Review: On A Clear Day You Can See Forever at the Irish Repertory Theatre
I was going to begin this blog post by complaining about the lyric "Up with which below can't compare with." It's a lyric that's bugged me since I first listened to On A Clear Day You Can See Forever, not least because it's such an easy fix. Just get rid of the first "with." Well, it turns out that in the stage show, Mark Bruckner actually calls Daisy Gamble out on this line right after she sings it. I've checked this with the vocal score, and this is indeed what Alan Jay Lerner wrote. I'm not wholly convinced that Lerner didn't just like the rhythm of the line and added in the dialogue to justify, but justify it he has, so I can't reasonably complain.
I can however, complain about how he rhymes "azalea" with "failure" in the very same song. (Pronouncing the latter "failya.") As far as I could tell, this lyric was rewritten for the movie to rhyme "least a" with "Easter," which has the exact same sort of strained accent-specific rhyme, and makes less sense in the context of the song. The 1967 published vocal score, however, has the Easter rhyme, and so this must have been changed earlier, well before the film. Or, perhaps, the Easter rhyme is the original, and it was changed just for the original cast recording for some reason. I have no idea, but if you do, let me know.
The Irish Repertory Theatre has just entered previews for its production of On A Clear Day You Can See Forever, by Alan Jay Lerner and Burton Lane, officially opening June 28th. On A Clear Day You Can See Forever is one of those shows that's been rewritten a number of times since its premiere, most infamously when almost everything about the show was changed except the title for the 2011 Broadway revival. This production is closer to the original than that one was, but still features a number of notable revisions made by director Charlotte Moore.
But first, a brief overview of the plot. On A Clear Day You Can See Forever may as well be called My Fair Lady In The Dark, because it's basically Pygmalion served with a side of pseudopsychoanalysis. It follows Daisy Gamble, a woman with strange psychic powers. She can tell when telephones are about to ring, knows where the objects people are looking for are located, can hear when people are thinking about her, and can make flowers grow by talking to them. She goes to a hypnotherapist, Mark Bruckner, to cure her smoking habit, naturally. This is accomplished in about thirty seconds, and Bruckner spends the rest of the time trying to figure out why she's not more concerned about the rest of it. He puts Daisy under hypnosis to try and search her memory and find out when she began talking to flowers. Daisy begins to recall a previous life as an 18th-century English lady named Melinda Wells. Bruckner is at first skeptical, thinking Daisy is making it up, but with repeated sessions, he becomes more and more convinced that Daisy may be the reincarnation of Melinda. Daisy, who does not recall her experiences under hypnosis, is unaware of Melinda, and thinks Bruckner is just interested in the flowers. Things go on from there.
It's a bizzare plot, and clunky in execution, but fascinating nontheless. I can't help but wonder if Lerner got complacent after having written two other musicals with a Pygmalion plot, which is why he failed to explore this variation on it to its fullest potential. Because I do think On A Clear Day You Can See Forever has a lot of potential that has yet to be reached. But perhaps that's a blog post for another day.
Charlotte Moore's revisions come in two flavors. First, there is the natural desire to want to tighten up the script by making cuts. From the original score, three songs were cut, two of which seem to have also been cut from the 1967 score. With one of these songs ("When I'm Being Born Again") was cut an entire character, seemingly for the simple reason of economy.
But aside from the economical cuts, most of Moore's most blatant revisions seem to come out of a desire to strengthen Daisy's character. This include cutting the character of her husband Warren, and his big song is made into an ensemble piece in a context that's shaky at best. Daisy is now searching for a job, and there are more expositional scenes with Daisy and her friends. (Also, I'm literally just realizing as I'm typing this that of course Daisy is named Daisy because flower imagery. Boy do I feel silly.)
