About | Advertise | Work For Us | RSS Sunday, September 05, 2010
Orlandoweekly.com home page.

The Arts

MONSTERS INC.
'Commercial' Little Shop fails to deliver

 

Little Shop of Horrors is largely to blame for launching my lifelong love of musicals. In 1982, writer Howard Ashman and composer Alan Menken (who would later inaugurate Disney’s “Second Golden Age” with The Little Mermaid) transformed Roger Corman’s no-budget thriller about a man-eating plant into an off-Broadway mock horror masterpiece. Frank Oz’s 1986 film adaptation featured everything that appealed to my 12-year-old self: a monstrous Muppet, the geek from Ghostbusters and gorgeous Ellen Greene (a childhood friend of my parents). In the years since, I’ve sought out several stage productions – including Theatre Downtown’s modest charmer in 2006 and 2003’s robotically assisted Broadway botch – so I approached the Plaza hoping Gramercy Theatre’s new production would satisfy.

They make a terrific first impression with tentacles painted on the building’s exterior, potted mini-flytraps on the lobby bar tables and designer Jeffrey Schultz’s textured and turntabled Skid Row set, billowing with enough faux fog to fill Universal’s haunted houses. The cast list is equally top-shelf: Leads Michelle Allsopp and Steven Lane are Equity performers with strong pipes; theme-park legend Ron Schneider takes Mushnik’s second-rate songs (all cut from the film) and sells them; and Shonda Thurman, Colecta Johnson and VarieTease’s Tymisha Harris are soulfully sassy as the street-urchin backup singers. I’m happy my old friend Vee Sylvain has fulfilled his longtime ambition of voicing Audrey II, and they even got newscaster Bud Hedinger (on tape) to narrate. Then there’s Vegas choreographer Jeffrey Page, plus plant-puppets by Emmy nominee Paul McAvene. With so much talent and so many resources, what could possibly go wrong?

The self-conscious program notes promise “real substance, something weighty and human” and a “starker” approach to the story. As a result, Seymour (Lane) has lost much of his nice-guy nebbishness, neutering his character arc; and Audrey is deflowered of her airheaded innocence, leaving behind crack-whorish cynicism. Other characters, however, like the hip-swiveling, pompadoured dentist (Kevin E. Kelly), remain rooted firmly in cartoonland. Stiffly blocked actors talk past other, barely making eye contact, and then shove around the supposedly massive seedpod while shuffling about the set. The backing band sounds thin and tentative, sapping the music of its requisite rock & roll spirit, and inconsistent mic mixing muddles the lyrics.

From flaky fly cues and piecemeal props (please paint the orange safety plug in the pistol) to an awkwardly anticlimactic act break, sloppy staging sabotages this production’s on-paper potential. I longed to love this Little Shop, but after Gramercy’s similarly overproduced and underrehearsed Magician’s Nephew, I shouldn’t have been surprised.

In an epic pre-show curtain speech, director Dan Roche proudly promoted Gramercy as a “commercial” theater (like in “Chicago and New York”), as opposed to Orlando’s nonprofit and “501-whadayacallit” companies. Dismiss me as a jealous, poor theater producer if you please; just remember that commercial isn’t always synonymous with professional.

arts@orlandoweekly.com

Comments on this story:


Report this comment On 10/9/2008 2:02:28 PM, BigRed said:

Well, Seth, I have no idea what show you were at last Friday, but I have a hard time believing we were in the same building. Saying the show was excellent wouldn't be doing it justice. It was stellar. Phenomenal. Fantastic. You can't find show quality like this in Orlando. Period. Maybe if you could have dragged your eyes away from the "piecemeal props", you might have caught a glimpse of a truly special production. Such a shame to have a production of this caliber here in Orlando and see it get this kind of review. I guess if there isn't suicide and goth, The Weekly just doesn't get it.

Report this comment On 10/9/2008 2:36:13 PM, tifraser said:

Gotta say, as one who also attended: I had a lot of the same problems Seth did. I was okay with the choices for Audrey and Seymour since they were actual performance choices, but there was definitely a pop lacking on the techinical side. The audio was way too low for the first act on opening night, and thin is a perfect word for the sound of the band. And the choreography, particularly during the larger numbers, really failed to engage the whole stage. I enjoyed myself, but more for the show itself rather than the production.

Report this comment On 10/9/2008 4:55:24 PM, Anonymous said:

Guessing by the handle that you are the Calendar editor. Nice to see the staff stick together. You must have been the 2 out of 240 sitting during the lengthy standing ovation at the close of the show. Please, point me - and the rest of your readers for that matter - in the direction of a show that has the "technical pop" you are speaking of. I clearly need an education.

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 1:27:00 AM, Anonymous said:

Well now. Disclaimer: I do NOT work for the Weekly as the above writers do. So you cannot attempt to defend yourself through diversion as you did above. So. The article appears to be a well thought out and well structured review of a show. In fact the author seems to be trying to be nice more than trying to say anything harsh. It appeared balanced yet commented on the experience. The Weekly gets it. They just don't get the same thing YOU got and demand THEY get. As to the "Technical Pop" - I would say The Orlando Shakespeare Theatre, The Orlando Rep, The Orlando Ballet, The Orlando Opera etc etc - but according to your curtain speech they seem to not count as Grammercy. Shame. Because they are great. How about La Nouba or BlueMan? They give a great show of technical pop - minus the self-declared, self-applauding, self-centered ego that was contained in Grammercy's curtain speech.

