To be fair Stephen used to workshop and edit his shows up until the very last minute. Without Stephen there through the whole process I have no doubt that it wasn’t a good thing…
Yes, I know someone who spoke about the first workshops when it was to be done at the Public--mostly of Act I (five or so years back.) They said that the team involved was not worried about Act II because they fully expected that Sondheim would write a lot of that during the preview phase while watching it come together (which of course once he separated from Prince--who would insist on having a fairly finalized show before previews--was how he worked, with Sunday having virtually no songs in Act II when the public workshop premiered, Into the Woods only getting songs in Act II during its first San Diego production as the three month run went on, etc.) I don't think Mantello and Ives are lying when they say Sondheim agreed to Act II having barely any songs--he seemed to have a lot of trouble writing Act II according to Frank Rich's article and I fully believe he agreed to this compromise late in his life--but it was not the original intention. (And if they stop singing when they realize they're "stuck" why don't they start singing at the end again when unstuck?)
Years ago I watched the two movies used as source materials. Walked out. Unbelievable. When I read that Sondheim was basing last show on the films I thought oh no.
It’s hard, because Sondheim was well-known for delivering key songs at the very last minute - to the point that he’s acknowledged that Hal Prince was often mad at him for allowing the former so little time to stage the numbers. Send in the Clowns, No One is Alone, Lesson #8 and Children & Art - all songs delivered either very late in the rehearsal process or, in some cases, while the show was in preview, out of town or off-Broadway. I feel this show would have had a stand out song had Mr. Sondheim not passed away. I don’t think critics should even review this - because it’s not really finished. It’s Sondheim’s Turandot or Requiem.
That's such a valuable point, thank you for sharing this! You'd have to imagine the final product with his consistent input would have been quite different.
Totally get your point... Although " It’s Sondheim’s Turandot or Requiem" confuses things because many consider those among Puccini and Mozart's best works, now.
Sondheim always stressed the importance of his collaborators, of course, and was happy to point out that often he would ask a bookwriter to write a scene he planned to musicalize, so he could "cannibalize" (his term!) the dialogue they wrote for his lyrics.@@Midlander83
I guess I'm a minority. I loved it. It makes perfect sense that the music is minimal in the 2nd act due to the structure of the material. No need to force music into a place that does not call for it.The material does not need to sing. I thought the music was wonderful in the first act- reminded me of Passion, which is my favorite Sondheim score. I saw Sweeney Thursday night, Merrily We Roll Along Friday night, and Here We Are on Saturday night. What more do I need?
I saw it (1-12-24) and also loved it! You simply have to go in w/o any any expectations or comparisons to other Sondheim shows, & simply view it as a new & unique work. Taken as it is, it's very entertaining.
I saw the show twice - loved it. I was there to see surrealism onstage and see the collaboration of Sondheim, Ives, Mantello, et al. I didn’t come in looking to hold it up to anything else. I came to see Here We Are. As such, I was not disappointed. That said, I think the familiar “content dictates form” axiom that governs the rest of the Sondheim library is at work here. (And certainly, a lengthy section of a musical without music was done long ago in the musical 1776.) I enjoyed the lack of song form throughout as I think it was a perfect fit for the style and a true match to the source material (at least Discreet Charm, as I have only seen that film). I actually had the opposite issue where I think the Ives book occasionally tries TOO hard to give us a moral, where I prefer the “choose your own” in this style. In general, I think assertions as to ‘what might have been’ only muddy the ability to take in what is (what Jones’s Marianne character might call superficial, “what they seem and not what they are.”) I struggled the same with complaints about the Daniel Fish revival of Oklahoma, about what Hammerstein “didn’t intend” when he died years before his art could speak on the issues the new revival made comment on. It’s impossible to compare anything to something that doesn’t exist - whether Hammerstein’s ability to approve a 2018 revival of his show or Sondheim’s further (possible) work on a show that was completed two years after his death. There may be some overblown reverence out there, certainly; but I also think there is room to objectively enjoy the show and believe it is a worthwhile piece. The one true irony I enjoy plays directly into your criticism of the state of commercial art: the high price of tickets (minus rush seats which made it affordable to me) makes this show most accessible to the rich and elite that will clamor the loudest to seem sophisticated after viewing it (maybe even the same set who howled down Sondheim’s riskier ventures from his lifetime) and are exactly those who are being lampooned within this piece. They’ll delight in the buffoonish behavior of their own mirror reflections while the rest of us debate the worth of the exercise in the first place. Maybe Sondheim is getting the last laugh after all…
Agree with all. I don’t know if the location was specifically chosen but it’s really interesting how theater itself and audience mirrors the play. That for me added to the surrealism of it all
I loved the venue and designs as well. I can’t imagine it working as well in a Broadway house. I saw it the first time from the fourth row on the aisle of the center section, and my second viewing was from the first row of the right section. Viewing elements of the action through the mirrors the second time gave me a completely different visual experience. I loved it.
