The Secret Garden is one of my favorite musicals. I found the album at a young age in the early 90's and thought the songs were haunting, emotional, and gorgeous. I've seen a black box theater production which was truly great, and I keep longing for another to go see in Chicago. Thank you for your really detailed review -- almost makes me feel like I was there. From the video, I agree the staging appears too sparse and not magical or lush enough to evoke the garden. I would be upset to go see it and miss the song Quartet -- it's one of my absolute favorites from the album. I love the blend of vocal parts in it.
The Secret Garden was my very first Broadway musical in 1992, it was absolutely extraordinary. And when the Shakespeare theater in Washington DC reprised it a few years ago Daisy Eagan returned to play Martha. She was just as extraordinary as she was when she played the main character. Both experiences or extraordinary and I shall never forget and always be grateful. Thank you so much for uploading this story. It is so fun and I love it.
I saw a production of THE SECRET GARDEN on the West End in London back in 2001. Notable cast members were Linzi Hately as Martha, Philip Quast as Archibald and Meredith Braun as Lily. It was produced by the Royal Shakespeare Company and had choreography by Gillian Lynne. This production was very heavily revised. It focussed much more on the children, removing most of the Indian ghosts and their songs, except for Mary's parents. I myself was an 18 year old, geeky musical-theatre student at the time, and even though I surely had my opinions and critiques about this production, a lot of things went over my head that I would now analyze differently. For example, I didn't mind the long ballet garden suites and the garden scenery that much, back then. But looking back at it now I could have done without the garden suites and I would have expected a better design for the title scenery. Having said that: I would love to have seen the original Broadway production back in 1989, but I did not so I only have the script, the score and original cast recording to compare this London production with. And even though I disagree with some of the cuts, I did like most of the other adjustments they made in the script and score for this production. You can hear some of those on the original London cast recording. I would recommend you to listen to it, even if it's purely from an analytical perspective to see and hear what ideas they came op with. I have always loved "The house upon the hill", "I heard someone crying" and the 3 Storm sequences on the original Broadway cast recording. Friends of mine, who had seen the London production before me, told me about the cuts and adjustment to those particular scenes. So I was already very sceptic beforehand. I remember myself thinking: Why cut "The house upon the hill"? However, I have to admit that when I eventually saw the production, I understood these choices. Especially what they created out of "I heard someone crying" and the storms was incredibly inventive and exciting to experience live. For the scenes inside the house they used big oaken-looking doors in frames that could spin and would travel on, off and over the stage, creating different rooms and interiors combined with other scenic elements. At some point during the climax of the storm, where Mary is frantically looking for where the crying sounds are coming from, the oaken doors, which had been traveling the stage throughout the number, lined up from left to right and suddenly turned to face each other. And while the ensemble sang the last chorus of the song, Mary aggressively runs through each of the doors; opens one door, closes it behind her and then runs to opens the next, closes it behind her and then runs opens the next and so on, and so forth. The acting of the little girl who played Mary, the ensemble, the orchestrations and orchestra, the scenery, the lighting and the visual it created; it all came together so incredibly beautiful, it took my breath away. And this is only one example of many brilliant moments during this production, that supported strong storytelling with bold choices.
The Secret Garden was my favorite book growing up so I approached the original musical in 1991 with trepidation. However, I completely agree with you that I thought the original was wonderfully done and I was so disappointed it didn't get a bigger run. I also had to raise an eyebrow at the category of Tony Award Win for Daisy Egan. I believe she carried as much of that show as the "adult" females. In addition, I still think part of it may have been a reluctance to support an all-female written/produced musical because of that time, but that is neither here nor there now. I think this would be a fabulous revival, and am seriously hoping to see it back on Broadway and/or touring again. The soundtrack was beautiful, and I hope any revisions don't ruin it.
I remember so much attention paid to dialect in the original. Lots of attention paid to the area in which it happened, the costuming in the original and lighting.
The Secret Garden is one my favorite musicals of all time. It's one of those shows if there is a production close by I will go and see it. I was lucky enough to see the Lincolin Center concert. To see Daisy Egan as Martha, after listening to her as Mary for my whole life, was such a special treat. A wish come true I didn't even know I wanted in life. If a revival ever comes to Broadway, and god do I want you, I really hope she gets a shot at playing Martha or at minimum can be on the cast album. And I agree with another commenter when I saw the concert version I never felt anything needed to be trimmed down. Now on to your review. It's such a shame they made the cuts they did. Race You to the Top of the Morning and to a tiny lesser extent A Bit of Earth, is such good character development and gives a sense of connection to Achie and his son. Until Race, it seems like Archie doesn't even care about his son. But then to have him come in and read a bedtime story is so sweet and the metaphor story of the dragon is such a neat way to express Archie's feelings. The placement change of "A Girl I Mean To Be", I think could work for me (I've seen it in another production) because she's saying "I need a place where I can go and be what I want", but by the end of act one and into two she's FOUND the place for her to go it's just not what she completely expected yet because it's "dead". I haven't seen this show, but at least on the cast album, Mary does say something along the lines of, "It was to hot in India...I sometimes played at it (having a garden) sticking things in the sand." so that could where at least the idea came from. I really do wish they hadn't tampered with Book in terms of trimming things down or cutting things (I'm mildly okay with shuffling the song order ) of the show especially as you pointed out, one of the Tony's was for the Book. That means regardless of critics, it was good enough then. That said yes FIX the Hindu songs/sections of the show. And I agree the staging and set seem off this time. I read a little about what the director was aiming for with the set, but it just doesn't work for me. Thank you for your thoughts on this revival. And please (theatre gods) let there be a big revival of the show. I have yet to see anyone who knows about this show's existence be disappointed or not enjoy something from this musical. Thank you Emily for your thoughts (and not giving a more 'rant' video feel as I think this show (in general) needs more love even if a particular production doesn't do it for you. As always a great video.
This show will always have a special place in my heart. I saw the first National Tour 30 yrs ago (!!!!!!!!!) and it was one of my first professional theatre experiences. I got the OBC and played it so much that I could literally do ALL the parts (and often did on long drives)... I just love it so much. I feel like I would be super sad to see this production, and it makes me even sadder to think about all the people seeing this for the first time and maybe NOT getting the same magical experience I did all those years ago.
