Sister Act Los Angeles

[jackhammer91406]

I want to preface anything I say in this review with a statement of fact. I have had a lousy couple of months since I came back from vacation. Heavy on the stress, too much drama from too many people in my life and not enough love and affection ( poor pitiful me). The last few days have been especially bad so it would take a major theatrical event to take me away from all of that. Sadly, tonight's performance of SISTER ACT now playing in Los Angeles didn't do that. I really have no knowledge of what the reception for this show was on Broadway but I do know I liked the movie.

 

The performance I saw had a lot of energy and there were some in the audience that were howling and cheering after every song. But I found the score (by Alan Menken) mostly forgettable. Some of the voices were very good, but it wasn't enough to make me not regret leaving the house. Ta'Rea Campbell (playing Dolores Van Cartier) has a great set of pipes but I just kept thinking how much I missed Whoopi Goldberg. And aside from one or two very thin jokes, the book was too contrived for me.

 

As I said, I had a really bad day, so I could be bringing my own baggage to this, but I would not be able to recommend spending the money for this show unless you are a relative of one of the cast members (which I think there were a few in the house tonight).

 

Maybe I should drive to Las Vegas and see PRISCILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT again.

[bostonman]

I haven't seen the show, but from all accounts I have heard, it's far below what it might have been.

 

The film was wonderful, and with its music-related plot, it felt to me like a no-brainer to find its way to the stage. (So many movies get attempted as musicals these days, and I feel a good percentage of them have no raison d'etre other than box office based on the recognition of the movie title - which is also one reason why most of these musicals don't get their own original titles, the way they used to.) I'm usually against the idea of trying to be TOO faithful to the film (the musical should be its own thing, not just a re-creation of the film, slapped up on a stage - basing changes on what works better in either medium), but I have a feeling that in this case, they may have changed too much, and I think it was also probably a mistake not to use the musical numbers from the film (though certainly Menken is a solid composer, and I feel bad that this score has somehow not caught fire for him).

 

Though, I do have to say, given the choice between seeing Sister Act: The Musical and Priscilla, Queen Of The Desert: The Musical, I'd probably opt for the former. Or better yet, I'd probably opt for seeing the original film version of either show.

[+ deej]

I'm usually against the idea of trying to be TOO faithful to the film (the musical should be its own thing, not just a re-creation of the film, slapped up on a stage

 

I generally agree, although this did sort of work with "9 to 5: the musical". The book basically *was* the movie, with musical numbers stuck in. Even a lot of the jokes were the same:

 

Roz: "Did you get my memo, Violet?"

Violet: "Yes, Roz, I TORE right through it."

 

The problem that show had is not unlike jackhammer missing Whoopi. The stars of the move are just so indelibly linked to it, you can't help but be disappointed. Megan Hilty played a credible Dolly Parton, but you still pined for the original.

[bostonman]

The problem that show had is not unlike jackhammer missing Whoopi. The stars of the move are just so indelibly linked to it, you can't help but be disappointed. Megan Hilty played a credible Dolly Parton, but you still pined for the original.

 

Yup - the problem today is becoming more and more about the expectation to the original. This is also why many of the so-called "jukebox" shows sell so well, because many of them try hard to re-create the original iconic sound/arrangements of the music, avoiding any disappointment from an audience that seems to want to hear only what they're familiar with.

 

Another related issue, that stems from the original days of the imported "mega musicals" like Les Miserables - I know from people who auditioned to be cast as Broadway replacements or on tours, etc, that the producers were mostly looking for "cookie cutter" performances - the more you sounded like the original recordings, the better chance you had, etc. (Most of the time, of course, the opposite is true - we want to hear people doing their own thing, not slavish imitations of their predecessors.) I also have a hunch this is what happened to the very accomplished Henry Goodman, who was Nathan Lane's first replacement in The Producers. He was fired right before his official press opening - and I tend to think it was because he was doing a very different take on the role than Lane did - and audiences were expecting Lane. (Brad Oscar was hired in his place, and from all accounts, he did a very good Lane impression, lol.)

 

I didn't see 9 to 5, but I did have to laugh when I heard the Broadway arrangement of the iconic title song, and there was that same ol' iconic band "hit" after the lyrics "9 to 5" - so I guess you're right, they didn't change anything at all, lol.

[+ deej]

I didn't see 9 to 5, but I did have to laugh when I heard the Broadway arrangement of the iconic title song, and there was that same ol' iconic band "hit" after the lyrics "9 to 5" - so I guess you're right, they didn't change anything at all, lol.

 

Well, yeah, except for all of the other new music in the show they didn't change anything at all. (I actually liked a lot of the music. "Backwoods Barbie" was a memorable number, for sure.)

 

But, yeah, that's the point.