. Like you, I also attended because I wanted to be able to say that I saw the original production of this work -- I got what I paid for. I enjoyed my night at the theatre and I am glad that I went. Was it earth-shattering, life-changing theatre - No. If the producers had thought it was, I am sure they would have cold opened onto Broadway and a thousand more tickets sold each night.
I absolutely loved this SO MUCH. It's the most original thing i've seen in forever. The performances, the direction, the themes, the lyrics, the music, but most importantly the book. I loved the David Ives of it all. Abstract surrealist theatre to me is perhaps the most exciting. I like the whole throw in all these random things and let the audience decide for themselves what it means to them. Everyone takes away something different which can say more about them than the writing. Having rich people being objectified by making them make sheep noises was brilliant. I was howling. Its an absolutely perfect show, and i hope it transfers and wins all the awards.
I completely agree; but it does have this layer of quotes from all of Sondheim's shows, which intrigues me even more. 😀
Thanks for doing this. I will be seeing it next month, but not expecting too much. Will see what I think. Does not seem like it will have a transfer to Broadway which is probably a good thing. I will actually be seeing Merrily later the same day in November.
Have never been to a show there so am looking forward to seeing a show at the Shed. And to seeing what you guys thought of the venue if Aeron does a video.
I Could tell it pained you to say this was a subpar part of Sondheim’s work.
Are you sorry you saw it, or was it worth seeing his last show?
Could also tell from reviews I read that most were trying to be nice regardless of what they actually saw.
I'm definitely not sorry I saw it, separated from its expectations it's still a very rich piece of theatre and now at least I can say I saw a Sondheim world premiere!
The Theatre was so interesting as well, so much empty space in those corridors - Aeron will be sharing a vlog, yes!
This is so interesting-I feel like I agree with most everything you said, but experienced the opposite effect. The fact that the show subverted all my expectations of what musical theater was or even could be thrilled me! As we left, I said to my husband: "How could Sondheim STILL surprise me so much, after all this time?" I'd always felt that the rhapsodical form of having music "illuminate" dialogue without ever becoming "song" (or even "number")-started in the bench scene in Carousel, flirted with in Sunday in the Park with George, and more seriously utilized in Passion-was an extremely powerful technique that had never been fully explored. I felt like the first act of Here We Are finally explored it fully-and I loved it. And then when the second act happened, I felt like, no mater how much you think there's nothing new under the sun for a musical to do to surprise you, well... here we are-a musical with no music, and in a way that makes perfect sense! As for the content, I could not make heads or tails of the first act until halfway through the second act-at which point it suddenly struck me that the first act had been about our constant, manic chase for whatever each of us loudly tries to convince ourselves that life is all about, and how we meet every failed attempt to find fulfillment with just more of the same mindless chasing, whereas the second act is about what we find when we’re forced to look at ourselves when all is quiet and we have nowhere to run. The whole experience has been haunting me for the last 24 hours (since I first saw the show), and it's helping me process aspects of my own life that I can't imagine having been able to access in any more linear ways...
As for the music itself, I have to admit that my ear is unsophisticated enough that I’ve seldom appreciated Sondheim’s scores on first hearing. I’m eagerly waiting for a cast album to come out, and to seeing, after ten hearings or so, whether any of this new music will move me to tears the way so much of his other music does.
All of that said, I really appreciated your (non-)review. For one thing, I think it’s really brave to be the one to say the emperor has no clothes. And, for another, in all honesty, you may very well be right. What you referred to as critics’ being “soft” with creators who have already proven themselves I tend to see more as a natural bias to approach the work of a time-tested creator with the assumption that “surely this MUST be on purpose, so what on earth could that purpose possibly be?” (Whereas in the case of newcomers, we are far quicker to assume that if we don’t get it right away, then the simplest explanation is that the work was flawed.) While I think this assumption is generally a good thing (and would be good to adopt in the case of newcomers, too!), it can certainly lead to the kind of “look how beautiful the emperor’s clothes are” phenomenon I think you’re describing. And I certainly know that I am not immune from being a victim of that mentality myself. It is not impossible that I am duping myself. But, then again… what would that really mean?
It's odd that once someone prominent passes, we revere all their works as golden. Even the largest names in entertainment have duds.
Exactly this. And even before sometimes! Sir Paul McCartney wrote Yesterday, The Long and Winding Road and Let It Be. He also wrote Wonderful Christmastime. 😏
Have you seen it? You probably should before calling it a "dud."
What did you make of the last scene of the show? The characters are mid stage at that point and don't seem to be able to continue walking towards the light, while all these very loud explosions are going on outside. Are they trapped again?
I interpreted that as the group is no longer trapped, able to continue their lives, but they also have to remember that they have no escaped death and that it is still coming for them.
Thank you so much! Your reviews are wonderfully thought out and thorough. I was hoping this would be a fantastic show, given that it’s Sondheim. I really appreciate your honesty on all the shows you critique, even when it’d hard. I’ve been fortunate to see a number of shows on Broadway, but would love to see a show at the West End. Could you could give some guidance for Americans on what shows to look for, where to get tickets, best restaurants, etc and anything else you would suggest. I hope you had a great time in New York!
