I agree that Vanessa Hudgens marred the show for me- she goes between over-articulate and mumbling, and was only convincing (at least to me) when Gigi was angry. However, I thought the music was delightful actually, as well as all of the older people in the cast.
1
I saw the show last night, and disagree with Mr. Isherwood's review, both positively and negatively. I had no quibble with the "cleaning up" of the material, but I thought that at the beginning of the show it could have used more clear and evocative writing to make it clear what WAS happening in this version. I emphatically did not like the direction... too many of the show's scenes felt wooden and unimaginative, and like people were just being summoned to the stage to sing. There was also very little of "building to a crescendo" or even truly dramatic scenes. I thought that Vanessa Hudgens as Gigi was good, I liked Corey Cott, thought that both Victoria Clark and Steffanie Leigh were good, and I thoroughly disliked Howard McGillin. I hated the sets... that big hulking staircase that didn't move felt out of place in many of the scenes. I had heard the cast recording of this production before I saw the show, and I thought that the sound in the theater (orchestra row H, dead center) was muddy by comparison (yes, I know that they may have used a larger orchestra for the recording, but for me that still doesn't excuse muddy sound in the theater itself). Overall? I'd give it about three stars out of five. I wish they had been able to spend more time on it and make it better than it was... I think the creative team had a germ of a really good idea but simply didn't execute that well.
Surprise! This show is a delight! I saw it yesterday. Vanessa Hudgens is adorable as Gigi! Victoria Clark is fabulous! The whole cast is excellent! Loved every minute of the show!
2
These days I go to the theater in Manhattan once or twice a week and there are a lot of plays based on Movies or plays that I saw other productions one of the decades since I started going to Broadway in the '60's. I go into the play hoping that the it will be something new and fresh and that I don't just compare it to a movie I saw 30 years ago and be shocked when there are changes. I loved every minute of this production of Gigi. Hudgen's acting on Saturday did not impress me as much as Mirren's on Sunday, but she filled the theater with youthful energy and transitioned well into a young lady. Cott's intensity as a young man in love was overwhelming. He is a great actor. Very talented Not tall and attractive, as I expected, but he is very real. It was well acted, written, sung and directed. I knew they were in love before they did. I too miss the sex in times square in the theaters in the 80's and I think in tearing down the Gaiety we lost one of the great gems of NYC entertainment. But no matter how jaded I may be I can still enjoy a wonderfully acted and wonderfully written story about true love and desire to be a full human and permanently bond with someone. I would rather have A- songs sung well and with meaning than A+ songs sung poorly.
3
@Max Star I, too, miss the Gaiety. I used to spend a lot of pleasurable times there in my 20's and 30's.
1
I saw the show last Saturday and wasn't impressed. Its music and lyrics by Lerner and Lowe were not the greatest. No comparison with their "My Fair Lady". The show itself was a bore.
O my, I guess I am not sophisticated enough to know that I should have been bored. My wife and I saw the pre-Broadway production at the Kennedy Center and thoroughly enjoyed it. Gigi is a lively, beautiful and entertaining musical. A worthy entry into the Broadway theater. We go to shows to be entertained, not to criticize. In fact there was little to criticize in Gigi though the script was changed from the film version. I suggest that if the script had not been changed some of the same critics would have found it deplorable for this day and age.
1
The audience was full of little girls and I wasn't thanking heaven for them. I assume they are fans of Ms. Hudgens' high school musical movies. They looked delighted to see her in person--but bored with the show itself and in that I was in solidarity with them. But little girls who are bored tend to get fidgety which is a distraction that I would have been concerned with if the show were any good. How can a show about sexual attraction be so unsexy? And the humor was so weak that not even the loaded-for-laughter Broadway audience was responding. Victoria Clark does have a lovely voice, but most of the performers were mugging through their roles wringing every ounce of sophistication out of the show.
2
I mean, if you're going to do "Gigi" knowing it's the story of a grown, philandering man falling in love with a 15 year old being groomed to be a courtesan, why bother cleaning it up? And, really, what was there to clean up? The fact that shye was 15 and he was...slightly older than 15? I get that that's uncomfortable for a lot of people, but honestly, they don't need to see it if it bothers them. Let hope no one gets the bright idea to redo "Lolita"...no, seriously, let not.
So, I'm not necessarily championing May-December romances but isn't it a shame that the creators of this show couldn't even imagine a situation in which a pretty young woman falls in love with anything other than a pretty young man? Like, that specific element was so baffling to them, so off-putting to their imagined audiences, that they had to drastically alter the story to make sure Lachaille's affection for Gigi is "appropriate." I just think it's weird, and a great example of the unstoppable, universal process of making all material as bland as can be before it makes it to the stage.