I never knew people had issues with the book??? Crazy, I saw the original, it was my first show on Broadway, and it was an incredible experience, felt so cohesive and tight creatively, every element was perfect, and then it won the Tony for book in a VERY stacked year - I mean, Miss Saigon, Once on this Island and Will Rogers Follies were also competing. AND Norman is a VERY accomplished playwright, Pulitzer Award winning for goodness sake. Ugh. I am dieing for a Broadway revival but this doesn’t feel like it’s it.
I saw the show last week and I’m a HUGE secret garden fan. Your review is spot on. The cuts to the show left it feeling too bare bones. Taking out some of the songs and rearranging them wasn’t the right choice. There needed to be so many more pauses and moments where we could physically see these characters changing. Putting the girl i mean to be NOT at act 2 fundamentally changes Mary’s character arc. I hope they can still workshop this show but it needs some work.!
I have seen the Chance Theater version twice. Like you, I loved it and felt no need for revisions. What a great production! After seeing your review of the new Los Angeles production and learning that they have trimmed it down and (unforgivably, in my opinion) removed "Race You to the Top of the Morning", I don't have much desire to see the new incarnation. They are playing "The Secret Garden" again at the Chance Theater later this year, hopefully with no changes. I would recommend going there to see it. You will save yourself a lot of money and likely have a much better experience.
This was a great video Emily Clark, and from what I had seen and heard about this, along with watching the worshiping of this during covid, I was worried due to the fact, the cuts, and also the casting, there are certain shows that are for certain religions, and cultures, and having Archie, and Dicken not be What's described in the book, and or being consistent we know that Archie and his brother were not adopted and that they came from a good wealthy Yorkshire family, and Archie wouldn't have been African American, and he and Mary's mother wouldn't have had a child that looked not white. And if you're going to cast Martha as the traditional red head Yorkshire maid than you need to cast her younger brother in the same vain or just replace the white Yorkshire characters all together. Your not being enclusive just by casting non whites, and just cause your skin is white doesnt mean that other's like Irish, and Scottish, and Yorkshire characters shouldn't be cast and represented in their stories the way they were written. Just like with the musical little princess theme removing India and changing it to Africa really sucks and changes the story allot. I am glade they fixed the Hindi language, and are representing India in a more positive light, but casting choices need to make sense and not just be done to check off boxes, and what was the pint of cutting down the love triangle between the leads? that was weird. There was an American try out way before covid that was in Portland and then the 5th Avenue of Secret Garden that was the first attempt of a revival of the show and that was a wonderful production directed by David Armstrong and they used everything and then some from the archives of the broadway show. That was what was talked about going to Broadway. And I thin that script and that version should have been the one that was reinstated. I grew up on these stories Secret Garden and Little Princess and find it ridiculous when you cast it openly when the story and the book they are based on is so rooted in a specific culture and country and to change that or to cast it openly and not how its ben written by the writers does in my opinion a great disservice to the original authors and author of the book, plus to actors where they could shine and if we are supposed to be casting real lgbtq+ in roles and real people of color doesnt the other cultures have the right to be represented as well, not just the persons of Color that NYC and other states have deemed the minority t be represented, cause the Irish and Scotts and Yorkshire people where just as much enslaved and used and abused darting war times and such as African Americans in their own lands just lie the jews were by the Egyptians thousands of years ago. But your views on this are spot on and I thank yo for not being one to just watch a show and not say something just to oppose the status quo and being honest is the best way to get back to real theatre, and real story about every one not just a declared certain group of people.
White passing mixed race people exist though look at Freddi Washington or Merle Oberon, your comment is kind of ignorant just on that one comment alone :/ but I do somewhat agree with what you wrote I just thought that comment you made wasn’t wise
After our recent Twitter interaction, I'm glad this is the first video I watched. First of all, surprised I didn't plug into your work more earlier, and I'm certainly going to now! Secondly, you bring up all of my pet peeves with design, direction, and dramaturgy in present-day musical theater; it's not just this production (although the examples are certainly egregious enough that they spawned an entire video -- two, really, counting the one you junked), it's all over the damn place and sometimes it works but most of the time it doesn't. I can't put my finger on exactly why these choices are so popular, but it's starting to bug me immensely. I'm sorry it's affected "The Secret Garden," and I hope somebody pays attention to what you have to say, because your notes are valid.
Yea they need to go back to the drawing board on this one. I think what they were going for missed the mark in a few instances, but some choices were just outright lazy, giving the audience no credit, and not really creating a world, but rather the surface of one without substance. Just... I guess, hoping that no one will notice?? There has to be more than that in musical theatre. Fantastic vocals but not much else sadly.
Most musicals get low blood sugar in the middle of Act Two and could use about twenty minutes' worth of cuts to effect a leaner profile that keeps moving. The Secret Garden is no exception to that. Unfortunately, in Garden's case, the material that it could best do without is the bulk of the plot administrativa in the second act, and that will never be taken seriously as a contender for the chopping block. As Emily points out, the original novel may be about Mary's relationship with the garden, but the musical is far more concerned with the emotional odysseys of the adults - yet the musical's book gets spooked about boldly committing to that perspective flip and ends up forcing both "versions" of the story on the spectator. If, indeed, "Race You to the Top of the Morning" has been phased out, it's for the best as it's too long and doesn't contribute anything we don't already know; besides, it's simply overkill on emotional arias for Archie (the indulgence was justifiable when it was Mandy himself at the top of his career, but few Archies since have really merited so many). I would not call the Quartet filler at all; it not only completes the character development puzzle of the four characters involved, but it also fills in some of the mysteries the complex flashback-based plot have built up. To cut it was a terrible loss and, as Emily points out, contributes to basically depriving the show of Albert and Rose who, especially the latter, are two of the best roles in the show despite their technical cameo statuses. Cobbling together "Disappear" from its remains results in a lame song that doesn't do much of anything. And I'll be brave enough to say what is taboo: casting black actors as Archie and Dickon was nothing more than a completely unnecessary and, ultimately, ineffective curtsy to the diversity gods for business reasons. Colorblind casting works perfectly well in many shows, but it falls on its face in a show grounded in such an obvious and rigidly concrete social and historical context - especially when both of the characters in question have full blood-siblings in the cast as other principal characters, who DO fit accurately into the framework of the show's setting. You'd have to really try to find a way to make sociopolitically-driven checkbox casting more ostentatiously cumbersome. Derrick Davis didn't contribute anything so exquisite as to justify the sacrifice in credibility, as all he did was stand around acting out a vaudeville burlesque of being on the edge of tears for two and a half hours. As for John-Michael Lyles, that reviewer who criticized his performance was correct; he does play the role as if he were going on as Jim from Big River (although I would add that it's a cross between that and the Leading Player from Pippin). And yes, the dreadlocks are beyond inappropriate for the setting and were clearly calculated for no purpose but to drive home the production's demand to be hailed as progressive. I would agree with the assertion that the directing was poor (once again we see the folly of assuming that a theatre professional most strongly associated with dance is automatically fully-qualified for everything else), especially in regard to the children - but in all fairness, Daisy Eagan's characterization in the original seems to have been awkwardly shaped, too (at least, according to the only real record of it we have, the OBC recording; I've often wondered if the overly-hostile, completely-unsympathetic, impossibly-rude brat she comes across as in the recording's dialogue was not really what she did onstage, but the result of someone telling her that everything needed to be cranked up to twelve for the recording since it would only memorialize audio and not the full performance she was used to giving.)