I also saw it and thought exactly the same thing. It’s what it’s supposed to be and it’s fantastic. Laughed out loud several times. The show is complete, it’s more play than musical. It’s very different from everything he did before, which is true of everything he did.
Couldn't agree more. The audience is complicit. We're keeping them confined to the stage, the box, as much as the revolution. At the end, the characters/cast revolts. The last three seconds took my breath away and is a perfect return to, and echo of, the fourth wall break in act one. This isn't just meta for meta sake. It's a skewer to privilege and a critique of all of us and of the venue and of itself. We're all the problem.
I agree completely about the audience looking at itself. Is there some sort of irony in the fact that the first act is about a long, harrowing journey, and to even GET into the theater you have to navigate lines and 6 flights of escalators?? Hilarious
Thank you for your honesty! It had to have been hard knowing your admiration for Sondheim, your expectations, and other critics' reviews. Your thoughtful views and analysis of other reviews will help me see it with an open mind next month(also on the same day I see Merrily...). I look forward to reading comment by others who have seen it.
Just saw the show tonight, and I did end up really enjoying it! Definitely not masterpiece-level, but I had a great time. Honestly, the performances alone were enough to win me over (and I also have a bias to liking surrealist-type material as well, so that helps too, lol). I get why of course, but honestly, I think conversations + reviews that revolve around it being a "Sondheim work" does this show a disservice. Like you said, expectations should be properly set as to what the music's involvement and function is here: it is forgettable in any context other than being ancillary to what's happening in the plot. But as an overall work (and not as "Sondheim's final score"), it fits in well and works to create a better experience than without. But a lot of the reception (both positive and negative) is focusing too much on Sondheim, and not the show as a whole. Again, I get why, but it does seem a little silly. That said, I appreciate the video! (Though I will say the title kind of rubs me the wrong way; but maybe that's just me!)
This video sent me into an intellectual and almost philosophical tailspin about the nature of theatre criticism, Sondheim’s experimentation in theatre, death of the author (in this case literal) and how dissonant that all is in this situation. I feel like I need to draw out a mind map. Thanks for your thoughts- I’m thinking of writing a Substack article on this topic (not necessarily a review of the show, more a query) and will be sure to reference this. :)
It's one thing to not like a show...its another thing completly to claim every other reviewer is wrong about liking the show and is just hiding their opinions. You even admit yourself you came in with too high expectations and don't particularly enjoy surrealist theatre so that could easily explain why you had such a differing opinion. Just my thought tho :)
I think he justifies why he thinks that by pointing out that so many reviewers who supposedly loved the show can't seem to articulate what is actually good about it in their reviews. And that one reviewer who said that the "latte" line was one of Sondheim's cleverest bits of wordplay ever... That's just idiotic.
Show me on the doll where "Here We Are" hurt you. I thought it was the perfect final Sondheim musical - it's not 70's Sondheim or '90's Sondheim it's 2020's Sondheim and feels like the perfect end to his legacy.
MickeyJo, as I watched HERE WE ARE I was reminded that Sondheim often said that he wrote shows that HE wanted to see. Stephen delighted in puzzles and mysteries, hence his crafting this absurdist musical collage. There is genius about it, but overall HERE WE ARE is an unfinished experimental musical that is often intriguing -- but not always entertaining. Frankly, I liked the unsung Act 2 more than Act 1.