2
We saw this in previews on a theater weekend that also included "An American in Paris" and "On the Twentieth Century", expecting Gigi to be the weakest
of the three. It wasn't. In fact, it was the one we most enjoyed. We're hardly spring chickens and remember the movie fondly. It is a rather strange story for Americans of any age, but this show brings it across with style, verve and
panache and more than a few good laughs, and pardon me, but cleaning up the story and changing the plot only improved it. The rave this same newspaper gave "An American in Paris" which clearly did not deserve the adoring critic treatment points up the problem with listening to professional critics. Listen to me and buy a ticket if you love Broadway musicals done right.
of the three. It wasn't. In fact, it was the one we most enjoyed. We're hardly spring chickens and remember the movie fondly. It is a rather strange story for Americans of any age, but this show brings it across with style, verve and
panache and more than a few good laughs, and pardon me, but cleaning up the story and changing the plot only improved it. The rave this same newspaper gave "An American in Paris" which clearly did not deserve the adoring critic treatment points up the problem with listening to professional critics. Listen to me and buy a ticket if you love Broadway musicals done right.
2
I saw the show Sunday and thought Ms. Hudgens was wonderful. In my view, she captured adolescent Gigi perfectly from the moment she hit the stage. Her opportunities to express depth as mature Gigi were more limited and due to the show itself, which is not particularly concerned with Gigi's adult nature. Rather, the show is about the power women gain over men when womanhood is achieved. This theme is explored throughout and is personified by Gigi's transformation, which ends the show. More than a soap bubble in my view, and highly enjoyable.
1
Please realize that all the "tweens" who watched High School Musical more than 10 years ago have now grown up and aren't flocking to see Vanessa Hudgens anymore- and if they did attend the show, they wouldn't need anything scrubbed down for them. "Tweens" today would probably have little idea of who she even is, so you've definitely misjudged your audience.
4
Saw the show tonight. A pointless evening in the theater. Beautiful to look at, but the show just wasn't worth reviving. And I wanted to slap every chorus member on stage, they were doing such abominable schmacting. Bland choreography, terrible direction. A big "who cares?"
1
Do or would they make changes/revisions to a show at this point if it's generating such lousy reviews?
I guess I'm getting old, but I can't imagine anyone other than Leslie Caron, Maurice Chevalier, Hermoine Gingold and Louis Jourdan playing these roles. It was a wonderful movie.
8
You're not getting old. You just remember the wit, the sparkle, and the charm of the film which is woefully missing from this squeaky clean, awful production. When I read some of the deranged comments here about this show, and the apparently risque plot, It makes me despair of the adolescent mentality of the average American today. It's not set in America, it's not based on an American story, and the sexual politics are about a different era, in a different country. That's the charm of it. Why is that a problem?
4
Saw Gigi at the Kennedy Center. Mr. Isherwood was kind. At that stage of the production, it was just plain boring and Ms Hudgens voice was unbearably squeaky. The perkiness wore thinly. Victoria Clark was the saving grace.
2
The only thing offensive about "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" is the assumption that is prevalent throughout Gigi that women are simply objects for men's pleasure (and that of course is plenty offensive to us today). As Maurice Chevalier sings it in the film, his Honoré Lachaille character looks upon a bevy of girls as a source of men's FUTURE pleasure when they have blossomed into womanhood. It's like looking at a heard of baby beef cattle and thinking about the great center cut filets they will make some day. Any notion of pedophilia is in the ear of the hearer. And at the end of the story Gaston Lachaille decides he wants to marry Gigi not because it's the honorable thing to do but because it's the RIGHT thing for him. Gaston is at heart a hopeless romantic cut out to be a bourgeois family man. He never derived the pleasure he was supposed to from his liaisons and seeks to find his happiness in traditional marriage.
29
It really begs the question, why choose "Gigi" if you're going for the family crowd? The Disneyfication continues!
PS to Isherwood: Have you ever actually listened to the lyrics to "Thank Heaven" without the echo of PC hysteria in your head? If you had, you would realize the tired trope that it's about pedophilia is patently misrepresentative. Why does he thank heaven for little girls? Because they grow up into women! The meaning could not possibly be any more plain.
