I actually loved Waitress... I had zero interest in it when i heard about it initially, and bought tickets after seeing Jesse Mueller on the Tony's, and I've been surprised and obsessed ever since. The soundtrack is great. The score is a whole lot of fun, and I'd love for Sara Barellis to keep writing for Broadway. Her music would probably sound really interesting if it were given over to a great orchestrator -- I'd love to know what she could do with more of an orchestra. But for what Waitress is, which is a small comedic show, it hits the notes and has some fun performances. It's not earth-shattering, boundary-breaking theatre, but it's worth the price of the admission to see the performances and hear the songs sung live. Their criticisms of the characters aren't invalid -- but they are mitigated by how good everything else is, in my eyes at least. (I also am in the "Loved Pippin" camp with the other two women)
I can understand Michael's point about WAITRESS. I'm all for female-empowerment shows, and some of our greatest creators of the stage have been and are women, but this one felt less organic and more like a cynical exercise in branding. FUN HOME, to me, is the real deal-- a show that can be a cathartic experience for women (or anyone, for that matter) written by two extraordinary women.
Funny how a lot of the men in the panel trashed talk Waitress but chose She Used To Be Mine for end credits. It's all in the editing, yes, but still funny and ridiculous.
I don't think she called Hamilton realistic, did she? She just said she didn't find the show itself revolutionary, only its impact. And that's where she compared it to Van Hove's "supernatural" productions being on Broadway, claiming they have the same revolutionary impact.
Oskar L Except that, in it's way, the staging and presentation of the show is every bit as daring as the Van Hove's shows she's comparing it to. One way is in its casting, it opens up whole new horizons there. I don't think it is revolutionary only in its impact, it brings what's happening now into the Broadway theatres. Avant Garde stagings have been going on for decades--I'm glad Van Hove's are finding success and hope it will open up Broadway to more adventurous staging, but there is no need to diminish Hamilton to make that point--and she did by saying it was only revolutionary in its impact.
Look, I wasn't disagreeing, nor was I defending her, I just got confused that you said she said Hamilton was realistic, because I didn't remember her making that remark. In terms of "revolution", I think she just has a stricter definition for that word. She did have a point in that Hamilton does not use something new as material (history has always been a theme in musical theater), and that its form (story-telling theater) has been used elsewhere too. But it definitely succeeds in bringing today's culture and energetic feelings into musical theater. Even Sondheim said LMM brought two conventional styles (rap & musical) together to create something new, and it is to be "one pathway to the future". So for a show that manages to do that, itself and its impact are absolutely not to be diminished.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Love theater talk. I honestly look forward to every episode. I can't wait for my chance to be interviewed.
I actually loved Waitress... I had zero interest in it when i heard about it initially, and bought tickets after seeing Jesse Mueller on the Tony's, and I've been surprised and obsessed ever since. The soundtrack is great. The score is a whole lot of fun, and I'd love for Sara Barellis to keep writing for Broadway. Her music would probably sound really interesting if it were given over to a great orchestrator -- I'd love to know what she could do with more of an orchestra. But for what Waitress is, which is a small comedic show, it hits the notes and has some fun performances. It's not earth-shattering, boundary-breaking theatre, but it's worth the price of the admission to see the performances and hear the songs sung live. Their criticisms of the characters aren't invalid -- but they are mitigated by how good everything else is, in my eyes at least. (I also am in the "Loved Pippin" camp with the other two women)
Brantley's take on The Father is the same as mine. Langella was riveting.
I can understand Michael's point about WAITRESS. I'm all for female-empowerment shows, and some of our greatest creators of the stage have been and are women, but this one felt less organic and more like a cynical exercise in branding. FUN HOME, to me, is the real deal-- a show that can be a cathartic experience for women (or anyone, for that matter) written by two extraordinary women.
Funny how a lot of the men in the panel trashed talk Waitress but chose She Used To Be Mine for end credits. It's all in the editing, yes, but still funny and ridiculous.
their opinions are on point, I really agree with everything they say, but my god, are they full of themselves.
'theyr cooked'
love it.
People have been saying that the avant garde is going to replace conventional theatre fro decades and I don't know that it will happen.
Waitress is like "Alice"? How superficial.
She thinks Hamilton is realistic?
I don't think she called Hamilton realistic, did she? She just said she didn't find the show itself revolutionary, only its impact. And that's where she compared it to Van Hove's "supernatural" productions being on Broadway, claiming they have the same revolutionary impact.
Oskar L
Except that, in it's way, the staging and presentation of the show is every bit as daring as the Van Hove's shows she's comparing it to. One way is in its casting, it opens up whole new horizons there. I don't think it is revolutionary only in its impact, it brings what's happening now into the Broadway theatres. Avant Garde stagings have been going on for decades--I'm glad Van Hove's are finding success and hope it will open up Broadway to more adventurous staging, but there is no need to diminish Hamilton to make that point--and she did by saying it was only revolutionary in its impact.
Look, I wasn't disagreeing, nor was I defending her, I just got confused that you said she said Hamilton was realistic, because I didn't remember her making that remark. In terms of "revolution", I think she just has a stricter definition for that word. She did have a point in that Hamilton does not use something new as material (history has always been a theme in musical theater), and that its form (story-telling theater) has been used elsewhere too. But it definitely succeeds in bringing today's culture and energetic feelings into musical theater. Even Sondheim said LMM brought two conventional styles (rap & musical) together to create something new, and it is to be "one pathway to the future". So for a show that manages to do that, itself and its impact are absolutely not to be diminished.
Oskar L
Dismissing the stagecraft of this show doesn't help her cause.