onstagepittsburgh.com: Water for Elephants is a no-doubt true showstopper, and I find it hard to select a single aspect to praise because there are so many stunners throughout the performance. First premiered in the Alliance Theatre (Atlanta) in 2023, then as a Broadway musical in 2024, it has been on its national tour since 2025 and is now performing in Pittsburgh as part of the Cultural Trust’s PNC Broadway in Pittsburgh series.
12 comments:
“Oh and the elephant speaks Polish! By the way.” I happen to disagree that Water for Elephants is a feast for the senses, even on Broadway. The music in it definitely leaves something to be desired. When I saw it it felt like there were only two actual songs that had actual choruses with at least something that resembled meaning. If I’m going to watch a musical where half the songs just have the actors talking in a song, I would much rather watch a play. I was actually kind of disappointed to find out that the tour is a decently faithful rendition of the original Broadway run (one of the only things that’s not the same on the tour is that there are fewer ensemble members and acrobatics). Technically, I thought it was fine. It would’ve been a “fine” show in my mind if not for the fact that, after seeing it, I just believe that it’s a bad musical. It was a decently interesting spectacle in some regards, but others (like, in my opinion, the set) were so lacking that it really took away from the expertise of the actors and the precision of the production.
“Oh and the elephant speaks Polish! By the way.” I happen to disagree that Water for Elephants is a feast for the senses, even on Broadway. The music in it definitely leaves something to be desired. When I saw it it felt like there were only two actual songs that had actual choruses with at least something that resembled meaning. If I’m going to watch a musical where half the songs just have the actors talking in a song, I would much rather watch a play. I was actually kind of disappointed to find out that the tour is a decently faithful rendition of the original Broadway run (one of the only things that’s not the same on the tour is that there are fewer ensemble members and acrobatics). Technically, I thought it was fine. It would’ve been a “fine” show in my mind if not for the fact that, after seeing it, I just believe that it’s a bad musical. It was a decently interesting spectacle in some regards, but others (like, in my opinion, the set) were so lacking that it really took away from the expertise of the actors and the precision of the production.
I saw this show and, me personally, I did not think this show was particularly good. First of all, I think the source material is not very well written, particularly the music. None of the songs had any emotional arc. I feel like in musicals, the songs are meant to be windows into the characters’ inner monologues or bring spectacle and excitement, and in this musical I felt that the group numbers weren’t exciting enough to be big group numbers, and the solo numbers were just flat and did not move the plot or add anything to my understanding of the characters. The circus performers are very talented, however I felt that maybe because of the tour constraints, there weren’t enough people on stage and if the draw of this show is big, circus numbers, there wasn’t enough of that to carry the bad writing. But, hey, the elephant speaks polish so its all okay!
I wanted to like water for elephants, and I was really expecting to because everyone told me it was really good but i ws disappointed by the show. First of all I understand that it was probably a little bit more of a spectacle when it was actually on broadway and the tour had many elements of that, and they were really cool, however I did want more to be happening. I found the scenic elements of the show to be a little lacking and I could fully see the ladders and into the wings, and I wasn’t even that far to the side. The biggest problem I had with the show was that I didn’t like the music. The second song of the show was the only one that I enjoyed and I thought was at all interesting, and the rest were mostly them narrating to music, and none of the metaphors or symbols made a ton of sense. The performers were very talented but it did feel very much like someone created the most average musical theater musical ever. The only cool part was the puppets and circus performance, but I still wanted more from that.
I’m actually here to defend Water for Elephants. This is not a show that was made for the theatre student or the designer. This is not a show for highfalutin behavior. This is obviously a show made for the mass audience to get ticket sales. It’s a spectacle before anything else. It’s The Great Gatsby for people who are really into the circus!
The real question about this then becomes: Is this a valid way to create theatre? Is Broadway lost to the wolves, because all they care about is making crazy amounts of money off of shows that you can understand if you’re on your phone? Or is it more important to be doing exactly the opposite: making art for yourself, despite the audience not caring? I think there is a middle ground. We don’t make art for an audience; however, we have to make money somehow - a show needs people to perform for. So I don’t know. I think Broadway kinda kills artists. But I also think it exists for a reason. It’s conflicting.
Water for Elephants is one of my favorite shows I've seen. The lighting is beautiful, I'm a big fan of Bradley King. The article criticized the dull look at the beginning, but I think given the context it is necessary. It also helps us appreciate the liveliness that comes when they show the full circus. I really love how they handled the puppetry in this show. Rosie the elephant especially, was done in a really cool way. Creating a life size elephant puppet is no simple task, and I wasn't sure whether they'd actually done it while watching, because thy only show a foot or trunk at first. But then later, they reveal her entire body which is incredibly impressive. I also loved the acrobats in this show. They had people flying all across the stage doing really impressive tricks. I would've loved to see this show again while it was in Pittsburgh, but I couldn't go with our group on Easter.