In that case, what are your thoughts about Audra McDonald playing Lily in the US tour all the way back in 1992? Do you find that to be "a curtsy to the diversity gods" as well? Mind you, I say this as someone who was disappointed with Derrick Davis' performance (since I otherwise enjoy his work very much) and who thought the casting for Dickon was not handled with enough care given he came too close to the Magical N*** stereotype for me (term being coined by Spike Lee during some of his lectures when he was touring various college campuses back in 2001), through no fault of John-Michael Lyles - it's really all about direction at this point.
There were so many stupid things they did. The candelabras were stupid, the little house was stupid, the swirl was oh so stupid, and don’t get me started on the jellyfish lamps during Lily’s Eyes. The staging was so bad. Mrs Medlock says, “I’ve never seen a child sit so still and look so old.” And the Mary spends the rest of the show running around the stage. Too much movement, no comfortability in stillness. Sierra Boggess looked like a crazy woman. Why is her hair down? And why is she wearing a Halloween costume. Ever costume of hers was bad bad. The only good costume was Rose. And WHERE WAS THE HUMP?? Every character talks about a hunchback, and there is no HUMP?! Do they think the audience is stupid? Archie has no hump, but they give Neville a cane? Fire this director. He’s failed this amazing piece of theatre. SHAME.
The inadequate director seems to me a variation of something I have often witnessed in casting. Dance is often treated as the most demanding element, requiring more to achieve mastery than acting or singing. (That's true in some ways, but the same can be said for the other two, and I personally disagree with that verdict.) Accordingly, even in professional situations, I often see an excellent dancer cast in a role who executes that aspect beautifully, only to have everyone seem surprised that they were quite helpless when it came to their singing and acting. Here, it seems like it was assumed that since Warren Carlyle is such an accomplished choreographer, he obviously MUST be up to the task of "just" directing. That's how you end up with a production like this.
As fun as rant reviews can be, detailed critiques like this are even better! I was worried that this revival would try to "fix" the show a la the RSC production... disappointed to hear that's the case. I don't know what the revivals have against "Quartet" and "Race You." The latter especially feels essential for Archie and Colin, it doesn't make sense to cut even from an unfun utilitarian POV. It's good to hear that some of India material has been revised, at least. The original's treatment of India always stuck out as very... British. In a bad way.
I didn't see this, but I have been following the updates on social media. Emily Hoder seems like a force and Sierra Boggesss is of course amazing! It would be great if, as you said, they worked on it more and took it to Broadway or, at least on tour. Thanks for a great, honest review!
You used the word Magic at the end, and this mounting of the show was completely lacking in that department. I hate to say it too because I like Warren (when I worked with him he wasn't the director, that was Jerry Zaks, but working with him as choreographer was great, and he has a slew of directing credits since then. He really is a wonderful guy, and an absolute joy to work with in my experience.) Unfortunately, he didn't bring anything special to this as a director. The characters were as wooden and forgettable as I could have ever thought possible given such a fantastic story, script, and score. I wish theatre directors (and actors too) would realize that when dealing with heavy subject matter, angst and depression can't be any characters' given focus throughout an entire show, we need nuance. Even characters who are understandably sad/angry/frustrated/forlorn/feeling hopeless/helpless all the time, have moments to the contrary that give them depth. This show completely lacked that, it was just one-note. It's meant to look beautiful, and sound beautiful and it does, but it's completely surface so it isn't moving. Looking at the press pics that you've included here, it absolutely looks the part, but without dynamic directing/acting that grounds the show in something human, that gives the story somewhere to go, that digs deeper into the human experience, it comes across as hollow and honestly, pointless. Peyton told us after the show that for the girl playing the lead, it was her 3rd show... ever. So she was fantastic in that regard, and maybe actually directing the children in a way other than general emoting (that runs thin after a few minutes) was too much to ask. Honestly though, it felt that way with the adult actors too. It was boring because nothing was connected and there wasn't anything interesting happening within the characters relationships. It was just this paint by numbers attempt, and it made the show ultimately forgettable, which is frustrating. I guess producers assume that people can't tell the difference in a big "spectacle" musical. I thought the set design was interesting, which even for a touring show would be minimal, but as you said, they never made a character of the garden and that was a bummer. Too much brilliant source material, to leave it at that. Great vid Darlin :)
I haven't seen this production but as someone named Lily who was raised on this musical and this story in every possible way, your review and the few images I've seen make me feel like the director doesn't understand the story or why it's important. Hence why the first production was truly so good. This is a truly feminine story. It should be told by someone who gets it. It’s like Little Women or Jane Eyre being directed by men. It never has the same impact as a production directed by someone who understands the feminine experience. It should be soft and gentle and maybe a bit drawn out. It's the reason I enjoy things like Jane Austen and regency era romance. SLOW. BURN. Call it boring if you want but I think there’s so much good character and romance and sorrow and grief and love and joy and all the little things in life to be had in this story. It’s a shame they chopped it the way they did.