There are two main problems with these edits. The first is that while Daisy is made more independent, she is not made any more interesting. I can't source this quote because I've seen it in so many places on the internet and who knows what's real, but as various other bloggers have said, there's a difference between [strong female] characters and [strong characters] who are female. It's clear Charlotte Moore wants to make Daisy an independent career girl, but this is done in an entirely superficial way that not only does not deepen her character, but actually weakens the plot in this case because of point two: That a Pygmalion plot literally does not work if the Eliza is fully independent from the start. That's part of the basic premise, because she has to have somewhere to start her character development from. Daisy Gamble's case is more vague than Eliza's, because she has the exterior battle of what she wants in her physical life, and her interior battle of wanting to be normal, and they are basically independent of each other. Technically, there's no reason she can't be a successful career girl for the first but still terribly insecure and self-conscious for the second. After all, that describes many actual people. But this is fiction, and it plays much better if her internal and external conflicts parallel each other. If they don't, then that should be a major focus of analysis. (Which it is in Lady In The Dark, where this is the case.) That could be a really interesting path to go down. But Charlotte Moore does not go down that path, and so her attempts to make Daisy a stronger character ring hollow.
(I am adding in this paragraph later, after more consideration. Cutting Daisy's husband, and changing her impetus for wanting to stop smoking to a job search does not significantly impact the story, and in the case of cutting her husband, actually helps a little bit in making her romantic interest in Bruckner more palatable. (At the same time, were it up to me, that romantic subplot would be lifted straight out of the musical.) The problem I had is more that it was conspicuous where these changes were made and where they clashed with the original book, and once my attention was drawn to them, it seemed clear why the changes were made, and that they did not satisfactorily fulfil said aim.)
One other notable edit is the new Act II opener, "Who Is There Among Us Who Knows," which has never been part of any production of On A Clear Day You Can See For Ever, but was written for, and cut from, the movie adaptation. Here it greatly clashes with the rest of the show.
But while Moore's edits are clunky at best, her stage direction is admirable. The direction is clear, well-paced, and gives a good sense of character and tone. Moore also has a great sense of surprise. There are a lot of unexpected turns in the staging (once literally), enough to keep the audience attentive and engaged, but not so much to distract and confuse.
The set is minimal, but effective. It relies largely on projections, which sometimes look silly, but for the most part blend in. The costumes are good for the most part, but I did not care for the robe and bonnet Daisy would put on to signify she was becoming Melinda. I'm certain I'd rather Daisy remain in her modern clothing even when in the 18th century, and let the actress's shift in manner inform the audience.
The actress in this case was the Tony-nominated Melissa Errico (My Fair Lady, Amour), and she did a phenomenal job with the role, playing two almost entirely unrecognizable people as Daisy and Melinda. Her singing is top-notch, her comedy on point, and she almost entirely carries the show, which is something of a star vehicle, sharing some of the burden with Stephen Bogardus (Falsettos, Bright Star) as Mark Bruckner.
It is my impression that the revisions hurt Bruckner as a character. His romantic interest in Daisy is downplayed throughout the musical, which I think is actually an improvement (I'm never a fan of tacked-on romantic subplots), but there is still the needless romantic resolution, which, now with no buildup, seems even more tacked-on than it used to, and, since there is nothing new written to bridge it, leaves a glaring hole in Bruckner's character arc. Despite this, Bogardus gives a compelling performance, and, though he's no John Cullum (and who is?), gives good renditions of the songs, and his performance of "Come Back To Me" is a highlight. (Although I have to call out either the director or the choreographer, whoever had him jump on a wheeled revolving chair. I was absolutely certain he was going to fall off and terrified the whole thirty seconds he was on it.)
The vocal highlight, however, might just be John Cudia (The Phantom Of The Opera, Les Miserables) as Edward Moncrieff. Though his role is significantly reduced, he makes the most of what he has, and his rendition of "She Wasn't You" brought the house down.
I do think On A Clear Day You Can See Forever is a show that is well-suited to a small venue, but the sad thing about small venues is that they also limit orchestra size. On A Clear Day You Can See Forever is, like most classic musicals, scored for a full orchestra. But Josh Clayton's five-piece orchestrations are pleasant and full, although a little heavy on the saxaphone for my taste.
On A Clear Day You Can See Forever is a show that should continue to be revisited, because it has the potential to be really fascinating. But it has to fully embrace both halves of the story -- the half that is My Fair Lady, and the half that is Lady In The Dark -- and dive headfirst into real character analysis. It's with Daisy that this show lives or dies. Though Irish Repertory Theatre has its sights set in the right direction, this production misfired as far as making the show truly click is concerned. All the same, it is a charming production of a classic show with great performances, and you can't really go wrong there. The production is still in previews. It may be improved yet.