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 6:40:49 AM, tifraser said:

For the record, I stood for the ovation. Not saying that it's not a worthwhile show, just that it could be improved upon. And I think that Grammercy can be a wonderful company (I'm looking forward to seeing "The Last Five Years"), but I think they need to take some constructive criticism and try to rectify things. Or don't. Be satisfied. If that's the case, then don't complain about diverse opinions. Also for the record, lots of people I know from the Weekly loved the show, so it's not a widespread conspiracy. Just different opinions.

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 11:05:36 AM, Anonymous said:

My husband and I attended the 6.30pm Sunday show, the last one on opening weekend, and we didn't notice any problems with the sound. The vocals were clear, and properly balanced with the music. Perhaps the mix was fixed after the earlier shows?

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 2:03:48 PM, Anonymous said:

To suggest that Dan Roche put down or bashed nonprofit theatre is simply untrue. It is a fact that Gramercy is a for profit (by design) theatre company. It is a fact that they are not grant eligible. It is a fact that Gramercy relys solely on ticket sales to support the productions they put on. Dan Roche has worked (tirelessly!) for multiple non profit theatre companies, just not in Florida. He also makes every effort to support central Florida's diverse theatre community. However, what Gramercy is doing IS different. There is no argument to that. As a critique, you are supposed to objectively review the show, not the curtian speech. It is clear by the last paragraph ("Dismiss me as a jealous, poor theatre producer if you please...) that your review was impacted by something that had nothing to do with the show. Totally unacceptalble and unprofessional.

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 2:12:40 PM, Anonymous said:

Now, as for submitting that shows produced by Orlando Shakespeare Theatre, The Orlando Rep, The Orlando Ballet, The Orlando Opera etc etc have more "technical pop" than what was seen on The Plaza's 2nd stage last Friday, I disagree. But, that's just my opinion. I have seen many productions by various performace groups in Orlando, and I feel like Little Shop can stand tall with any of them. To try to weigh in Little Shop vs. Cirque and Blue Man? Are you serious? Don't you think you should get a little more pop for $100? As opposed to $35? Also - Did you even see Little Shop anonymous @ 1:27am? Doesn't sound like you did...

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 2:39:00 PM, Anonymous said:

Alright Alright . . this is why Orlando can't have a united theatrical front!!! both for profit and non! To Seth's defense . . his review is accurate!

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 2:41:43 PM, Anonymous said:

My boyfriend and I saw the opening night show on Friday and, as a lover of the movie, I'm happy to say that I loved the show! I thought that the quality of the set and the talent was very impressive and I thought the sound level was good. I didn't watch it as a critic but I will say that my "Musical hating" boyfriend laughed a ton and walked away a theater lover... well, at least a lover of Little Shop of Horrors! (Yay!) I just hope that theater-goers don't let the negative review keep them from seeing the best show I've seen in a very long time! Keep it up guys!

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 3:11:59 PM, Anonymous said:

I have been seeing shows regularly at The Plaza Theatre since it reopened and I can honestly say this was the best production to date. The cast was incredibly talented and I thought the set was quite impressive. I have been a fan of the movie for years and was not let down by The Plaza's "Little Shop" . Oh - and you DEFINITELY can't get a show like that anywhere else for the price--$35? Outstanding! I was one of the many giving a standing ovation!

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 4:03:31 PM, Smutley said:

Really Seth? Says the guy that reviewed theme park attraction rides before becoming a Theatre Sage here in town? Wow. Well thank goodness that my common sense hasn't swayed my ability to sense begrudgement when I see it. Negatively referencing a previous Gramercy show having nothing to do with the production at hand, and, I can't move past the last comment you made in fixating on the pre-curtain speech that you CONVENIENTLY took completely out of context so that you could have a dramatic end to your review. I, however, absolutely applaud the entire cast and production quality of this show that you decided to instead turn into a pissing match about theatre politics… detracting from the fact that it was an OUTSTANDING show at such a hidden gem like the plaza theatre. I can’t believe we never went to this place before last weekend. My girlfriends and I will definitely be catching another show before this run is over. In the meantime, perhaps you should go back to kicking puppies or whatever it is you do to posture yourself when you seek out revenge for your misfortune, & enormously unfair burden you bear of being: (in your own words) a “jealous poor theatre producer”. And…Cue violins.

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 4:10:04 PM, Anonymous said:

Jeeesh. If you wnat your friends to keep posting, fine, here is another viewpoint for you. Grammercy is long on money, long on sets, long on spectacle, short on "onstage" quality. If you read reviews of the past shows (Sentinel as well) you will notice a trend that speaks to that. Or are they wrong too? If you want to have friends and supporters continuing to come on here to bash a writer and post favorably for Little Shop (it's obvious people, it's obvious), plan on those above dismissing it as well. It's a person's opinion people. Jeesh! Get over yourselves.