PS to Isherwood: Have you ever actually listened to the lyrics to "Thank Heaven" without the echo of PC hysteria in your head? If you had, you would realize the tired trope that it's about pedophilia is patently misrepresentative. Why does he thank heaven for little girls? Because they grow up into women! The meaning could not possibly be any more plain.
29
Gigi, the movie, is one of my favorite Broadway musicals. "Thank Heavens for Little Girls" as rendered by Chevalier's Honore Lachaille, is one of the highlights of the movie. Though it has a mischievous ring to it and may not be politically correct in this era of feminism and political correctness, why clean it up? This story is of another time, age and culture, the Belle Epoque. In a way, it is historical. Rendering it similar to the movie is in a way an acknowledgement of the strides and progress in the evolution of women's status in society, not a
disparagement.
disparagement.
4
It seems mean, after how obviously thrilled Vanessa Hudgens is to be appearing on Broadway (as she bubblily iterates any time she has a chance) to give her such a snide (if not nasty) review here. I saw her and thought she was wonderful (I also saw her very good Mimi in "Rent" at the Hollywood Bowl. Yes, the role could have been filled out with a more experienced stage actress, but I will not begrudge the producers casting a star instead of trying to make one. Especially when Vanessa is quite delightful at times and brings with her a cadre of fans, whom I assume were in the audience the night I was there. Or maybe not. Maybe the whooping and hollering at curtain call (the most rambunctious ovation I've seen this season not counting "Something "Rotten") were people who really enjoyed this fun effervescent evening of theatre.
1
Theater reviews are not traditionally based on how thrilled the actors are to be on Broadway.
17
• You probably remember the most uncomfortable passage in the froufrou-bedecked 1958 film.... Recall Maurice Chevalier, playing the narrator, the suave silver fox Honoré Lachaille, singing “Thank Heaven for Little Girls” as he strolls through the Bois de Boulogne, eyeing young girls romping in the park. As the French say, eeck.
2015 interpretation! I recall a charming scene where "Honoré Lachaille" is NOT a pedophile lurking in a park lusting after "little girls" but an older, wiser (than "Gaston") man praising the reality (or possibilities) of young girls growing into attractive young women. Not "uncomfortable" at all, not in 1958, when I was 13. He is referring to Gigi's blossoming, not ogling the children in the park, as the Mr. Isherwood insinuates.
Has Mr. Isherwood never looked at a young girl and thought, "Gee, she's gonna be beautiful when she grows up!" I have, without the slightest sexual thought polluting my appreciation. BTW, 'little boys' too can grow up to be handsome young men.
And I certainly don't recall Gigi as a "courtesan" in-the-making. Maybe I didn't know what that was. Chaperones of tweens have nothing to explain because there is nothing to explain, nuanced or not, other than a young woman's growing up and getting pruned to enter society in "belle époque Paris".
If beauty, as is said, is in the eye of the beholder, so is smut.
"Eeck!"
“Humans see what they want to see.”
~ RICK RIORDAN
(b. 1964)
American author
in "The Lightning Thief"
2015 interpretation! I recall a charming scene where "Honoré Lachaille" is NOT a pedophile lurking in a park lusting after "little girls" but an older, wiser (than "Gaston") man praising the reality (or possibilities) of young girls growing into attractive young women. Not "uncomfortable" at all, not in 1958, when I was 13. He is referring to Gigi's blossoming, not ogling the children in the park, as the Mr. Isherwood insinuates.
Has Mr. Isherwood never looked at a young girl and thought, "Gee, she's gonna be beautiful when she grows up!" I have, without the slightest sexual thought polluting my appreciation. BTW, 'little boys' too can grow up to be handsome young men.
And I certainly don't recall Gigi as a "courtesan" in-the-making. Maybe I didn't know what that was. Chaperones of tweens have nothing to explain because there is nothing to explain, nuanced or not, other than a young woman's growing up and getting pruned to enter society in "belle époque Paris".
If beauty, as is said, is in the eye of the beholder, so is smut.
"Eeck!"
“Humans see what they want to see.”
~ RICK RIORDAN
(b. 1964)
American author
in "The Lightning Thief"
12
You did not recall that Gigi was being groomed to be a courtesan; You must have missed half the play.
10
... yes, to become a courtesan she reaches what they deem an appropriate age. The Autnies are training her for the future. And they are frustrated by her childish ways because they know that's not what the Parisian men want. Sure, they see launching her at what we consider too young - 16 or 17, but it's definitely post-pubescent. The lyric is "they grow up in the most delightful way." The OP's interpretation is correct.