How did you enjoy the cast album? As with most of Sondheim's shows, I hated it the first time I listened, but as I kept listening I fell in love with it!!
Agree to disagree. It IS good. It's not for everyone, but I'm sorry... a raging standing ovation is a show of success. A deep, dark story. A jewel. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this.
No need to apologise, everyone's entitled to an opinion!
I wish I could remember the last show I saw that didn't get a standing ovation.
Sad that Sondheim's final musical could never be truly finished by him
I don't know how there can be a debate about it being unfinished. There was essentially no singing in the last... 45?... minutes of the musical. Of course it's unfinished! (I know that they try to explain this away in the story with the non-functioning piano, but it should be noted that this is was not in the Buñuel film... I suspect it was developed to hide the gap.) Anyway, I loved hearing your thoughts on the show. I agree that it has many, many problems. I would call the biggest of them "Act 2." But I thought Act 1 was charming, full of Sondheim's indelible wit, and I enjoyed several flourishes throughout the show that called back to his more iconic works. Denis O'Hare's song was definitely a standout for me, though more as a fun patter song than as one of Sondheim's unforgettable ballads. Act 1 would get 5 stars from me. Act 2 perhaps 2 stars if I'm generous.
This was a great watch, even if just to get such a different opinion on the show. I will say I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the critics and audiences who liked it are essentially forcing themselves to like it because it's Sondheim, his last show, and they don't want to look like they didn't "get" it. (Though judging by the comments on the New York Times review, a lot of people agree with this take.) Sure, people are interested in it mostly due to Sondheim's involvement, and a lot of people like it due to that. But I also have no doubt they genuinely do like it--and if a lot of that is to try to piece together how it fits with past Sondheim works, etc, I think that's still more than fair.
You don't outright say this, but I have read people asking if anyone would like it if it wasn't Sondheim. And I think that's irrelevant, frankly. Sondheim's importance has meant that even his minor pieces are worth examining and are works many fans can find joy in. I'm not sure I'm making *any* sense lol
That said, Passion is one of my top three Sondheim shows, and I see it largely as a bookend of Sondheim's best work (25 years from Company to Passion--quite a run.) It was the last time Sondheim really seemed to be trying something new (with none of the songs having a proper tonal resolve until the very final chord) and I just find it perfect. But even many Sondheim fans disagree with me. Bounce/Road Show (and I like a lot more about Hal Prince's Bounce than Doyle's Road Show) is a nice coda, with a slight "Sondheim's greatest hits" type score. It's worthy but doesn't fit into his main canon to me. As for this show? I can't say yet, and I may very well agree with you. But I still insist it is a sticking point to me to insist that people who disagree with you are fooling themselves because they HAVE to like Sondheim's last show at all costs.
(And I think it's a bit of a false narrative to act like Sondheim didn't have success in his younger years. Ignoring WSS and Gypsy, and the fact that Forum was a big success even if he didn't get much credit for it, Company made a tidy amount of money and absolutely put him on the map. A Little Night Music, despite not running for years and years, made even more and already he was getting all star tribute concerts in New York. Sweeney may not have made a profit till the tour, but it was sure talked about. Yes, it's relatively recent that he's become almost, maybe, *mainstream* outside of the musical theatre scene--I can remember as a teen in the 90s living here in Canada and becoming obsessed, even my friends at my theatre school mostly didn't know Sondheim, which would never be true now--but a lot of his shows had healthy original runs--and it's hard to compare with the recent Broadway revivals which have done spectacularly but are mostly shorter *limited* runs.
Of course Sondheim himself sorta subscribed to this--he was always quick to point out that West Side Story wasn't a hit, except for a sort of cult following, until the movie became a phenomenon. Never mind that the original cast album charted well on Billboard, the original production turned a profit, had a hit tour, and then returned to Broadway to complete nearly 1000 performances, the London production was a blockbuster turning in MORE than 1000 performances, etc, etc...)
Oh Mickey Jo, you've put me in a conundrum...I was going to splurge on tickets for this for Christmas but now I don't know if it's worth the nearly $300 I was going to spend. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece or anything, and I think I have a higher tolerance/enjoyment of surrealism then you may, but still...makes the decision a bit harder!
See it
See it. It's delightfully bizarre.
Personally I think you're being a bit harsh on a musical we all know wasn't finished before Sondheim died. No it's not a masterpiece but it's something we can enjoy as it is, because we won't be getting anymore Sondheim musicals.
Genuine question - do you think that response is what he would have wanted?
I didnt quite realise until you listed off the cast what a great company it is, and with Mantello at the helm def seems it had good grounding. I feel the show you have seen was a first draft....unfortunately never to be cleaned up, editted and completed
Have you seen it?
I saw it a little after you, and went in expecting something unfinished and at peace/looking forward to that. The ending especially felt like a placeholder for something that was meant to be written later.
I went from heart eyes when Fritz first appeared to gradually building rage over the course of their character arc. There were certainly a lot of choices there.
