The cast is led by Christiani Pitts, (A Bronx Tale) as Ann Darrow, Eric William Morris (Mamma Mia!) as Carl Denham, and Erik Lochtefeld (Misery, Metamorphoses) as Lumpy.
Written by Jack Thorne (Harry Potter and the Cursed Child) with a score by Marius de Vries (La La Land and Moulin Rouge!) and songs by Eddie Perfect (Beetlejuice), King Kong is directed and choreographed by Drew McOnie (Strictly Ballroom The Musical).
King Kong comes alive through an innovative mix of robotics, puppetry and stagecraft.
9 comments:
This article was sad for me to read. For the past few weeks on the green (now teal) page I have been reading the articles about King Kong and loving all the intricacy that has gone into creating the monkey on stage. I most agree with Adam Feldman's review because when I have been reading about the puppetry I have thinking about War Horse and how magical it made the play, while still being so full of emotion. However, because of the story they are telling which does have many larger than life moments, it is turning more into a Spider Man Turn off the Dark production. I have never really been a big fan of the movie King Kong, but there are parts that are very intriguing that I would love to see translated to stage. Perhaps a musical typically associated with flashy lights and dancing is not the way to do it.
King Kong on Broadway gives me a weird feeling. As far as the story goes, I just do not think that it could be captivating enough to hold audiences. The article mainly focused on the technical aspects of the show and I think that is where the producers are hoping to wow the audiences. The massive King Kong puppet is without a doubt impressive. The attention to detail and the sheer size of the puppet is really incredible. Also, the light design seems to be very well done with a smart use of angles and color, also atmospherics are always fun. I would imagine, like the rest of the creative team, that the sound design is just as incredible. It seems I can only come up with good executions for the show but I believe that it would lose me with the storyline but maybe I am wrong and would love to be surprised if I ever get the chance to see the show.
Cannot say I did not see this coming. It is as if the balance between show and spectacle has been thrown off. It is much like if Andrew Lloyd Webber put all of his efforts into the chandelier and none into the Phantom himself. I read the entire New York times review and could not agree more, some thought the Statler and Waldorf pairing was too harsh on the show, but I just want some Kong themed Thorazine. It is one big fail after another, and if I did not know before going and she did not scream but “roar with him” I would be pissed, I do not care who you are it is unrealistic, if a giant beastly ape picks you up, you would scream or pass out. What concerns me most is that the worst part was roundly agreed on to be the score, and that is concerning considering he also wrote the Beetlejuice score which I have much higher hopes for, just more area for them to crush my hopes, but at least it is not Mean Girls.
This article is kind of sad to read, as I’ve been reading all of the positive articles about this musical, in the past few weeks. From the moment I heard they were bringing King Kong to Broadway, I was skeptical. It just does not seem like the kind of story that should be turned into a musical. According to these reviews, however, it wasn’t – pretty much the entire plot of the original story sounds completely different (in the worst ways) other than the fact that there’s a giant gorilla. I feel like someone had an idea that a King Kong puppet would look good on stage, which it does, but I don’t think they thought through the rest of the show. The rewrite of the plot, and the way it was directed (having her growl back at Kong?? Really??) just seems very bland and full of clichés – like the harsh critics describe.
The critics are almost one-sided, attacking all fronts on this classic scripted Broadway show, and almost hard to read through all of them without pitying the production team. However, after a long grind through the report and filtering the critics that involved too much personal preferences, there are actually many good points made within the critics. First, the feminism that embedded in the story line. It is clear that the original script has a unbalanced power relationship between the male characters, such as Kong and soldiers and the female protagonist. The critics sited that the show didn’t express or even touch this topic at all, which for a modern Broadway show, is somehow disappointed. The second focus of critics is that the songs and actings are not meeting the expectations. For this part I found it is hard to be fair, and I fully understand that no show can please everyone. Some critics are practical and do provide arguments that actually can be useful for the creative team. Such as one-note performance for leading characters, and lengthy plot. The last part is Kong itself, it is sad too sluggish for stage performance and more suited for a Universal Park than Broadway theaters, which to me, is a harsh critic about it. It is always more about question of why Kong but how Kong. Solute to technicians in the show.
Woof. I had high hopes for King Kong, I even almost bought tickets – mostly to see the puppet if I’m being honest – but reading these reviews, I’m glad I didn’t. I appreciate that some reviewers acknowledged the achievement that was the construction of King Kong regardless of what they thought of the score or script. But the reviews were overall hard to read. A problem I’ve always had with reviews is that they’re never constructive.
Feedback is at the very heart of theater, but reviews seemingly have nothing to do with that, they are “unconstructive criticisms” which honestly feels like a waste. I understand that it is not their job to rewrite the show or anything like that, but I have trouble finding appreciation for someone’s opinion when they are just spewing their negative commentary without offering up something constructive along with it.
That being said, there were some reviews that did offer up what it was about the script that they didn't like rather than just saying it was "bland" or "dull" or "cliche." Addressing the actual themes or elements of the writing that they didn't like was a much better use of their word count that may even help the creative team in the future rather than telling them their show is bad. I can’t agree or disagree with anything the reviews said since I have not seen the show, but I am disappointed that the general consensus is that it’s a flop.
It just goes to show that having a 30 million dollar gorilla in your show doesn't guarantee your show to be a broadway favorite. While the reviews weren't exactly scathing, they were certainly generally disappointed in the presentation and overall production. In particular, I think their complaints centered around the book and songs, rather than the actual performance of the gorilla. And honestly, I think this is to be expected. The story of King Kong is not exactly a pinnacle of storytelling depth and despite the best efforts of many film franchises, it remains a cliche of past times and early silent films. The trend that I see in the myriad reviews sampled in this article seem to point all in one direction: The giant animatronic figure of King Kong, while thrilling, expressive and supremely expensive, is surely the greatest gimmick ever seen by the human race, and is better suited for a theme park attraction than cramped on a broadway stage.
I mean are we all really that surprised that the critics didn't like this show? I feel like reading these I am pretty much put exactly where I thought I would be. I think this show falls into the spider man category (though obviously much less tragic) which is that they have all this technology and want to use it in a cool way (30 foot tall gorilla) but sometimes the shows just don't match the technology. If you want to make a ton of money with the technology themes entertainment is the place to go but the fact of the matter is that broadway is limiting in what you can do because of where it is, and the size of the stage and the proximity of the audience to the action. I am sure that the tech of this show is fantastic and I bet that the actors are good but that doesn't make a show and it certainly doesn't make me feel like I need to go see it.
Jesus Christ. Reading the article about the giant, intricate puppet made me kind of want to see the show, but now reading these reviews really changes my mind in that regard. Also because Evan just came into my room and told me that King Kong was "bad, and not like a Spiderman kind of bad," and really that's the only review that I need. It's amazing how many times the word cliche appears across these review excerpts. I think that what Time Out New York critic Adam Feldman says really resounds with me the most. He says, "The truly frustrating thing about King Kong is the waste of it all. Why did it this story, whose central figure necessarily cannot sing, need to be a musical at all?" That was my first thought when I heard that King Kong was being adapted for the stage. King Kong is a monkey. He cannot sing. Why is this a musical? I think it almost might be more effective if they did a musical around the idea of King Kong and the destruction that he causes, rather than actually doing a literal stage adaption that brings a giant, grunting puppet onstage for people to sing at.
Post a Comment