I saw it last night and quite enjoyed it. But I went in with managed expectations, particularly regarding the music of Sondheim. If I'm honest, I don't think Sondheim had done really great work since "Into the Woods." I'd also read that the music peters out early in Act 2, so I was there as much to see the concept of the play borne out as I was to hear new Sondheim. And in that respect, I think the play delivers. I thought combining the two Bunuel plots worked really well, and I thought the whole play had a lot to say about the meaning and absurdity of life. As you say, the performers and set (and the direction, I would add) are all first rate. I do think the marketing of the play as a Sondheim musical as well as the very high ticket prices have raised expectations -- understandably so. But judged on its own merits, I was pleasantly surprised.
NYT gave it a great review .. I think Mickey is showing his immaturity. He likes the predictable sequels and is out of his league when it comes to original art.
Let’s not forget most of Sondheim’s shows needed repeat viewing and listening before they were fully appreciated. Anyone finding their way to The Shed knew the backstory. Knew Sondheim was finally excited to see this show move forward after a reading with Nathan Lane and Bernadette Peters. Frank Rich’s article notes that Sondheim’s husband recounted Steve green lighting this concept of a song less second act. Yes he was not involved in the final preproduction or previews but he did spend years on the show. I was impressed that Sondheim entertained this genre and was very excited to see how he dealt with it. I thought the first act was brilliant. If I missed anything it would have been the connective music/songs that Sondheim is famous for. But the production, cast and staging made up for that. The staging of this show ranks pretty highly with some of the best musical stagings. The second act takes a darker turn and for my money is not surreal enough. It needed to be spectacular to top the first act and not make us miss the lack of songs. I would rate this above Road Show and Passion but that’s not the point. I am grateful to hear what Sondheim was last working on and to find him still at the top of his form. Who knows what future directors will do with this now that it’s been released into the world. To your point about “a”’song standing out. Should we start a list of successful musicals without stand out songs ie Gentleman’s Guide
Speaking on Sondheim and swearing , he also wanted swearing in the oringnal West Side Story , but it wasn’t allowed back then so he had to invent his own swear word “foggin” and also “krup you” instead of “Fuck You” at the end of Gee Officer Krupee
You’re entire review is based on the fact that you were not satisfied as it did not meet your expectations…. Which has nothing to do with the actual components of the show. I’m sorry to break it to you, but Steve wrote musicals not trying to please anyone. He was someone who took chances and wrote about real things. I’ll admit, the music is not like a traditional musical. But to say there is no notable songs is a complete lie. There are 2 very notable songs from the show- the waiters song at everything cafe, hilarious! And Marianne’s final song. Additionally, there were many “Sondheim” moments including wordplay, funny rhymes, and the music was totally Sondheim like. I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy your time at the show, but you should’ve just been there thankful and grateful you can experience any new Sondheim content.
I think I’d love this, based on your comments. I’m an even bigger Ives than Sondheim fan, and I love surrealism. Thanks for being honest instead of hedging your opinions. It helps your viewers know what to expect.
Definitely producing a glorious revival of Merrily is a better tribute than putting up a (musically) half finished work that he wasn't around to complete.
I met Stephen in 2001, and it was love at first site. We were together for the next 2 years, and that is the greatest gift life has given me. This new Merrily is so gratifying to me, knowing personally how happy he would be. We talked a lot about that show, which I was certain would emerge fully to the world when the world was ready . He did not like to be coddled, but he smiled when I said that. For me, “like it was” is its most poignant achingly beautiful moment, and of course so much more so now.
Saw "Here We Are" on Wednesday night, Nov 29, and LOVED it a lot ! Beautifully done, pertinent to our times (and perhaps to all times), and a fitting coda to an amazing life and artistic career. 😄
I saw it yesterday and thought that the production's greatest sin is that any way you slice it, is that it just isn't finished. There are holes in the second act where presumably there would have been songs had Sondheim lived to write them. But the pieces of it that are fully (or mostly) realized in the first act, are pretty wonderful.