And when I was trying to relate what had impressed me, I ended up largely mentioning set design. From that point of view, moving it is hard to imagine.
You are saying We Are Are is the only Sondheim musical to not have a single memorable song, but it's likely the only Sondheim musical you've only heard the score to literally once. Of course it's not going to be as memorable as shows you've listened to the soundtrack to dozens of times. Now it's completely possible you'll feel the same way after hearing the music a few times, but in my experience Sondheim songs are usually complex enough that the first impression isn't the only impression.
Richard Rodgers himself said to Andrew Lloyd Webber: audiences thought "The King And I" was a weaker score than "South Pacific", when the show first opened, because they'd only just heard it.
There are many beautiful songs in HERE WE ARE, but like PASSION, they are not listed in the program, and many weave in and around the dialogue extensively. That said, (and I'm guessing at the titles) the entire opening sequence ("Perfect Day?"), "Sorry, Madame," "It's All The Same," "The End of the World," "Marianne," "I'm a Terrible Priest," and "Superficial" are lovely, as is the copious and beautifully orchestrated underscoring. Your point is well taken. It's way to early to make determinitive judgements on the music.
There is an opera of The Exterminating Angel that is far more successful, by the sounds of it (although I have minor issues about that as well). Perhaps opera is better placed to incorporate surrealism? Fascinating. Thank you.
The opera house is at least a place where audiences have a higher tolerance for being bored and confused.
"Having a good time at the theater is all about managing your expectations." So true and even truer today with so many theater goers--and especially critics (this is true of film today as well)--being so susceptible to the enormous PR and publicity machines telling you what's good--and what--and how--you should think. This is a wonderful rumination, though, and you do make this show sound very interesting.
I’m rereading through Sondheim’s Lyric collection books, and there’s a quote where he talks about clarity that I think applies to this show, “If it’s only mysterious, it’s condescending and pretentious and soon monotonous.” I think this show is exactly that, too mysterious in both book and lyrics. While I found the music to be gorgeous and there were some clever lyrics everything just felt like it was trying to be too quirky and high minded. I will say the show mostly suffers from the second Act which probably would have been improved had sondheim still been alive so who knows what it could have looked like. I did truly enjoy the show though I wouldn’t say I hated it, but it just feels like it could be clearer.
They didn’t change anything between previews and opening. That I can assure you. I also felt the same as you did: it didn’t make me happy. It made me cringe, quite frankly- at its worst it’s a mess and it’s not funny, it’s hokey and the jokes are dated. Worst of all the songs all blended into one big mush. Occasionally the songs were charming but they just don’t line up to what you want to expect from Sondheim. Even as a play on its own without music, it was kind of a jumble.
I, too, was kind of surprised by the mainstream reviews. Unlike you, I really wasn’t expecting too much- I think they set the bar pretty low.
Well the two movies that the play is inspired are really surreal, and in very opposite time in Buñuel artistic journey, so I don’t know how they can blended. Both films had not a clear story, with very blurry endings, and never explained what happened.
Well, in a way the two films are kind of similar- as Sondheim said, one is about searching for a place to eat and the other about not being able to leave- but those are two different surrealist concepts and I think both films are masterpieces. While there are inherently comic elements to both films- especially Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie- Here We Are just smooshes them together and plays it all for very cheaplaughs.
@@LionWriter1012 yes I don’t thing they really function for a broadway sondheim musical, I think even the opera lose so much from the movie.
There were minor changes. "Perfect Day" was reprised at the end of the show for the first Saturday preview, then was removed and the ending was restaged.
You’re wrong, bud. It was a wonderful show. I’m sorry you didn’t understand it. I hope it grows on you.
It has yet to - I agree with the post.
@@MickeyJoTheatre I just saw it for the second time and I liked it even more 😇
Somewhat similar to road show, the music in act 1 felt much like how Sondheim often described operas, which I feared would be the case going in.
That said I do enjoy what I later learned was called ‘waiter’s song’.
Interesting, always great to hear your thoughts!
I vastly appreciate the bold honestly and intellect you bring to this commentary (I know better than to call it a "review," based on your ethical delineation). I was willing to, and wanted to, purchase a ticket to "Here We Are" at The Shed when they went on sale, but I had the sense, even then, that there was something fundamentally wrongheaded about the entire project. To be clear, if there's someone out there who reveres and truly loves the life work of Stephen Sondheim more than I do, I don't know who that would be. Maybe that's what caused me to hesitate and ultimately, to not buy a ticket. I would gladly shell out a handful of bucks to hear a cast recording, on the chance that there could be some hidden gems among the completed songs, but I'm not willing to risk the exorbitant cost of a ticket price to see a show that could in any way dishonor the oeuvre of such an extraordinary artist.
Your loss
I was hoping for another "Road Show." But this reminding me of "The Frogs." A book with more political commentary than character development and ornamental songs that make little impression on the first few listens.