Sunset Blvd. had its American premier on December 9, 1993 at the SHUBERT THEATRE in Century City, Los Angeles, CA, not at The Ahmanson. Just wanted to clear that up. I saw the original Broadway production and the touring production in San Francisco. Unfortunately, the revival's stripped-down version, sets and book, are a disappointment. I doubt this revival would receive a warm critical reception in New York.
As always, I LOVE your reviews and input on any musical theatre production, but this one was easily one of my favorites. As a recent "Secret Garden" fan, it's sad to hear they took out a lot of my favorite elements (aka the romantic melodrama between the adults) as a way to trim it down. I was lucky enough to see the Lincoln Center production with Sierra, Ramin, and Ben Platt, and I never thought it needed to be shortened. But maybe that's because the performances and the casting got me hooked? Or that I loved this story before even knowing a musical adaptation existed? Who knows. Anyway, I hope they hear your (and others) notes on this before bringing it to the NY. We need the romantic drama, pls!
Hello, Emily Clark. Let's cut to the chase with this "production" and then I can illuminate you on a couple of things. All roads about what went wrong with this show leads to its director/choreographer. Nowhere else to look. He's clearly not a director and, for me, he's not much of a choreographer either - in that regard he reminds me of Rob Ashford, but that's another story. So, Sadie. I've worked with Sadie and the other alternate, Ava - they are BOTH superb child performers. Sadie was who the director cast. She was Mary, and Ava was the only alternate. After a handful of days, he made the decision to replace Sadie with the Amaryllis from the Jackman The Music Man - not a cheap decision, since they had to fly her in and put her up. Sadie was asked to now split the alternate with Ava - she was treated with complete disrespect, with the real issue being that the director is not a director and didn't know how to work with a kid (I'm told they also brought in an acting coach for the new girl) and somehow, I guess, he expected a performance after four days of rehearsals and wasn't getting it. Of course, it's utter nonsense to expect a performance from any actor after that few rehearsals. So when you say you didn't like the way Sadie was directed, let's just say this director said not one word to either alternate at any time after the replacement. Not one word. Nor did anyone else. They watched rehearsals, each had a single put in and on they went, expected to "honor" the way the director directed the replacement and therein lies the problem. Both Sadie and Ava could have been amazing had there been an actual director in attendance. But aside from that, it trickled down to almost every performance - I've been hearing about Sierra Boggess forever - this was my first time seeing her and I found her okay but then she was blocked so poorly that she never had a chance. With my friend, the late and much-missed Rebecca Luker, you never took your eyes off her. Not so here. The Archie and Neville were good singers, but the acting was declamatory, IMO, and I never believed either of them. And you can't spend an entire show talking about a hunchback without it ever being there - nonsensical. The cuts were not only wrong, they hurt the show at every turn. The set was a joke with that huge S thing taking up most of the playing area. I thought the most successful performance were Julia Lester, Mark Capri, and Susan Deneker and I'm pretty sure all three were left to fend for themselves. Finally, I don't think this will go anywhere, but in today's musical theater, who knows? BTW, in terms of hoping it isn't the final draft - they had weeks to tweak and work it - did they? Of course not. The director flew back to NY the day after opening and never returned.
BRUCE. The way that gal was in all the publicity then suddenly wasn't... I thought I was crazy for noticing but I had no idea the circumstance. Holy crap.
@@StealingFocus I know, what they did was horrible. If he couldn't direct her why not get HER an acting coach? I'm tellin' you, she's something really special and so is Ava. I can't comment on the replacement, I didn't see her. But the way one-note way she was directed and the alternates told to do that, well... Hope you and yours are you're well and healthy and I'll check out your other vids. :)
It came to LA and I was here and I passed based on early reviews - which were much like yours. Saw some videos from the Lincoln Center concert and cried a few times, I must admit, the acting was that good. Shame.
More of an overblown video tribute to CTG than trying to add Miracle Grow to this garden of death and waltzing chandeliers. Scrap the Cinderella concept, and don't kill her family twice in the Act I for starters. We didn't stay for Act II.
Interesting your comment about the actor playing Dicken was sort of puckish because I couldn’t help feeling he was miscast and wondering what he would be like in some other show. I loved his voice and his songs were strong but when he was alone with Mary on stage it always felt a little creepy to me. Maybe he was just a little too friendly to her. My friend also noted that while colorblind casting is good, here with the triangle being between black and white brothers and Lily she couldn’t help wondering if Colin wasn’t actually the sun of Neville rather than Archie. With no obvious chemistry between Colin and either brother id did seem like a possible plot twist.
PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY. I have no problem with ethnicity per se...I play the blues, I love JPop, but this all inclusive bullshit is really disturbing. In the book Dickon was a boy around Mary's age. Even in the Broadway musical, the boy was a bit older which also disturbed me as good as Cameron was. In the book and particularly in the 1993 movie, there was an innocent boy vs.boy rivalry between Collen and Dickon for Mary's affection. However, the Dickon character played by a fully grown man who obviously is not a Yorkshire boy just seems too politically correct. Don't fix what's not broken just to be woke. BTW I saw the orginal Broadway play 3X and no one can replace the original cast.
I guess the same way Neville Craven's brother is somehow black. Which is to say, it makes no sense in the context of the show and sacrifices much of the production's credibility at square one, but the decision was made in order to score Progressive Points in an industry where a project will be brushed off otherwise.
The Secret Garden is one of my favorite musicals. I found the album at a young age in the early 90's and thought the songs were haunting, emotional, and gorgeous. I've seen a black box theater production which was truly great, and I keep longing for another to go see in Chicago. Thank you for your really detailed review -- almost makes me feel like I was there. From the video, I agree the staging appears too sparse and not magical or lush enough to evoke the garden. I would be upset to go see it and miss the song Quartet -- it's one of my absolute favorites from the album. I love the blend of vocal parts in it.
The Secret Garden was my very first Broadway musical in 1992, it was absolutely extraordinary. And when the Shakespeare theater in Washington DC reprised it a few years ago Daisy Eagan returned to play Martha. She was just as extraordinary as she was when she played the main character. Both experiences or extraordinary and I shall never forget and always be grateful. Thank you so much for uploading this story. It is so fun and I love it.
I cannot even imagine this show without those two songs. Why on earth would they cut them???