I watch all your Broadway critiques & videos & always enjoy them. I saw HERE WE ARE tonight (Jan 12, 2024) and I loved it! I've never been a big fan of surreal or experimental films; I often find them too esoteric or self-consciously high-brow. But HERE WE ARE worked for me. I don't know if it was the unique setting & staging (in an event space often used for fashion shows & art installations), Joe Mantello's direction, or "the cast of can-you-top-this Broadway treasures," but I was left cheering. I don't think the show suffers from being unfinished. True there are no show-stoppers in the score. But what music there is works well in the context of the show & is well delivered by an unparalleled cast. I believe you went in with a set of expectations based on other Sondheim shows you've seen. If you went in viewing HERE WE ARE w/o those expectations, as simply a new & unique work, you would've enjoyed it more. I found it funny, engaging & very entertaining.
I really appreciate this review. If anyone would have been honest about this work it's Sondheim. He knew when something worked abd when it didn't. Even when people are genius it doesn't mean everything they do will be before.
I admit that as bizarre as the storylines were, I enjoyed laughing at and applauding the performances in the first act. I enjoyed Sondheim’s use of profanity much as in the way I enjoyed stealthily listening to older family members telling each other dirty jokes, thinking they were out of ear reach of “the kids”. One bizarre point was the 2 actors going about vacuuming and cleaning the mirrored set as we entered the theater at first made my think there’s a problem with the set being addressed last minute but when it opens on them it clicks that it was likely done due to a lack of a curtain and thus an alternative to them walking out onto an empty stage and beginning their pantomime. At times it felt like a sophisticated version of Saturday night live. At others, particularly in the second act, dragged on seemingly for the sake of reaching the conclusion. I wonder if perhaps the show would have benefited from just staging the 1st act alone? I will say my larger disappointment was not having the opportunity to run into you at the show (I wasn’t able to get a ticket for any of the performances until Wednesday night) having thoroughly enjoyed your reviews. I hope your first Ny adventure was as exciting as you hoped it would be.
I also saw it right before it opened (10/17). I have been to several staged readings and playwrights putting early versions of their works on their feet to see how it plays with a select audience, so I entered fully expecting that this was not a complete play that it might not be ready to unleash on the world. I didn't expect it be without problems. At first I thought the bare white stage was to give it a more workshopy feel. Like you, I also attended because I wanted to be able to say that I saw the original production of this work -- I got what I paid for. I enjoyed my night at the theatre and I am glad that I went. Was it earth-shattering, life-changing theatre - No. If the producers had thought it was, I am sure they would have cold opened onto Broadway and a thousand more tickets sold each night.
I LOVE Sondheim - but not as much as I love honesty. Thank you for your candour. We need this honesty - when we are overwhelmed by juke box musicals - which would never be made if money wasn't the driving factor - people adjust - we begin to call what isn't good good.
Based on your review/not review, I'm getting the same read on this as the film AI. The last production of someone critically acclaimed, in part put together by a long time collaborator hoping to deliver a final goodbye worthy of the deceased partner's acclaim. Ultimately, I come out with the same idea. No, we shouldn't say it's good if it's not (I haven't seen it so how would I know) but to an extent, it doesn't matter if it's critically good or not? Or not that it doesn't matter, but that it's probably not the most important thing to the people who created it. That's no disrespect to you, it's more, don't feel bad if you didn't like it because the people involved will kind of decide on a more personal level if they feel they did justice to the deceased.
Honestly, I am not surprised “Here We Are” is bad. Stephen Sondheim never finished composing it, before he died. Meaning, staging the show was nothing more than a cash grab. Something never sat right with me, ever since the World Premiere was announced. Not to mention, “Here We Are” was not met with positive response from the majority of the audience and critics. Do not feel bad, Mickey.
Before his death Sondheim had already talked to his godson, the fantastic composer Adam Guettel, and asked him to finish the show if he wasn’t able to. This ask came after the workshop had began, and the majority of the work was completed. The conversation around what the show is, and how much Sondheim’s work in the moments leading up to opening, is fair. But, the idea that this was merely a cash grab is unfair.