Thank you for the honest review. You are on point that other reviewers seem to tred lightly as any harsh criticism might be Spitting on his grave. Disclaimer: I have not seen HERE WE ARE. I did see the 2 movies which it was based. Also not a fan of surrealism. Some red flags for me were noted in the Frank Rich piece that talked about the long process and the constant self admitted procrastination of Sondheim, self doubting from
Sondheim, the admission that time ran out to write songs for act 2. I was nervous about the “surreal” musical being pulled off, but then again, I thought, who knows, if anyone can do it, why not Sondheim?
It is true that Sondheim’s last great show was Assassins (1991). Many will point to Passion (1994) which I personally hated. It took another. 14 years for his next musical, Road Show (2008), and we know how that turned out…. So for his last show there was a 15 year gap. Just seems if it takes that long to write and develop a show (at least in Sondheim’s case) it may not turn out all that great.
Micky, you mentioned that you were tired of seeing shows portraying leftist as hypocritical. Can you name some examples? I don’t see that at all in musicals. In fact, I see a lot of political preachiness and virtue signaling. If creators are calling out wealthy priviledged leftist, that would be refreshing especially with the prices of tickets that essentially have eliminated most of us the opportunity to attend a Broadway show.
Wish we knew whether there is a grave. Still don't know if he is buried somewhere, cremated, donated body to science, etc.
I personally think it's great, but each to their own. However, does it mean the show is "not good"? Absolutely not, objectively it's very good. I think you just don't like it, and that's okay too. I'd argue it's one of the freshest and most interesting Musicals to come on the scene in the last 25 years, and if we're taking hints from every other Sondheim show ever written which people didn't initially like that then became Musical Theatre favorites, I think it's probably better than alot of people realize. Even in death Sondheim will forever divide the audience.
You say objectively a good show, I say objectively a bad show - perhaps we both mean subjectively 😅
@@MickeyJoTheatre hahaha yes perhaps
I've been waiting to watch this until after I experienced the show for myself, and now that I have, I feel I have to respond. I will start by saying I did not love the show, although I didn't hate it. In some ways I'm still making up my mind and my jury is still out, but I'm currently leaning towards the negative. That being said, I do agree with a number of your criticisms, but what I absolutely and vehemently take exception to is your calling it "not good" and/or "bad" over and over again. I have seen plenty of bad shows, and this is NOT a bad show. Experimental, yes; incomplete in certain respects, absolutely; but by your own admission you don't care for surrealism, so you were already (possibly unknowingly) predisposed to not like the show before it even started given what it is. You also by your own admission went in with certain expectations of what you wanted the show to be and your expectations were not met, leading you, I believe, to take the show not for what it is, but for what you wanted it to be.
As a parallel example, similar to your distaste for surrealism I don't care for serial music at all when it comes to classical music. Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern all leave me cold and often with a headache afterwards. Nevertheless. Do I enjoy "Wozzeck" or "Lulu"? No. Do I appreciate the skill and artistry it took to create them? Yes. They are not bad despite the fact that I personally hate them, and I think that's an important distinction to make. Perhaps this is coming down to semantics, and you're using "not good" and "bad" to equate with your personal dislike for the material (i.e. surrealism), but in doing so, you're essentially advising people that the show is not worth seeing. I get that's what critics are generally supposed to do, but I don't agree that the shortcomings of "Here We Are" add up to enough that the show deserves to be called "bad". Even mediocre Sondheim is better that some people's best. Perhaps a more fair assessment from you might have been the well-known quote, "This is the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing."
For myself, I personally enjoyed the more comic surrealism of Act 1, although to be fair Act 1 is where the bulk of the music resides, so I have a bias there. The "Cafe Everything" sequence was probably my favorite part of the show. It strongly reminded me of both the Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch and the restaurant scene in "A New Brain", while the overall tone of Act 1 was very reminiscent of any number of things from Firesign Theater. I felt Act 2 was somewhat unfocused, but I enjoyed the exchange between Marianne and the Bishop in particular.
To conclude, I don't know that you will ever read this since it's very much a wall of text and I'm definitely late to the party, but I hope that you do, and if you do, I hope that you'll consider some of my points. I usually enjoy your videos, but I couldn't let this one pass by without comment. Thanks, and have a Happy New Year!
Appreciate your thoughts very much here and you are of course correct.
There was definitely a desire to counterbalance the critics whose reviews felt disingenuous in their praise, but it's also true that I had expectations on arrival.
Re people acting on my criticisms, it always goes without saying that whatever expressed is my opinion and people can buy tickets as they see fit.
And I concur re the highlights, especially the exchange in the second act, I just wish there was more music of real strength.
Maybe we can find a psychic medium who can ask Sondheim to finish it. It’s worth a shot.
(Edit: In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m 100% joking about this. Well, maybe 99%).
That in and of itself sounds like a great plot for a musical 😅
Somebody contact Rosemary Brown.
Thank you for your honesty. I also don't particularly enjoy surreal / abstract, so glad I held off buying tickets,. Grateful Merrily is already in the diary... roll on December 😀
So excited for you - have the best time!