I saw a production of THE SECRET GARDEN on the West End in London back in 2001. Notable cast members were Linzi Hately as Martha, Philip Quast as Archibald and Meredith Braun as Lily. It was produced by the Royal Shakespeare Company and had choreography by Gillian Lynne. This production was very heavily revised. It focussed much more on the children, removing most of the Indian ghosts and their songs, except for Mary's parents.
I myself was an 18 year old, geeky musical-theatre student at the time, and even though I surely had my opinions and critiques about this production, a lot of things went over my head that I would now analyze differently. For example, I didn't mind the long ballet garden suites and the garden scenery that much, back then. But looking back at it now I could have done without the garden suites and I would have expected a better design for the title scenery.
Having said that: I would love to have seen the original Broadway production back in 1989, but I did not so I only have the script, the score and original cast recording to compare this London production with. And even though I disagree with some of the cuts, I did like most of the other adjustments they made in the script and score for this production. You can hear some of those on the original London cast recording. I would recommend you to listen to it, even if it's purely from an analytical perspective to see and hear what ideas they came op with.
I have always loved "The house upon the hill", "I heard someone crying" and the 3 Storm sequences on the original Broadway cast recording. Friends of mine, who had seen the London production before me, told me about the cuts and adjustment to those particular scenes. So I was already very sceptic beforehand. I remember myself thinking: Why cut "The house upon the hill"? However, I have to admit that when I eventually saw the production, I understood these choices. Especially what they created out of "I heard someone crying" and the storms was incredibly inventive and exciting to experience live. For the scenes inside the house they used big oaken-looking doors in frames that could spin and would travel on, off and over the stage, creating different rooms and interiors combined with other scenic elements. At some point during the climax of the storm, where Mary is frantically looking for where the crying sounds are coming from, the oaken doors, which had been traveling the stage throughout the number, lined up from left to right and suddenly turned to face each other. And while the ensemble sang the last chorus of the song, Mary aggressively runs through each of the doors; opens one door, closes it behind her and then runs to opens the next, closes it behind her and then runs opens the next and so on, and so forth. The acting of the little girl who played Mary, the ensemble, the orchestrations and orchestra, the scenery, the lighting and the visual it created; it all came together so incredibly beautiful, it took my breath away. And this is only one example of many brilliant moments during this production, that supported strong storytelling with bold choices.
We saw this production too last week. Your review is very fair and you captured the Ahmanson Secret Garden experience perfectly.
I love old children’s story’s this is one of my favourite
The Secret Garden was my favorite book growing up so I approached the original musical in 1991 with trepidation. However, I completely agree with you that I thought the original was wonderfully done and I was so disappointed it didn't get a bigger run. I also had to raise an eyebrow at the category of Tony Award Win for Daisy Egan. I believe she carried as much of that show as the "adult" females. In addition, I still think part of it may have been a reluctance to support an all-female written/produced musical because of that time, but that is neither here nor there now. I think this would be a fabulous revival, and am seriously hoping to see it back on Broadway and/or touring again. The soundtrack was beautiful, and I hope any revisions don't ruin it.
I love this musical
I remember so much attention paid to dialect in the original. Lots of attention paid to the area in which it happened, the costuming in the original and lighting.
The Secret Garden is one my favorite musicals of all time. It's one of those shows if there is a production close by I will go and see it. I was lucky enough to see the Lincolin Center concert. To see Daisy Egan as Martha, after listening to her as Mary for my whole life, was such a special treat. A wish come true I didn't even know I wanted in life. If a revival ever comes to Broadway, and god do I want you, I really hope she gets a shot at playing Martha or at minimum can be on the cast album.
And I agree with another commenter when I saw the concert version I never felt anything needed to be trimmed down.
Now on to your review. It's such a shame they made the cuts they did. Race You to the Top of the Morning and to a tiny lesser extent A Bit of Earth, is such good character development and gives a sense of connection to Achie and his son. Until Race, it seems like Archie doesn't even care about his son. But then to have him come in and read a bedtime story is so sweet and the metaphor story of the dragon is such a neat way to express Archie's feelings.
The placement change of "A Girl I Mean To Be", I think could work for me (I've seen it in another production) because she's saying "I need a place where I can go and be what I want", but by the end of act one and into two she's FOUND the place for her to go it's just not what she completely expected yet because it's "dead".
I haven't seen this show, but at least on the cast album, Mary does say something along the lines of, "It was to hot in India...I sometimes played at it (having a garden) sticking things in the sand." so that could where at least the idea came from. I really do wish they hadn't tampered with Book in terms of trimming things down or cutting things (I'm mildly okay with shuffling the song order ) of the show especially as you pointed out, one of the Tony's was for the Book. That means regardless of critics, it was good enough then. That said yes FIX the Hindu songs/sections of the show.
And I agree the staging and set seem off this time. I read a little about what the director was aiming for with the set, but it just doesn't work for me.
Thank you for your thoughts on this revival. And please (theatre gods) let there be a big revival of the show. I have yet to see anyone who knows about this show's existence be disappointed or not enjoy something from this musical. Thank you Emily for your thoughts (and not giving a more 'rant' video feel as I think this show (in general) needs more love even if a particular production doesn't do it for you. As always a great video.
This show will always have a special place in my heart. I saw the first National Tour 30 yrs ago (!!!!!!!!!) and it was one of my first professional theatre experiences. I got the OBC and played it so much that I could literally do ALL the parts (and often did on long drives)... I just love it so much. I feel like I would be super sad to see this production, and it makes me even sadder to think about all the people seeing this for the first time and maybe NOT getting the same magical experience I did all those years ago.
Wha t was a the dragon tatoo all about ?
This show should have a stunning set design
I never knew people had issues with the book??? Crazy, I saw the original, it was my first show on Broadway, and it was an incredible experience, felt so cohesive and tight creatively, every element was perfect, and then it won the Tony for book in a VERY stacked year - I mean, Miss Saigon, Once on this Island and Will Rogers Follies were also competing. AND Norman is a VERY accomplished playwright, Pulitzer Award winning for goodness sake. Ugh. I am dieing for a Broadway revival but this doesn’t feel like it’s it.