@@Thisismyusername227 he did a bit of polishing on incomplete numbers, but nobody involved really wanted to overhaul the script. Especially not Adam, who was mentored by Sondheim since he was a teenager. I think someone might be able to elevate the text in the future, because there is something really fascinating within the work. But, it’s just too soon for that.
I agree that this entire production happened too soon. it was def a cash grab to capitalize on the success of SS's death. I think if it were given more time in between AND they put a creative team that was not so beholden to upholding a legacy - rather than telling a great story in a great way- it would've become a hit @@mctheplaywright
I scoured the internet, but was unable to find any information about Adam Guettel having any involvement with Here We Are… would you mind providing a source that claims as such? Thanks.
I think the reviews were really fair. It's an enjoyable show, with moments of it being great, moments of it being meh, and it does feel unfinished in some ways. I would never say I hate it or it's bad though. I think that's a little ridiculous when there's a lot there that works.
How did you enjoy the cast album? As with most of Sondheim's shows, I hated it the first time I listened, but as I kept listening I fell in love with it!!
This is so interesting-I feel like I agree with most everything you said, but experienced the opposite effect. The fact that the show subverted all my expectations of what musical theater was or even could be thrilled me! As we left, I said to my husband: "How could Sondheim STILL surprise me so much, after all this time?" I'd always felt that the rhapsodical form of having music "illuminate" dialogue without ever becoming "song" (or even "number")-started in the bench scene in Carousel, flirted with in Sunday in the Park with George, and more seriously utilized in Passion-was an extremely powerful technique that had never been fully explored. I felt like the first act of Here We Are finally explored it fully-and I loved it. And then when the second act happened, I felt like, no mater how much you think there's nothing new under the sun for a musical to do to surprise you, well... here we are-a musical with no music, and in a way that makes perfect sense! As for the content, I could not make heads or tails of the first act until halfway through the second act-at which point it suddenly struck me that the first act had been about our constant, manic chase for whatever each of us loudly tries to convince ourselves that life is all about, and how we meet every failed attempt to find fulfillment with just more of the same mindless chasing, whereas the second act is about what we find when we’re forced to look at ourselves when all is quiet and we have nowhere to run. The whole experience has been haunting me for the last 24 hours (since I first saw the show), and it's helping me process aspects of my own life that I can't imagine having been able to access in any more linear ways... As for the music itself, I have to admit that my ear is unsophisticated enough that I’ve seldom appreciated Sondheim’s scores on first hearing. I’m eagerly waiting for a cast album to come out, and to seeing, after ten hearings or so, whether any of this new music will move me to tears the way so much of his other music does. All of that said, I really appreciated your (non-)review. For one thing, I think it’s really brave to be the one to say the emperor has no clothes. And, for another, in all honesty, you may very well be right. What you referred to as critics’ being “soft” with creators who have already proven themselves I tend to see more as a natural bias to approach the work of a time-tested creator with the assumption that “surely this MUST be on purpose, so what on earth could that purpose possibly be?” (Whereas in the case of newcomers, we are far quicker to assume that if we don’t get it right away, then the simplest explanation is that the work was flawed.) While I think this assumption is generally a good thing (and would be good to adopt in the case of newcomers, too!), it can certainly lead to the kind of “look how beautiful the emperor’s clothes are” phenomenon I think you’re describing. And I certainly know that I am not immune from being a victim of that mentality myself. It is not impossible that I am duping myself. But, then again… what would that really mean?
I absolutely loved this SO MUCH. It's the most original thing i've seen in forever. The performances, the direction, the themes, the lyrics, the music, but most importantly the book. I loved the David Ives of it all. Abstract surrealist theatre to me is perhaps the most exciting. I like the whole throw in all these random things and let the audience decide for themselves what it means to them. Everyone takes away something different which can say more about them than the writing. Having rich people being objectified by making them make sheep noises was brilliant. I was howling. Its an absolutely perfect show, and i hope it transfers and wins all the awards.