You’re argument comparing this to merrily is also garbage. The show that showed in 1981 is completely different than todays version. I shouldn’t have to explain it, but you should listen to the original cast recording and also do some research on the casts and changes that were made. Steve workshopped that show and it’s completely different now.
If you don’t get “here we are” you’re not dumb. People can have opinions. But there’s objective truths and subjective truths and you’re giving a subjective opinion. It’s ok if you don’t like experimental musicals and need traditional structured musicals (that Sondheim pioneered).
Oh don't worry, I love the original Merrily cast recording, I used to listen to it often on long train journeys!
I saw it on Saturday but I thought the “Sorry” song was a stand out Sondheim comedy song.
So the cast album has dropped.. I really really like it
I was expecting less
The score is very self-referential, isn't it? Full of quotes and hints at his previous works - lots of Anyone Can Whistle and Merrily and Company in the first act...and constant refernce to Move and We Do Not Belong Together in act two.
I wonder if we will get a staging here in London
Too bad. I didn't care for Road Show either. It's sort of like coming up with those last Kander and Ebb musicals. some of which are okay, but not quite top drawer. Sondheim was a genius; and Merrily is a much better memorial.
I’m so mad at you for this video that I don’t know how long it will be until I can even look at your face. The show is so good and fascinating. Not totally finished, but that just adds to its mystery.
Oh no! Sorry to hear that, but you don't need to agree with everything I say on here. Glad you enjoyed, I look forward to a second opportunity to try and connect with this show, I went in with the wrong expectations.
@@MickeyJoTheatre I’m sorry. I was having a late-night musicals queen meltdown. I’ve been obsessively listening to the “Here We Are” original cast recording all week, getting more and more out of it, about to watch the Bunel films it’s based on and otherwise just wallowing in its beauty. Still, my rudeness wasn’t acceptable. Rumour has it that National Theatre might do it next year and broadcast to movie screens, and that is the dream I am currently living for.
I saw it two days ago and I actually really liked it
In terms of surreal, one year the Tony's rejected Lightning Thief (a musical), but included "music" from the Harry Potter (a play), so maybe this was Sondheim's way of one final flipping the script moment by having art imitate life …
No doubt the fact that Sondheim's death affevted the full vission of the show, as he was still writing it. But, as someone from Buñuel's country, he's certainly overrated and some of his movies barely stand any fine study.
A combination of a weird story, difficult to understand, let alone, adapt to a different medium, and people trying to figure out what someone else's would have done, or had thought, is a recipe for disaster
This made me so sad because your joy is so muted and I just want to give you a virtual hug! 😢
Knowing the extremely surreal characteristics of the source material is important here. They are two movies that are HARD to follow.
When you go with certain expectations, and not that aware of the route the play will take, I can see how you feel very disappointed. Further, once one is confronted with the unmatched expectations, it is hard to enjoy the show and to see its value.
Now add the fact that Sondheim’s work is incomplete which probably explains the lack of THE ONE iconic song.
This doesn’t seem like a material to be for Broadway musical. Maybe with a limited run with star power and advertised as a musical play, emphasis on the PLAY.
I agree with your assessment of the show. I saw it the day before its official opening, and was similarly disappointed. I have seen every Sondheim show (except Anyone Can Whistle), and have been delighted or moved by almost all of them. Given his pattern of creating new songs and rethinking others late in the tryout period , I am certain the score would have been quite different had he been involved in the full creative process. Your feeling about the plot is also perceptive. I thought the actors were wonderful, but the show needs much more if it were to transfer to Broadway.
I really liked the first act (the zany surrealism did hit for me!) but the second act really fell flat, and was even painful at times. I didn’t realize that each act is based on a different movie, but it makes sense because both acts were so tonally different.
Not the first time a Sondheim show has tonally different acts
we value your opinion because of your honesty. So sad it wasnt what you hoped it would be.
The more I reflect on this show, the more I return to my preconceived belief before I saw it - this should not have been produced.
I haven't seen the original Exterminating Angel film, but I've seen the Met Opera production for the 2017/18 season. Having that experience and then hearing you review the musical makes me want to quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park about stopping to think if they should.
The film is fantastic, one of best films in Mexican history
Do you find that the care in which NY critics treated this show has a correlation to how UK critics received Cinderella? I feel like there's some common ground here.
A very interesting point!
I think you personally didn’t like it because as you said, you don't enjoy surrealism and you might be judging it from that stance. It might be too nuanced for you and thats ok. Not every single piece of theater is for everyone.
I know I'm straying from the main topic, but it's really curious to me that Sondheim would ever think of *that* Sweeney line in the first place, when looking for an opportunity to slip in an F-word. It would've stuck out like the sorest thumb.
Oddly enough, having an f-bomb in that lyric would have worked for the 2023 revival. Since, Groban and Ashford have both said, their versions of the characters are sleeping together. Meaning, Sweeney is using sex as a way to manipulate Mrs Lovett and vice versa.