Just noting that “Sunset Boulevard” premiered at the Shubert Theatre (in Century City) ☺️
Ah yes thanks for the correction! The now defunct Shubert (RIP)
I saw the show last week and I’m a HUGE secret garden fan. Your review is spot on. The cuts to the show left it feeling too bare bones. Taking out some of the songs and rearranging them wasn’t the right choice. There needed to be so many more pauses and moments where we could physically see these characters changing. Putting the girl i mean to be NOT at act 2 fundamentally changes Mary’s character arc. I hope they can still workshop this show but it needs some work.!
I have seen the Chance Theater version twice. Like you, I loved it and felt no need for revisions. What a great production! After seeing your review of the new Los Angeles production and learning that they have trimmed it down and (unforgivably, in my opinion) removed "Race You to the Top of the Morning", I don't have much desire to see the new incarnation. They are playing "The Secret Garden" again at the Chance Theater later this year, hopefully with no changes. I would recommend going there to see it. You will save yourself a lot of money and likely have a much better experience.
It think this version is the London uk west end version less songs and the girl I mean to be is earlier on
I do think so
This was a great video Emily Clark, and from what I had seen and heard about this, along with watching the worshiping of this during covid, I was worried due to the fact, the cuts, and also the casting, there are certain shows that are for certain religions, and cultures, and having Archie, and Dicken not be What's described in the book, and or being consistent we know that Archie and his brother were not adopted and that they came from a good wealthy Yorkshire family, and Archie wouldn't have been African American, and he and Mary's mother wouldn't have had a child that looked not white. And if you're going to cast Martha as the traditional red head Yorkshire maid than you need to cast her younger brother in the same vain or just replace the white Yorkshire characters all together. Your not being enclusive just by casting non whites, and just cause your skin is white doesnt mean that other's like Irish, and Scottish, and Yorkshire characters shouldn't be cast and represented in their stories the way they were written.
Just like with the musical little princess theme removing India and changing it to Africa really sucks and changes the story allot. I am glade they fixed the Hindi language, and are representing India in a more positive light, but casting choices need to make sense and not just be done to check off boxes, and what was the pint of cutting down the love triangle between the leads? that was weird. There was an American try out way before covid that was in Portland and then the 5th Avenue of Secret Garden that was the first attempt of a revival of the show and that was a wonderful production directed by David Armstrong and they used everything and then some from the archives of the broadway show. That was what was talked about going to Broadway. And I thin that script and that version should have been the one that was reinstated. I grew up on these stories Secret Garden and Little Princess and find it ridiculous when you cast it openly when the story and the book they are based on is so rooted in a specific culture and country and to change that or to cast it openly and not how its ben written by the writers does in my opinion a great disservice to the original authors and author of the book, plus to actors where they could shine and if we are supposed to be casting real lgbtq+ in roles and real people of color doesnt the other cultures have the right to be represented as well, not just the persons of Color that NYC and other states have deemed the minority t be represented, cause the Irish and Scotts and Yorkshire people where just as much enslaved and used and abused darting war times and such as African Americans in their own lands just lie the jews were by the Egyptians thousands of years ago. But your views on this are spot on and I thank yo for not being one to just watch a show and not say something just to oppose the status quo and being honest is the best way to get back to real theatre, and real story about every one not just a declared certain group of people.
White passing mixed race people exist though look at Freddi Washington or Merle Oberon, your comment is kind of ignorant just on that one comment alone :/ but I do somewhat agree with what you wrote I just thought that comment you made wasn’t wise
If it were to go to Broadway, would it take too long? Just thinking for when should I plan my next NYC visit. 😬
You don't want to see it...
@@StealingFocus Maybe they'd change it before taking it to Broawday.
After our recent Twitter interaction, I'm glad this is the first video I watched. First of all, surprised I didn't plug into your work more earlier, and I'm certainly going to now! Secondly, you bring up all of my pet peeves with design, direction, and dramaturgy in present-day musical theater; it's not just this production (although the examples are certainly egregious enough that they spawned an entire video -- two, really, counting the one you junked), it's all over the damn place and sometimes it works but most of the time it doesn't. I can't put my finger on exactly why these choices are so popular, but it's starting to bug me immensely. I'm sorry it's affected "The Secret Garden," and I hope somebody pays attention to what you have to say, because your notes are valid.
Yea they need to go back to the drawing board on this one. I think what they were going for missed the mark in a few instances, but some choices were just outright lazy, giving the audience no credit, and not really creating a world, but rather the surface of one without substance. Just... I guess, hoping that no one will notice?? There has to be more than that in musical theatre. Fantastic vocals but not much else sadly.
Most musicals get low blood sugar in the middle of Act Two and could use about twenty minutes' worth of cuts to effect a leaner profile that keeps moving. The Secret Garden is no exception to that. Unfortunately, in Garden's case, the material that it could best do without is the bulk of the plot administrativa in the second act, and that will never be taken seriously as a contender for the chopping block. As Emily points out, the original novel may be about Mary's relationship with the garden, but the musical is far more concerned with the emotional odysseys of the adults - yet the musical's book gets spooked about boldly committing to that perspective flip and ends up forcing both "versions" of the story on the spectator. If, indeed, "Race You to the Top of the Morning" has been phased out, it's for the best as it's too long and doesn't contribute anything we don't already know; besides, it's simply overkill on emotional arias for Archie (the indulgence was justifiable when it was Mandy himself at the top of his career, but few Archies since have really merited so many). I would not call the Quartet filler at all; it not only completes the character development puzzle of the four characters involved, but it also fills in some of the mysteries the complex flashback-based plot have built up. To cut it was a terrible loss and, as Emily points out, contributes to basically depriving the show of Albert and Rose who, especially the latter, are two of the best roles in the show despite their technical cameo statuses. Cobbling together "Disappear" from its remains results in a lame song that doesn't do much of anything. And I'll be brave enough to say what is taboo: casting black actors as Archie and Dickon was nothing more than a completely unnecessary and, ultimately, ineffective curtsy to the diversity gods for business reasons. Colorblind casting works perfectly well in many shows, but it falls on its face in a show grounded in such an obvious and rigidly concrete social and historical context - especially when both of the characters in question have full blood-siblings in the cast as other principal characters, who DO fit accurately into the framework of the show's setting. You'd have to really try to find a way to make sociopolitically-driven checkbox casting more ostentatiously cumbersome. Derrick Davis didn't contribute anything so exquisite as to justify the sacrifice in credibility, as all he did was stand around acting out a vaudeville burlesque of being on the edge of tears for two and a half hours. As for John-Michael Lyles, that reviewer who criticized his performance was correct; he does play the role as if he were going on as Jim from Big River (although I would add that it's a cross between that and the Leading Player from Pippin). And yes, the dreadlocks are beyond inappropriate for the setting and were clearly calculated for no purpose but to drive home the production's demand to be hailed as progressive. I would agree with the assertion that the directing was poor (once again we see the folly of assuming that a theatre professional most strongly associated with dance is automatically fully-qualified for everything else), especially in regard to the children - but in all fairness, Daisy Eagan's characterization in the original seems to have been awkwardly shaped, too (at least, according to the only real record of it we have, the OBC recording; I've often wondered if the overly-hostile, completely-unsympathetic, impossibly-rude brat she comes across as in the recording's dialogue was not really what she did onstage, but the result of someone telling her that everything needed to be cranked up to twelve for the recording since it would only memorialize audio and not the full performance she was used to giving.)