This was not the greatest show I have ever seen, but I still very much enjoyed it. It was very much a show full of spectacles and circus acts, which was honestly one of my favorite parts of the show. All of the different acrobats and lifts, etc., were so cool to watch and really kept me engaged. It just shows the talent and amount of effort that these actors put into these crazy circus acts on stage. I also really enjoyed the property throughout the show. The elephant was just brilliant, and it brought Rosie to life. The puppets, overall, also just show the amount of practice and effort these actors put into it, because though you knew they were puppets, they could have been real. I do think that the plot was a bit scattered and not fully fleshed out. I like the plot and see where it was going, but the writing is just not my favorite. Overall, I do think this is a show to watch due to the visuals and not necessarily the story.
I certainly agree with the title “a feast for the senses” since I was amazed by the acrobats and the colorful palette chosen in the scenic and lighting design of this show. This is my first time seeing the Water for Elephants production here at the Benedum. I truly love how their circus actors accomplish their amazing movements and the fast-paced change of the set onstage; most of them were magical, I would say. Even though visually I was shocked by the designs, I still felt dissatisfied by their music and plot. The characters were so one-sided, and their dramatic relationships did not help establish a Great Depression time period setting. The songs were not memorable and moving enough to reach the high standards that the visual designers set for this show. So I felt like certain features of the show are not balanced, and they cannot be neglected by their positive side.
I just recently saw the tour of Water for Elephants in Pittsburgh and knowing that it stemmed from a playground piece at Carnegie Mellon University made me really excited because I thought that I would really love it. Sadly, I don't think I did. I really struggled to keep my attention span on the performance, which is something I don't typically struggle with, I am usually very engaged when watching a show however, this show did not engage me very well. I thought the music was good, but in relation to the plot, it kind of fell through. Also the visuals were very interesting, however, I guess I just expected more because it is about a circus so I thought there would be more circusy elements. I am curious to see how the show was on Broadway and how much changed when it went on tour because I know shows can't always take everything that they had when they were on Broadway but the tour was a bit disappointing. I'm also intrigued to see how this was performed as an original playground piece because I can't even imagine them doing this in that one week of playground.
I haven’t ever heard a single good thing about this show, and to be honest just the pictures I have seen lack a lot of quality from every element of the show. The only thing that really impresses me is the puppets and the acrobats, that’s really unique for this show and pushes the limits, sort of combining cirque and broadway into one. The rest of it is just bad, the lighting doesn’t impress me, 90% of the music is just them talking over music which just isn’t impressive, the sound design, especially the animal noises just sounds fake, and especially meeting the assistant sound designer, Angela Baughman, who made the animal noises, it’s apparently just either her making animal noises, going to the zoo recording it on their iphone, or finding free clips online, of course it’s not going to sound the best. It’s just not the spectacle it’s trying to be whatsoever, and had so much potential to be better, they just didn’t push it enough.
I haven't seen Water for Elephants, but I've heard so many things about this musical and about this novel, and I think that from the production photos I've seen in videos, this show looks very visually stunning and beautiful. However, the show gets a little more complicated because it's about a circus, and there are a lot of circus scenes happening on stage. This seems a little underwhelming because they're trying to create something on the stage that they cannot fully recreate because, as much as we would love to, and as cool as it would be, it's really hard to bring a full circus onto a Broadway stage. Anyways maybe this is my sign that I should see the show because there's a lot of conversation surrounding if it's good or if it's bad, so I think that my next step might have to be to see this show.
I really hope to see more performances like water for elephants in the future, not in terms of story but in terms of technical elements. The visual look of water for elephants is really fascinating, from the puppets, sets and the costumes, from what I’ve seen it’s really well designed, the aerial elements in water for elephants is what I hear people talk about the most and for good reason, it’s really impressive that a performance like this was able to be done for a play and from the clips that I’ve seen the movement is really exciting, I haven’t seen a lot of other plays in modern times doing what water for elephants is doing. I also like that this article is actually mentioning the story, whenever I read articles for water for elephants it’s usually always about the aerial choreography(I did seem to notice a consensus that people mainly came out of that experience not really taking note of the story)
To an extent building off of what others have said, I didn’t really enjoy this show. The show was just fine, and for a show that was clearly held up on Broadway and at the Alliance due to its technical spectacle in those contexts, the national tour really did not deliver. The music wasn’t bad per se, but I wouldn’t call it good either. It was certainly a series of notes in an order. Bradley King’s lighting design for the show felt to me like the strongest design element, with particular moments around the train and the kineticism within the design was successful in its attempt to bring the world of Water for Elephants to life. Unfortunately, I fear he may have stood alone, as the scenic elements left a lot to be desired when compared to other national tours such as Wicked or Hell’s Kitchen.
Post a Comment