Well, to be fair, Sweeney does say, "There's a hole in the world like a great black pit, and it's filled with people who are filled with sh*t ... "
I appreciate your review of Here We Are as well as the disclaimer that this type of absurdist theater is not your cup of tea. BTW I love Pinter. However I think these critics are holding to the old adage of not speaking I’ll of the dead and not giving a balanced review as they would anyone else’s work. 👍🙏😎
Have you seen it?
It felt a lot like a twilight zone episode to me…it was definitely different. I would not go see this again. But that’s theater, like some, don’t like some.
I’m looking forward to this even more after seeing your review which lets me know it’s ok if I am not crazy about it. My expectations have been reset. Thank you
Hope this means you have a great time! Make sure to let me know your thoughts!
Sounds like something I would very much dislike. Thank you for the in depth review.
He died before enough musical numbers were in the secon act.
Love Mickey Jo doing Matt's in a Sondheim video
So basically....
Act one: Waiting for To-go (Godot get it? Lol)
Act two: No Exit
Have loved your videos for years. Have you ever considered releasing the audio version of your videos as well? Not that I don’t want to see your lovely face, but I enjoy listening to the videos on my dog walks and I have UA-cam open with my phone in my pocket.
Working on doing this very soon!
@@MickeyJoTheatreyey!
Just saw the show tonight at the shed. amazing cast and venue, what a dud of a show. Riding the escalator down after the show others were going WTF....
Expected this show to be boring, but I found it really entertaining and thought provoking. That being said. I don’t think the songs added a single thing to it. The cast was ultra lux. The set did way more than I thought it would. I left the theater quite satisfied. Your knee jerk opinion is delightfully hubristic in a youthful sort of way.
Yes to all of this!!!! I was in NY this weekend and only had one night to see a show. Naturally I picked, as you di, the opportunity to see the world premiere of Sondheim's last show. Little did I know how utterly disappointed I would be. I have vented long and loudly about this since, and have managed to narrow my thoughts to this. If they tried for satire, they missed. If they wanted surreal, it felt forced. And so much of the writing felt lazy. (We have no dialogue so just have the actors repeat their lines, or stand quietly and looked puzzled). My review has been "I've seen bad fringe festival shows that were better than this.". Actually there was a better show done in Blaine, Missouri...but I digress. So, no, you are not alone. And I completely agree that good sets and acting does not mean it deserves to be called a good show.
I loved it. So there.
I saw this show and I was so disappointed in it. It felt very disjointed and unfinished. It honestly felt like a play with music more than a musical. Esp Act 2. Micaela's character definitely read as non-binary but unfortunately written by someone without that perspective. And a lesbian falling for a man is yikes. Like you I am not into surrealist theatre pieces. Give me something with a beginning, middle, and end please
I feel like the ONLY reason why any of the critics are giving it high (very baffling) star ratings because Sondheim was involved and it feels very disingenuous on their part. Thank you for being honest and respectful.
There is swearing in plenty of Sondheim shows lol
Need to see you to review the blood brothers uk tour. I saw it today and would love to know what u think of it!
Sadly, there seems to be more than a hint of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ about this show. In other words, nobody wants to be the one who doesn’t ‘see it.’ Personally, taking on board everything you’ve said, I think ‘Old Friends’ or the success of ‘Merrily’ are infinitely better tributes to Sondheim than something that is clearly unfinished.
Also I feel it sets a dangerous precedent if critics are going to stop being truthful in their assessment of a show. It’s obviously perfectly understandable to be respectful and burst with admiration for such a great composer-but that belongs in an opinion piece not a review.
Thankfully, the back catalogue of Sondheim is filled with such treasures that ‘Here We Are’ cannot tarnish them. Thank you for your honesty and I can only imagine the level of your disappointment when you left the theatre and felt somewhat deflated.
Have you seen it?
Come on, we know he was imperfect! I saw Roadshow then too and was baffled and not amused 👎🏻👎🏻 Saw Anyone Can Whistle and felt much the same! You can only become an innovator by trying lots of different things and they're not all going to succeed the same.
I am so impressed at your level of professionalism. I am an old timey former performing arts critic, started at the college paper, wrote for a living for a short time, then papers started disappearing. There are so many people who don't understand what the rules are (that keep it fair) and thank you thank you thank you. And I love the original movies by Bunuel (the opera of Exterminating Angel is amazing).
I don't see anything professional about reading other reviewers reviews.
I also don't see anthing professional in throwing you fellow critics under the bus, jus because they saw something in the show that you did not.
The fact that you think Here We Are was bad but you found any enjoyment in &Juliet is mind blowing.
I don't know about that, Kevin.
Here We Are is pretentious and half finished, & Juliet is fun and light-hearted, and this comment is snobbish.
I doubt I’d find any enjoyment in & Juliet, purely because Max Martin isn’t really my cup of tea - but I know enough about it to know that it’s one of the better modern examples of the jukebox genre. There’s no shame in liking it - it aims for its target and executes it well. Shows aren’t judged on a sliding scale of how similar or dissimilar they are to Sondheim.