In that case, what are your thoughts about Audra McDonald playing Lily in the US tour all the way back in 1992? Do you find that to be "a curtsy to the diversity gods" as well? Mind you, I say this as someone who was disappointed with Derrick Davis' performance (since I otherwise enjoy his work very much) and who thought the casting for Dickon was not handled with enough care given he came too close to the Magical N*** stereotype for me (term being coined by Spike Lee during some of his lectures when he was touring various college campuses back in 2001), through no fault of John-Michael Lyles - it's really all about direction at this point.
There were so many stupid things they did. The candelabras were stupid, the little house was stupid, the swirl was oh so stupid, and don’t get me started on the jellyfish lamps during Lily’s Eyes.
The staging was so bad. Mrs Medlock says, “I’ve never seen a child sit so still and look so old.” And the Mary spends the rest of the show running around the stage. Too much movement, no comfortability in stillness.
Sierra Boggess looked like a crazy woman. Why is her hair down? And why is she wearing a Halloween costume. Ever costume of hers was bad bad. The only good costume was Rose. And WHERE WAS THE HUMP?? Every character talks about a hunchback, and there is no HUMP?! Do they think the audience is stupid? Archie has no hump, but they give Neville a cane? Fire this director. He’s failed this amazing piece of theatre. SHAME.
The inadequate director seems to me a variation of something I have often witnessed in casting. Dance is often treated as the most demanding element, requiring more to achieve mastery than acting or singing. (That's true in some ways, but the same can be said for the other two, and I personally disagree with that verdict.) Accordingly, even in professional situations, I often see an excellent dancer cast in a role who executes that aspect beautifully, only to have everyone seem surprised that they were quite helpless when it came to their singing and acting. Here, it seems like it was assumed that since Warren Carlyle is such an accomplished choreographer, he obviously MUST be up to the task of "just" directing. That's how you end up with a production like this.
they lost me when i found out they cut RACE YOU TO THE TOP.....like..girl..one of .best song in the show...byeee
I was there and this review is SPOT ON. I’ve never hated a set so much in my life. The song cuts hurt the story. And this production lacks warmth.
As fun as rant reviews can be, detailed critiques like this are even better!
I was worried that this revival would try to "fix" the show a la the RSC production... disappointed to hear that's the case. I don't know what the revivals have against "Quartet" and "Race You." The latter especially feels essential for Archie and Colin, it doesn't make sense to cut even from an unfun utilitarian POV.
It's good to hear that some of India material has been revised, at least. The original's treatment of India always stuck out as very... British. In a bad way.
I didn't see this, but I have been following the updates on social media. Emily Hoder seems like a force and Sierra Boggesss is of course amazing! It would be great if, as you said, they worked on it more and took it to Broadway or, at least on tour. Thanks for a great, honest review!
You used the word Magic at the end, and this mounting of the show was completely lacking in that department. I hate to say it too because I like Warren (when I worked with him he wasn't the director, that was Jerry Zaks, but working with him as choreographer was great, and he has a slew of directing credits since then. He really is a wonderful guy, and an absolute joy to work with in my experience.) Unfortunately, he didn't bring anything special to this as a director. The characters were as wooden and forgettable as I could have ever thought possible given such a fantastic story, script, and score. I wish theatre directors (and actors too) would realize that when dealing with heavy subject matter, angst and depression can't be any characters' given focus throughout an entire show, we need nuance. Even characters who are understandably sad/angry/frustrated/forlorn/feeling hopeless/helpless all the time, have moments to the contrary that give them depth. This show completely lacked that, it was just one-note. It's meant to look beautiful, and sound beautiful and it does, but it's completely surface so it isn't moving. Looking at the press pics that you've included here, it absolutely looks the part, but without dynamic directing/acting that grounds the show in something human, that gives the story somewhere to go, that digs deeper into the human experience, it comes across as hollow and honestly, pointless. Peyton told us after the show that for the girl playing the lead, it was her 3rd show... ever. So she was fantastic in that regard, and maybe actually directing the children in a way other than general emoting (that runs thin after a few minutes) was too much to ask. Honestly though, it felt that way with the adult actors too. It was boring because nothing was connected and there wasn't anything interesting happening within the characters relationships. It was just this paint by numbers attempt, and it made the show ultimately forgettable, which is frustrating. I guess producers assume that people can't tell the difference in a big "spectacle" musical. I thought the set design was interesting, which even for a touring show would be minimal, but as you said, they never made a character of the garden and that was a bummer. Too much brilliant source material, to leave it at that. Great vid Darlin :)
I haven't seen this production but as someone named Lily who was raised on this musical and this story in every possible way, your review and the few images I've seen make me feel like the director doesn't understand the story or why it's important. Hence why the first production was truly so good. This is a truly feminine story. It should be told by someone who gets it. It’s like Little Women or Jane Eyre being directed by men. It never has the same impact as a production directed by someone who understands the feminine experience. It should be soft and gentle and maybe a bit drawn out. It's the reason I enjoy things like Jane Austen and regency era romance. SLOW. BURN. Call it boring if you want but I think there’s so much good character and romance and sorrow and grief and love and joy and all the little things in life to be had in this story. It’s a shame they chopped it the way they did.