2
I do not know what was in this latest Broadway version, but the novel by Colette made it clear that she was being prepare for life as a courtesan - no marriage (or even love) ahead for her. (She is from a family of women of illegitimate birth. No husbands going back over the generations.) Then Gaston takes an interest, and a jackpot is assured, the older women's turn their ambitions to him for Gigi. The Leslie Caron version--while tamed and romanticized (who wouldn't love Louis Jourdan with his aristocratic airs and 7e (maybe 6e) arrondissement apartment, rather than an old industrialist in the sugar business??)--clearly dealt with Gigi's realization of what would be expected of her very soon. Looks like much was ripped out of the novel, and also from the Leslie Caron movie, to make is PG. Colette was not PG.
2
This reviewer should be fired. We went to see Gigi with a group of 6 friends and The sets were fantastic, the music amazing, the performance was absolutely terrific! There was a standing ovation at the end. The audience clearly LOVED the show. Vanessa was perfectly cast for the role and did a wonderful job. I highly recommend the show!
2
Honey, hate to tell you, but there is a 'standing ovation' at the end of every B'way show these days. They mean nothing any longer.
These days it would mean more if the audience actually stayed in their seats and applauded, instead of trying to get a jump on being the first one out the door.
These days it would mean more if the audience actually stayed in their seats and applauded, instead of trying to get a jump on being the first one out the door.
11
So it was decided that "Gigi" had to be scrubbed down and dumbed down for today's audiences. I read about the changes in Variety and found it insulting that it was decided that the public must be wanting such politically correct pablum served to them in a Broadway theater. Guess what? We don't. Too bad I bought tickets before reading the Variety article and now this review. Sacre bleu!
6
Scrubbed down and dumbed down from a 1958 movie.
Meanwhile, "Chicago" has been running for seventeen years. But then, Fred Casely and Mr. Kelly didn't have the best luck with extramarital affairs.
Meanwhile, "Chicago" has been running for seventeen years. But then, Fred Casely and Mr. Kelly didn't have the best luck with extramarital affairs.
1
Nice point. "Chicago" is so clearly, overtly about sex and murder, while "Gigi" takes a decidedly sophisticated, continental approach. While it is entirely about sex, and all the characters understand this, everyone is far too civilized to actually mention the obvious.
And then there's that lush, orchestral romantic, written for MGM score with nary a bass line or syncopated drum beat to be found - pray, what would dancers thrust to?
It's a shame they scrubbed it clean. A clear-eyed, adult production of "Gigi" could be really terrific.
And then there's that lush, orchestral romantic, written for MGM score with nary a bass line or syncopated drum beat to be found - pray, what would dancers thrust to?
It's a shame they scrubbed it clean. A clear-eyed, adult production of "Gigi" could be really terrific.
4
I hope you don't let the Times reviewer determine whether you go to a show or not. If you don't you're missing out on half the fun on Broadway. We saw the show and loved it before the review. The only thing the review changes is my opinion of the reviewer.
1
I completely agree with Isherwood's assessment - there is no depth in the performance of Vanessa Hudgens. The production has been Disneyfied and is a disappointment.
6
How much "depth" is there in the typical mid-teen (whether 15 or 18) female? They are supposed to be socializing with equally shallow teen age boys. Expecting adult female character from them borders on perverted.
I didn't see the show but it sounds like Miss Hudgens nailed her role.
I didn't see the show but it sounds like Miss Hudgens nailed her role.
Depth meaning her performance is two dimensional regardless of what age she is playing. If you didn't see the show then how would you know to even make a comment that she "nailed" the role?
2
But there was the pathos in the novel by Colette, as the 15 yr old Gigi comes to understand the role for which her grandmother and great aunt are grooming her and that the only way she will spend time with Gaston will be as his courtesan. Pathos and depth there, some of which was in the Leslie Caron version. Hard to find it here.
1
"In this squeaky clean version of the material, Gigi’s potential future as a demimondaine — that’s French for high-end prostitute — is alluded to in such delicately vague terms that no parent chaperoning a tween fan of the show’s star, Vanessa Hudgens, of “High School Musical” renown, will have much explaining to do after the curtain has fallen."
So exactly what do the "tweens" going to this show think it's about that doesn't require "much explaining" after the curtain has fallen. A tryout for a show like "High School Musical?"
So exactly what do the "tweens" going to this show think it's about that doesn't require "much explaining" after the curtain has fallen. A tryout for a show like "High School Musical?"
3
That's what happens when you build a production by committee. Instead of trying to please different segments of an audience, try to appreciate what the material has to offer, then either respect it or don't do it.
10