There's room for both fun and light-hearted, as well as the daring and ambitious. I liked both@@MickeyJoTheatre
@@MickeyJoTheatre I don’t mean to sound snobbish. I found &Juliet to be patronizing and instead of being queer inclusive- it exploited the queer characters at the expense of the straight protagonists. the entire character of May felt so insulting to non-binary and questioning queer folks that I couldn’t find any enjoyment in that show. Maybe that’s my cis white savior complex- but I thought it played into the stereotype that non-binary folks are “confused” and not owning their identity.
On the counter, i thought Here We Are we a pretty clear comment on the wealthy class and their willing ignorance to the world ending around them. Was it a finished show? No but it has something to say that’s worth saying. Is it the best Sondheim show- hell no. But the set, the cast, the jokes- I found it to be a solid piece of theater.
I love a dumb night out as much as the next mo, Once Upon a One More Time was exactly that- while to me &juliet felt like it was made for white women who have their bachelorette parties at gay bars and have gender reveal parties in the same month.
I think the thing that disturbed me the most about your "review" is your assumption that just because you didn't like it, the critics must be lying. I can't begin to tell you how wrongheaded that is.
Also there were critics who didn't like.
The New York Post panned it. You even read the headline.
Sondheim shows are usually never fully appreciated during their original run.
I hated Passion and Merrily when they first opened and I love them now.
Maybe because I'm older and I understand them better because of all the life experiences I had since then.
Maybe in 10 or 20 years you will like it
In fact, that was not my assumption whatsoever. It was that the reviews' recognition of vital shortcomings and positive overview were at odds with each other. Yes, I agreed with the post, particularly the sections I read.
I will say that I keep wondering when Sondheim's team will remember that he has one other unproduced musical waiting in the vaults...
Sondheim and William Goldman finished (at least finished all but *one* song) an original movie musical in the early 90s, planned for Rob Reiner, Singing Out Loud. Some, but by no means all, of the songs have gotten recordings (although not in their complex film versions) and among us fans several drafts of the script has been circulating. Nathan Lane, who did a demo recording, even said the amazingly complex song-scene, Lunch (full lyrics are in Sondheim's Look, I Made a Hat volume) was the best thing Sondheim ever did. It wouldn't work as a stage musical as its reliant on film technique, but I don't know why Netflix or somewhere similar doesn't snap it up and make it--it's truly great stuff and I won't shut up about it until they do do something with it.
I’m not sure I have an opinion on this - but the thought occurs - if something is ‘in the vaults’, should we take this as a sign the artist wanted it left there? We’re then left with a dilemma - do we respect the output the artist curated for themselves, or publish it all to get a better idea of their creative life? I’m not sure there’s a right answer but there’s probably still an interesting discussion to be had!
It's definitely the eternal question.
I can speak about Singing Out Loud, the movie musical I mention, to some extent because I've done so much research on it for various projects. Sondheim (and famed screenwriter William Goldman--of course who is the brother of James Goldman who wrote Follies and Evening Primrose with Sondheim) worked on the movie musical steadily for several years in the early 90s. Rob Reiner, who was on a hot streak at the time with hits in every genre (When Harry Met Sally, Misery, Princess Bride--those last two having screenplays by William Goldman) was keen on tackling an original movie musical. Of course in the early 90s studios were hesitant about live action movie musicals (the few that did come out like Newsies were big bombs) but were willing to trust Reiner.
But Sondheim said Reiner cooled on the project, and then had several BIG failures (like North, if anyone remembers that) and the project just died.
But, like I said the latest draft of the script I was able to find in the archives, the fourth (with Sondheim's hand written corrections on it) is almost complete. The exception is one key complicated song which Sondheim just explains (over two pages) but doesn't offer final lyrics for, which obviously could be a problem (but does show it was far more complete than Here We Are was.)
Sondheim also published most of the lyrics in his lyric collection (volume 2, Look I Made a Hat) and in that the notes on those lyrics he actually says that he is truly sorry the film never got made. William Goldman is gone as well, and I have no idea what his final thoughts were (though I did find literally hundreds of pages of notes he made to Sondheim about the film,) but I think it's safe to say Sondheim did want the film out there. (The recorded songs from it are the great 90s style pop ballad Water Under the Bridge which Debbie Shapiro sang wonderfully--it's on UA-cam--and then two of the more minor pastiche songs for the musicals "movie within a movie" Sand and Dawn--but the script has 8 songs plus the unfinished one.)
But I think it IS a fascinating dilemma and discussion to have in general. I hate to say it, but often I think in the final analysis we decide depending on how good the work is. Few people seemed satisfied with the Harper Lee novel that was discovered and published a few years ago. But already mentioned here are Puccini's Turandot and Mozart's Requiem, two pieces which are often considered among the most important compositions by both composers...--@@Midlander83
@@EricMontreal22 Those songs were the standouts on the Sondheim at the movies album. The film would have been interesting, sort of a 90s spin on a Merrily type story. Don't forget Sondheim was also working on All Together Now which he was working on at the same time as HWA, though for all we know only 1 song was fully written.