I can however, complain about how he rhymes "azalea" with "failure" in the very same song. (Pronouncing the latter "failya.") As far as I could tell, this lyric was rewritten for the movie to rhyme "least a" with "Easter," which has the exact same sort of strained accent-specific rhyme, and makes less sense in the context of the song. The 1967 published vocal score, however, has the Easter rhyme, and so this must have been changed earlier, well before the film. Or, perhaps, the Easter rhyme is the original, and it was changed just for the original cast recording for some reason. I have no idea, but if you do, let me know.
Pictures make blog posts friendlier to read. So here's Stephen Bogardus and Melissa Errico in the production I'm about to review.
The Irish Repertory Theatre has just entered previews for its production of On A Clear Day You Can See Forever, by Alan Jay Lerner and Burton Lane, officially opening June 28th. On A Clear Day You Can See Forever is one of those shows that's been rewritten a number of times since its premiere, most infamously when almost everything about the show was changed except the title for the 2011 Broadway revival. This production is closer to the original than that one was, but still features a number of notable revisions made by director Charlotte Moore.
But first, a brief overview of the plot. On A Clear Day You Can See Forever may as well be called My Fair Lady In The Dark, because it's basically Pygmalion served with a side of pseudopsychoanalysis. It follows Daisy Gamble, a woman with strange psychic powers. She can tell when telephones are about to ring, knows where the objects people are looking for are located, can hear when people are thinking about her, and can make flowers grow by talking to them. She goes to a hypnotherapist, Mark Bruckner, to cure her smoking habit, naturally. This is accomplished in about thirty seconds, and Bruckner spends the rest of the time trying to figure out why she's not more concerned about the rest of it. He puts Daisy under hypnosis to try and search her memory and find out when she began talking to flowers. Daisy begins to recall a previous life as an 18th-century English lady named Melinda Wells. Bruckner is at first skeptical, thinking Daisy is making it up, but with repeated sessions, he becomes more and more convinced that Daisy may be the reincarnation of Melinda. Daisy, who does not recall her experiences under hypnosis, is unaware of Melinda, and thinks Bruckner is just interested in the flowers. Things go on from there.
It's a bizzare plot, and clunky in execution, but fascinating nontheless. I can't help but wonder if Lerner got complacent after having written two other musicals with a Pygmalion plot, which is why he failed to explore this variation on it to its fullest potential. Because I do think On A Clear Day You Can See Forever has a lot of potential that has yet to be reached. But perhaps that's a blog post for another day.
Charlotte Moore's revisions come in two flavors. First, there is the natural desire to want to tighten up the script by making cuts. From the original score, three songs were cut, two of which seem to have also been cut from the 1967 score. With one of these songs ("When I'm Being Born Again") was cut an entire character, seemingly for the simple reason of economy.
But aside from the economical cuts, most of Moore's most blatant revisions seem to come out of a desire to strengthen Daisy's character. This include cutting the character of her husband Warren, and his big song is made into an ensemble piece in a context that's shaky at best. Daisy is now searching for a job, and there are more expositional scenes with Daisy and her friends. (Also, I'm literally just realizing as I'm typing this that of course Daisy is named Daisy because flower imagery. Boy do I feel silly.)
There are two main problems with these edits. The first is that while Daisy is made more independent, she is not made any more interesting. I can't source this quote because I've seen it in so many places on the internet and who knows what's real, but as various other bloggers have said, there's a difference between [strong female] characters and [strong characters] who are female. It's clear Charlotte Moore wants to make Daisy an independent career girl, but this is done in an entirely superficial way that not only does not deepen her character, but actually weakens the plot in this case because of point two: That a Pygmalion plot literally does not work if the Eliza is fully independent from the start. That's part of the basic premise, because she has to have somewhere to start her character development from. Daisy Gamble's case is more vague than Eliza's, because she has the exterior battle of what she wants in her physical life, and her interior battle of wanting to be normal, and they are basically independent of each other. Technically, there's no reason she can't be a successful career girl for the first but still terribly insecure and self-conscious for the second. After all, that describes many actual people. But this is fiction, and it plays much better if her internal and external conflicts parallel each other. If they don't, then that should be a major focus of analysis. (Which it is in Lady In The Dark, where this is the case.) That could be a really interesting path to go down. But Charlotte Moore does not go down that path, and so her attempts to make Daisy a stronger character ring hollow.