I’ve _literally never_ heard of this musical until you talked about it, but I’m a sucker for musicals with spunky little girl protagonists. 😊
Listen to the original Broadway cast recording. BEAUTIFUL!
Sunset Blvd. had its American premier on December 9, 1993 at the SHUBERT THEATRE in Century City, Los Angeles, CA, not at The Ahmanson. Just wanted to clear that up. I saw the original Broadway production and the touring production in San Francisco. Unfortunately, the revival's stripped-down version, sets and book, are a disappointment. I doubt this revival would receive a warm critical reception in New York.
You are accurate.
@@brianimoto4634 Thank you for your reply!
As always, I LOVE your reviews and input on any musical theatre production, but this one was easily one of my favorites. As a recent "Secret Garden" fan, it's sad to hear they took out a lot of my favorite elements (aka the romantic melodrama between the adults) as a way to trim it down. I was lucky enough to see the Lincoln Center production with Sierra, Ramin, and Ben Platt, and I never thought it needed to be shortened. But maybe that's because the performances and the casting got me hooked? Or that I loved this story before even knowing a musical adaptation existed? Who knows. Anyway, I hope they hear your (and others) notes on this before bringing it to the NY. We need the romantic drama, pls!
Hello, Emily Clark. Let's cut to the chase with this "production" and then I can illuminate you on a couple of things. All roads about what went wrong with this show leads to its director/choreographer. Nowhere else to look. He's clearly not a director and, for me, he's not much of a choreographer either - in that regard he reminds me of Rob Ashford, but that's another story. So, Sadie. I've worked with Sadie and the other alternate, Ava - they are BOTH superb child performers. Sadie was who the director cast. She was Mary, and Ava was the only alternate. After a handful of days, he made the decision to replace Sadie with the Amaryllis from the Jackman The Music Man - not a cheap decision, since they had to fly her in and put her up. Sadie was asked to now split the alternate with Ava - she was treated with complete disrespect, with the real issue being that the director is not a director and didn't know how to work with a kid (I'm told they also brought in an acting coach for the new girl) and somehow, I guess, he expected a performance after four days of rehearsals and wasn't getting it. Of course, it's utter nonsense to expect a performance from any actor after that few rehearsals. So when you say you didn't like the way Sadie was directed, let's just say this director said not one word to either alternate at any time after the replacement. Not one word. Nor did anyone else. They watched rehearsals, each had a single put in and on they went, expected to "honor" the way the director directed the replacement and therein lies the problem. Both Sadie and Ava could have been amazing had there been an actual director in attendance.
But aside from that, it trickled down to almost every performance - I've been hearing about Sierra Boggess forever - this was my first time seeing her and I found her okay but then she was blocked so poorly that she never had a chance. With my friend, the late and much-missed Rebecca Luker, you never took your eyes off her. Not so here. The Archie and Neville were good singers, but the acting was declamatory, IMO, and I never believed either of them. And you can't spend an entire show talking about a hunchback without it ever being there - nonsensical. The cuts were not only wrong, they hurt the show at every turn. The set was a joke with that huge S thing taking up most of the playing area. I thought the most successful performance were Julia Lester, Mark Capri, and Susan Deneker and I'm pretty sure all three were left to fend for themselves. Finally, I don't think this will go anywhere, but in today's musical theater, who knows? BTW, in terms of hoping it isn't the final draft - they had weeks to tweak and work it - did they? Of course not. The director flew back to NY the day after opening and never returned.
BRUCE. The way that gal was in all the publicity then suddenly wasn't... I thought I was crazy for noticing but I had no idea the circumstance. Holy crap.
@@StealingFocus I know, what they did was horrible. If he couldn't direct her why not get HER an acting coach? I'm tellin' you, she's something really special and so is Ava. I can't comment on the replacement, I didn't see her. But the way one-note way she was directed and the alternates told to do that, well... Hope you and yours are you're well and healthy and I'll check out your other vids. :)
let BROADWAY ENCORES do it.....
I suggest that the director should read the novel by Frances Hodgson Burnett because this production was garbage.
HUMPGATE 2023. Where was the HUMP?
Literally. WHAT HUMP???
It came to LA and I was here and I passed based on early reviews - which were much like yours. Saw some videos from the Lincoln Center concert and cried a few times, I must admit, the acting was that good. Shame.
More of an overblown video tribute to CTG than trying to add Miracle Grow to this garden of death and waltzing chandeliers. Scrap the Cinderella concept, and don't kill her family twice in the Act I for starters. We didn't stay for Act II.
Interesting your comment about the actor playing Dicken was sort of puckish because I couldn’t help feeling he was miscast and wondering what he would be like in some other show. I loved his voice and his songs were strong but when he was alone with Mary on stage it always felt a little creepy to me. Maybe he was just a little too friendly to her. My friend also noted that while colorblind casting is good, here with the triangle being between black and white brothers and Lily she couldn’t help wondering if Colin wasn’t actually the sun of Neville rather than Archie. With no obvious chemistry between Colin and either brother id did seem like a possible plot twist.
PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY.
I have no problem with ethnicity per se...I play the blues, I love JPop, but this all inclusive bullshit is really disturbing.
In the book Dickon was a boy around Mary's age. Even in the Broadway musical, the boy was a bit older which also disturbed me as good as Cameron was. In the book and particularly in the 1993 movie, there was an innocent boy vs.boy rivalry between Collen and Dickon for Mary's affection.
However, the Dickon character played by a fully grown man who obviously is not a Yorkshire boy just seems too politically correct.
Don't fix what's not broken just to be woke.
BTW I saw the orginal Broadway play 3X and no one can replace the original cast.
Sounds like another disappointing revival of a classic musical vandalized by people who have no respect for the excellence of the original material.
Exactly how is Marthas brother Dicken now Black? Just how does that work exactly ? They have the same parents.
I guess the same way Neville Craven's brother is somehow black. Which is to say, it makes no sense in the context of the show and sacrifices much of the production's credibility at square one, but the decision was made in order to score Progressive Points in an industry where a project will be brushed off otherwise.
@@k.robertrichardson6779 Let us just hope it is a trend that dies...soon
Is race key to the story, like Ragtime? No?
There’s your answer.
@@elisiasaam-quinty9811 It is logic and common sense. The author of the book would agree with me .