@@EricMontreal22funnily enough, Harper Lee’s novel was exactly the example I had in mind! It’s now accepted as a first draft rather than a sequel to Mockingbird I believe? I think on reflection context is probably key here - as long as we know an artist didn’t publish a work during their lifetime, we can add speculation as to why into any discussion of it.
Fascinating to hear the story behind this other work of Sondheim’s though - thank you for the insight!
Yeah the script of Singing Out Loud is very clever. In many ways its lighter than what we usually expect from Sondheim (a romantic love triangle and much talk about how to make a movie musical work in the then modern age--I think if they filmed it now it would have to firmly be set still in the early 90s) but of course allowed Sondheim a concept he reportedly adored--which was that initially aside from the songs shown within the movie musical they are making (the title's subtitle is "A Musical Movie about a Movie Musical That's In Trouble") which are shown in different styles, for example Sand goes from being a Fred Astaire style night club number to a "Madonna" style garish music video in a desert and then back again depending on the whims of the people making the musical.
But the actual character songs all start off as being sung only as voice over "thoughts." As it progresses and the characters comfort and self awareness grows this moves into sung "out loud" private monologues and finally culminates with the characters being able to fully "sing out loud" to each other. (In his notes Sondheim mentions that the concept could be corny but he felt they could really pull it off--another reason why it had to be a film and not a stage work.)
I totally forgot that apparently at least a few songs from All Together Now are out there...@@opal817
It was a terrible bookend to a fantastic musical library in the theatre
Keep speaking the truth
I’m not sure if you know what genre is
Awee!!! You don’t get it at all do you?
Guess not! Thank goodness you got here.
That's pretty obvious by how much he says he doesn't like surrealism. And how bad he thinks he it is. Seems like he's pissed off that people don't share his opinions on this, and that doesn't mean it's bad. It just means that you personally don't like it. First review of mickeys I found completely biased instead of an actually honest review. It comes off as more of a rant of I hated this show and you should to, it came off very unprofessional
You shouldn't feel bad saying a Sondheim show is bad; I can't stand most of his work.
You should feel bad
You should see it again. Your expectations tainted your experience. IMHO, it's much better than you suggest. Also, it's inappropriate, and frankly, pointless to second-guess other critics, especially since many of the reviews were mixed, which challenges your thesis
4 stars is hardly mixed, and several roundups are labelling the majority positive.
Even the positive reviews are "mixed," not raves. And as you acknowledge, your friends enjoyed it more than you did, so why wouldn't some reviews skew positive? You are obviously entitled to your opinion and your disappointment, but trying to identify motives behind other critics' reviews is silly, and beneath the high standards you've set for yourself. xxRU
I don’t that you have the life experience to be able to understand. You are no expert on Sondheim or Bunuel.
I don't believe I claimed to be.
Good point Mickey Jo. And you shouldn't have to be. Most audiences won't have heard of Bunuel. But it should be noted that the goal was not to be "faithful" to Bunuel, whatever that means. "A Little Night Music" is not faithful to Bergman, as Bergman pointed out when he saw the show. Here We Are has to stand on its own merits. And IMHO, despite its flaws, it does, gloriously. I find it fascinating that this late in his life, Sondheim wrote his most experimental show, and one that will, alternately, confound and dismay and delight audiences for years to come. @@MickeyJoTheatre
So sad and a disappointed a lesbian who ended up with a man not a woman, so clickbait. @MickeyJoTheatre . I thought Anne and Juliet were going to end up together in & Juliet. Thanks so much for your honest review hopefully it won't ruin his legacy. At least Sweeney Todd and Merrily are heartwarming and going strong.
The show is deeply critical of all its characters, not just Fritz. In the first lines of the play, Claudia and Paul carp and complain about their cab driver, and the doorman in ugly (although comic) classist ways. If Fritz was the only character who was ridiculed, you would have a point. But they are all satirized. If you want a show where a lesbian ends up with a woman, write one!
It's one thing to not like a show...its another thing completly to claim every other reviewer is wrong about liking the show and is just hiding their opinions. You even admit yourself you came in with too high expectations and don't particularly enjoy surrealist theatre so that could easily explain why you had such a differing opinion.
Just my thought tho :)
Plus he admitted he had a hard time with Harold Pinter. Oh my god😂
I think he justifies why he thinks that by pointing out that so many reviewers who supposedly loved the show can't seem to articulate what is actually good about it in their reviews. And that one reviewer who said that the "latte" line was one of Sondheim's cleverest bits of wordplay ever... That's just idiotic.
This video sent me into an intellectual and almost philosophical tailspin about the nature of theatre criticism, Sondheim’s experimentation in theatre, death of the author (in this case literal) and how dissonant that all is in this situation. I feel like I need to draw out a mind map. Thanks for your thoughts- I’m thinking of writing a Substack article on this topic (not necessarily a review of the show, more a query) and will be sure to reference this. :)
I'd be interested in those thoughts
I think I’d love this, based on your comments. I’m an even bigger Ives than Sondheim fan, and I love surrealism. Thanks for being honest instead of hedging your opinions. It helps your viewers know what to expect.