Thank you, Mickey. Always a pleasure listening to you. I saw the show last night. I both agree and disagree with you. I came in not expecting a sung--near through book musical. I arrived with an open heart and mind for a play with music, much sung in act 1, little sung in act 2. With that in mind, I loved act 1, a lovely delightful very funny romp in the spirit of the loopy Discreet Charm. Alas, act 2 does not work. Ives simply doesn't bring the elements together as imho he beautifully does in act 1. Act 2 has some strengths: Mantello brilliantly stages the pivotal physical obstacle, the inexplicable inability of the guests to leave and Sondheims's underscoring is superb in these moments. I agree with you fully that midway through the act is a lovely, poignant, hilarious and tender scene between Rachel Bay Jones and David Hyde Pierce, both wonderful. But the second act descends to triteness in its class struggle narrative. Unlike Act 1 vis a vis Discreet Charm, the equally loose adaptation in no way conveys the elegant, delicious froth and subtly surreal atmosphere of Exterminating Angel. You are right there is no standout musically and lyrically stand alone song but for me the score beautifully matches the material and its classic sources. The highlight is whenever Micaela Diamond's voice joins Jin Ha's in song. Wow. Alas, Ives's libretto gets the source material and matches it in tone but only in Act 1. The sets are outstanding. The cast sensational. I think this show could still pull through and be all it can be but Ives, whom I admire--like you I revere Venus in Furs (preemptive self edit: Fur)--would have to completely revamp act 2. I suggest he rewatches Exterminating Angel and begins again fresh. To be fair, I deal much better than you with abstraction and the surreal and can find the there there.
Thank you so much! Your reviews are wonderfully thought out and thorough. I was hoping this would be a fantastic show, given that it’s Sondheim. I really appreciate your honesty on all the shows you critique, even when it’d hard. I’ve been fortunate to see a number of shows on Broadway, but would love to see a show at the West End. Could you could give some guidance for Americans on what shows to look for, where to get tickets, best restaurants, etc and anything else you would suggest. I hope you had a great time in New York!
Some "Broadway shows" are on Broadway to increase their market value. "Title of Show" is a case in point. I saw it originally off-Broadway. It was a small intimate show. The show is too small to have been on Broadway--it looked awkward on a big Broadway stage. So, why did it go? To increase its viability to regional and school theaters.
There have been many one and two-person shows on Broadway that didn't feel "too small," but it's true that certain shows use Broadway as imprimatur to spur interest in regional productions.
@@roburbinati358 Absolutely. "The Year of Magical Thinking" was amazing, as was "Well." "A Behanding in Spokane" was another show that I found riveting with only 4 performers (with 99% just the 3 main characters.) So, there have been many wonderful shows that fit perfectly with a small cast. Also, there have been wonderful shows that were too intimate to be as effective on Broadway, as they were, or would have been, in a smaller venue. YMMV
Can't you just say it was not good "for you"? These ultimate declarations do no one any good. I thought the show was superb--perhaps a final masterpiece. It will take time for me to see where exactly I place it in Sondheim's oeuvre, but it was far from an artistic failure. And discounting ten years of work by Sondheim and Ives with one viewing and a gut reaction should give anyone a little pause. This is not a piece that should be reviewed like a road tour production of FROZEN. Isn't it possible you just didn't get it? Surrealism, Bunuel, decadence, and social critique take some thought. Do you Know why the bear is there in the second half? Or why Marianne's song in Act II is so important? Why Bobby Cannavale's character comes back to life? Why the seemingly redemptive conclusion for Marianne and the others is immediately undercut by explosions and a final blackout? I won't try to convince you of anything because your mind seems to be completely made up and your confidence in your own taste and judgment is final. Oh, well.
I don't think we realistically were expecting much with this show. As well documented, it wasn't finished and after Passion in 1994 we didn't have another until Bounce/Roadshow some years later so it was always unlikely to be compared to earlier works
Well I don’t know what people expected in a musical based in two of the most weird, surreal, odd movies by one of the founders of the surrealist movement: Buñuel. Ok is unfinished, but the material who is based is super dire, difficult, and wierd. I imagine that the most wierd scenes are not in the musical: the running hands or the goats walking in the house without any explanation. The bear is in the exterminator anger and the is not explanation. Other thing both films are very different in their themes, in very different place in Buñuel artistic journey: one in his Mexican exile and the other in his French period.