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 4:13:08 PM, Anonymous said:

Smutley. Nothing like starting a letter with an insult. Tells us a lot about you and your lack of anything to say. Hey Kubersky, bet you more will come on once the chain of communications gets them all up in an uproar.

Report this comment On 10/10/2008 11:25:40 PM, Anonymous said:

didn't see the show, didn't see the curtain speech, but if what roche said was quoted accurately, i think it's out of line and he should have known better. no matter what the facts are, or the intention behind the statement, common sense would indicate that it could construed poorly. the bottom line should be, that we all need to keep theatre alive with our support. it's fortunate for us that at this time there are several shows going on in the area, and its worth it to see as many as you can.

Report this comment On 10/11/2008 10:40:15 AM, Anonymous said:

Does it matter what he said? Should a curtain speech impact the review of a show? This is the question. What if the lead in the next show Seth reviews beat him up when he was a little kid? Would it be O.K for that to impact his review of the show? What if Seth has first hand knowledge that the producer of the next show he reviews said that all the writers for the Weekly are dishonest scumbags? Should the review reflect Seth's personal feelings? Though they may not be perfect analogies, it's the same principle. If you want to be a professional theatre critic, you HAVE to be able to put aside your petty grievances and write based on what you see/hear once the SHOW begins. Right from the title of this piece (Commercial Little...) you can feel/see the grudge Seth carried into this review. What does commercial have to do with anything? Why is it even mentioned? Those who haven't seen the show yet (the ones counting on and trusting your honest, unbiased review to help them decide if they want to see this show) won't even understand the reference. It is ridiculous. Do any of you who are not commenting in support of Gramercy not see this???

Report this comment On 10/11/2008 4:37:06 PM, Anonymous said:

To Anonymous at 10:40:15 Written in all caps because you are an absolute imbecile. THE REVIEW WAS ABOUT THE SHOW NOT ABOUT THE CURTAIN SPEECH. HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT THE WEEKLY WRITERS ARE DISHONEST SCUMBAGS. THE WEEKLY AND THE SENTINEL BOTH NEED TO REMEMBER THAT NEXT TIME YOU DO A SHOW. OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE WITH GRAMMERCY AND GRAMMERCY HAS NOW SOLIDIFIED THE FACT THAT SOME AUDIENCE MEMBERS WILL NEVER EVER COME SEE YOUR SHOWS BECAUSE YOUR ATTITUDE SUCKS. I HAVE HEARD NOTHING BUT THESE SAME KIND OF STORIES ABOUT YOU BEFORE AND THAT IS WHY I WILL NOT SEE YOUR SHOWS. SOME PEOPLE WHO GO TO SEE YOUR SHOWS LIKE THEM AND OTHERS SAY THEY ARE EXTREMELY POOR QUALITY. OTHER REVIEWS OF YOUR SHOWS SAY THE SAME THING. STOP FIGHTING A REVIEW AND SUCK IT UP. YOU ARE TAKING ONE LITTLE PART OF A REVIEW, AND TRYING TO DISHONESTLY CONVINCE OTHERS THAT THAT IS WHAT COLORED THE CRITICS OPINION. IN FACT, IT WAS NOT THAT BUT THE SHOW ITSELF. KUBERSKY IS SAYING THAT IN FACT THAT YOU HAD A SHOW THAT DID NOT LIVE UP TO EXPECTATIONS. HE EVEN STATES THAT HE LIKED SOME THINGS IN THE SHOW TO BALANCE THE DAMN REVIEW. DEAL WITH IT.

Report this comment On 10/11/2008 5:05:17 PM, Anonymous said:

Hey Grammercy - It is just a review. Here is a friendly tip. By trying to defend so much, you are bringing total attention to not just the slightly negative review, but your horrible attitude and lack of class. Making it much much worse. Call off the attack dogs and just have a good run.

Report this comment On 10/13/2008 1:13:58 AM, Anonymous said:

The bulk of the review, about the talent, was positive. I also had a problem with the quality of the sound coming from the orchestra/band/whatever. Even if I hadn't, I would say that for the cast, this was a good review. Not all reviews are glowing, nor should they be, and it is only by analyzing criticism (professional or not) that any of us reach a higher standard. As for the curtain speech, I think it's valid to mention it in a review. It is not the same as a childhood bullying incident clouding your view. It was part of the stage presentation and should be considered as such. I hope that in the future Mr Roche can promote his own work without seeming to belittle the work of others.

Report this comment On 10/13/2008 10:21:41 AM, Anonymous said:

Nice 10/11 @ 5:05 and 10/13 @ 1:13. Very nice, observant, and true.

Report this comment On 10/26/2008 5:09:33 AM, Anonymous said:

Hey, the problem I had with this review is that it had very little to do with the show. I don't know what this reviewer has against grammercy, but I would think that journalistic integrity would keep him from letting that impact his review...my bad. Keep on being unprofessional, buddy. You're the reason why I don't take reviews from the O-Weekly seriously.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Date:
Category:
Keyword:
Location:
Cuisine:
Keyword:
 
For Email Newsletters you can trust