(I am adding in this paragraph later, after more consideration. Cutting Daisy's husband, and changing her impetus for wanting to stop smoking to a job search does not significantly impact the story, and in the case of cutting her husband, actually helps a little bit in making her romantic interest in Bruckner more palatable. (At the same time, were it up to me, that romantic subplot would be lifted straight out of the musical.) The problem I had is more that it was conspicuous where these changes were made and where they clashed with the original book, and once my attention was drawn to them, it seemed clear why the changes were made, and that they did not satisfactorily fulfil said aim.)
One other notable edit is the new Act II opener, "Who Is There Among Us Who Knows," which has never been part of any production of On A Clear Day You Can See For Ever, but was written for, and cut from, the movie adaptation. Here it greatly clashes with the rest of the show.
But while Moore's edits are clunky at best, her stage direction is admirable. The direction is clear, well-paced, and gives a good sense of character and tone. Moore also has a great sense of surprise. There are a lot of unexpected turns in the staging (once literally), enough to keep the audience attentive and engaged, but not so much to distract and confuse.
The set is minimal, but effective. It relies largely on projections, which sometimes look silly, but for the most part blend in. The costumes are good for the most part, but I did not care for the robe and bonnet Daisy would put on to signify she was becoming Melinda. I'm certain I'd rather Daisy remain in her modern clothing even when in the 18th century, and let the actress's shift in manner inform the audience.
The actress in this case was the Tony-nominated Melissa Errico (My Fair Lady, Amour), and she did a phenomenal job with the role, playing two almost entirely unrecognizable people as Daisy and Melinda. Her singing is top-notch, her comedy on point, and she almost entirely carries the show, which is something of a star vehicle, sharing some of the burden with Stephen Bogardus (Falsettos, Bright Star) as Mark Bruckner.
It is my impression that the revisions hurt Bruckner as a character. His romantic interest in Daisy is downplayed throughout the musical, which I think is actually an improvement (I'm never a fan of tacked-on romantic subplots), but there is still the needless romantic resolution, which, now with no buildup, seems even more tacked-on than it used to, and, since there is nothing new written to bridge it, leaves a glaring hole in Bruckner's character arc. Despite this, Bogardus gives a compelling performance, and, though he's no John Cullum (and who is?), gives good renditions of the songs, and his performance of "Come Back To Me" is a highlight. (Although I have to call out either the director or the choreographer, whoever had him jump on a wheeled revolving chair. I was absolutely certain he was going to fall off and terrified the whole thirty seconds he was on it.)
The vocal highlight, however, might just be John Cudia (The Phantom Of The Opera, Les Miserables) as Edward Moncrieff. Though his role is significantly reduced, he makes the most of what he has, and his rendition of "She Wasn't You" brought the house down.
I do think On A Clear Day You Can See Forever is a show that is well-suited to a small venue, but the sad thing about small venues is that they also limit orchestra size. On A Clear Day You Can See Forever is, like most classic musicals, scored for a full orchestra. But Josh Clayton's five-piece orchestrations are pleasant and full, although a little heavy on the saxaphone for my taste.
On A Clear Day You Can See Forever is a show that should continue to be revisited, because it has the potential to be really fascinating. But it has to fully embrace both halves of the story -- the half that is My Fair Lady, and the half that is Lady In The Dark -- and dive headfirst into real character analysis. It's with Daisy that this show lives or dies. Though Irish Repertory Theatre has its sights set in the right direction, this production misfired as far as making the show truly click is concerned. All the same, it is a charming production of a classic show with great performances, and you can't really go wrong there. The production is still in previews. It may be improved yet.
Comments
Post a Comment