Stephen Sondheim's Merrily We Roll Along premiered on Broadway in 1981. The show ran for a mere 16 performances, a shocking failure for any Sondheim work. The musical evidently evolved through the years, returning to the Broadway stage in 2023. In its new incarnation, Merrily received strongly positive reviews, earned four Tony Awards, and ran at Broadway's Hudson Theater for about a year. Now, the show's director, Maria Friedman, has offered a filmed version of the revamped musical. Still best known as the original Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe boosts name recognition in an energetic production. Radcliffe plays half of a showbiz duo, a lyricist whose career is linked to a successful composer played by Jonathan Groff. Based on a play by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart, Merrily tells its story in backward order, focusing mainly on Groff's character and two friends who have been with him from the start. In addition to Radcliffe, the trio of pals includes Lindsay Mendez, a critic who harbors a not-so-secret love for Groff’s Frank. Aside from employing close-ups, Friedman highlights the energy of the stage production, filmed with an audience that can be heard applauding at the appropriate times. Friedman obtains strong performances from the principal cast and from Krystal Joy Brown, as the Broadway star who breaks up Groff's marriage to Beth (an equally good Katie Rose Clarke). Serving mostly as a filmed record of the Broadway hit, Merrily We Roll Along should appeal to Sondheim fans. Others may find its two-and-a-half-hour run time a bit taxing, and a segment that tries for political satire seems dated. Had Merrily We Roll Along not been made into a film, I probably never would have seen it. For people such as me that may be the film’s biggest virtue.
5 comments:
Thanks for your review. I've seen the documentary about the original production several times and absolutely love it. I've always wondered if it really was "such a shame" that the show closed after only 16 performances, or if, just maybe, the show kinda sucked. Judging from your review, it's probably both!
This is not really a film. It’s a live capture of an acclaimed Broadway revival. It’s got a magnificent score that gives dividends to repeated listenings. I’ve seen several productions, including this one on Broadway, which was magnificent. Sondheim’s work is always challenging and Maria Friedman has gotten to the emotional core of this show. I will see this version till next week, but I know that Friedman deliberately used close-ups that were not available on stage obviously. The show is not about choreography or scenery. There’s a unit set and essentially no dancing. It’s about the relationship among these three friends. And the score is one of sometimes most tuneful. Not a Day Goes By is one of Broadway’s greatest torch songs.
Calling political satire dated that’s based on the Kennedy’s while one actively shapes significantly policy in the country we live in is an incredible off statement.
Honestly, this isn't much of a review, aside from a basic outline. There is no justification for not liking the production (which is everyone's right), simply a statement that the author didn't enjoy it. Watch and judge for yourself, or read the countless other reviews online that offer more detailed analysis.
I saw the original show in '81 when it was in previews and it was an instant favorite, then saw a production in the early 2000s, a "Fathom Events" showing of a British production several years ago, and have three cast albums from other productions of it. I didn't like this production as much as I'd hoped. The performances were all great (Katie Rose Clarke as Beth stood out for me), and the costumes and sets were good, but I didn't like the changes to the show. I felt that cutting the beginning and the end, the two commencement speeches, was a bad idea. I felt that trying to shoot it like a movie didn't work (for me; I'm sure others liked that), because it took me out of the moment every time you could see off stage, or hear the audience. It also, again, to me, felt claustrophobic because there weren't enough wide shots; the whole show, except for during some numbers, was medium shots and close-ups. And there was just too much Gussie, though Krystal was great. I don't know how or when that material was added, but it got in the way of the story being about the three friends. One last thing: The original show didn't feel as heavy and dramatic as this one. I understand the themes of the show, and that it's serious, but this felt too depressing to me, despite the usual good laughs, and some new ones (or, new to me). The "depressing to me" may have just been because we got to see, close-up, Frank's face, and the pain he was in. You don't get that when sitting in the audience of a live performance. I know I'm not the ideal audience for this film, because I have 44 years of experience with the show, but for people unfamiliar with it, and who have an interest in it, I do recommend it. It's just, for me, selfishly, I wish it was more of what I'd hoped for.
Post a Comment