Even plenty of Tonys voters admitted, over the past 30 years, that “Passion” only won Best Musical, because they did not want to give it to Disney for “Beauty and the Beast”. As good as”Sunday in the Park with George” and “Into the Woods” are, they are still weaker than Sondheim’s work from “Sweeney Todd” and backwards.
@@EricMontreal22 Passion had some lovely music, but the book is the problem for me. I know Giorgio’s change of heart is explained, but it never rings true. Not that this is Sondheim’s fault!
Well it's somewhat Sondheim's fault since it was his obsession with the Italian movie of the original novel Fosca, called Passione D'Amore that made him want to musicalize it for over a decade (as you probably know Sweeney, Passion and Road Show were the only ones of his shows he instigated and had the initial ideas for.) I... disagree with you. I buy it, and I appreciate that Sondheim is uncompromising in his vision (Sondheim and Lapine I should say) but I know many people feel the same as you do, and I can accept that ;) @@Midlander83
Exactly this. And even before sometimes! Sir Paul McCartney wrote Yesterday, The Long and Winding Road and Let It Be. He also wrote Wonderful Christmastime. 😏
Thanks for doing this. I will be seeing it next month, but not expecting too much. Will see what I think. Does not seem like it will have a transfer to Broadway which is probably a good thing. I will actually be seeing Merrily later the same day in November. Have never been to a show there so am looking forward to seeing a show at the Shed. And to seeing what you guys thought of the venue if Aeron does a video. I Could tell it pained you to say this was a subpar part of Sondheim’s work. Are you sorry you saw it, or was it worth seeing his last show? Could also tell from reviews I read that most were trying to be nice regardless of what they actually saw.
I'm definitely not sorry I saw it, separated from its expectations it's still a very rich piece of theatre and now at least I can say I saw a Sondheim world premiere! The Theatre was so interesting as well, so much empty space in those corridors - Aeron will be sharing a vlog, yes!
What did you make of the last scene of the show? The characters are mid stage at that point and don't seem to be able to continue walking towards the light, while all these very loud explosions are going on outside. Are they trapped again?
I interpreted that as the group is no longer trapped, able to continue their lives, but they also have to remember that they have no escaped death and that it is still coming for them.
Agree to disagree. It IS good. It's not for everyone, but I'm sorry... a raging standing ovation is a show of success. A deep, dark story. A jewel. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this.
This was a great watch, even if just to get such a different opinion on the show. I will say I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the critics and audiences who liked it are essentially forcing themselves to like it because it's Sondheim, his last show, and they don't want to look like they didn't "get" it. (Though judging by the comments on the New York Times review, a lot of people agree with this take.) Sure, people are interested in it mostly due to Sondheim's involvement, and a lot of people like it due to that. But I also have no doubt they genuinely do like it--and if a lot of that is to try to piece together how it fits with past Sondheim works, etc, I think that's still more than fair. You don't outright say this, but I have read people asking if anyone would like it if it wasn't Sondheim. And I think that's irrelevant, frankly. Sondheim's importance has meant that even his minor pieces are worth examining and are works many fans can find joy in. I'm not sure I'm making *any* sense lol That said, Passion is one of my top three Sondheim shows, and I see it largely as a bookend of Sondheim's best work (25 years from Company to Passion--quite a run.) It was the last time Sondheim really seemed to be trying something new (with none of the songs having a proper tonal resolve until the very final chord) and I just find it perfect. But even many Sondheim fans disagree with me. Bounce/Road Show (and I like a lot more about Hal Prince's Bounce than Doyle's Road Show) is a nice coda, with a slight "Sondheim's greatest hits" type score. It's worthy but doesn't fit into his main canon to me. As for this show? I can't say yet, and I may very well agree with you. But I still insist it is a sticking point to me to insist that people who disagree with you are fooling themselves because they HAVE to like Sondheim's last show at all costs. (And I think it's a bit of a false narrative to act like Sondheim didn't have success in his younger years. Ignoring WSS and Gypsy, and the fact that Forum was a big success even if he didn't get much credit for it, Company made a tidy amount of money and absolutely put him on the map. A Little Night Music, despite not running for years and years, made even more and already he was getting all star tribute concerts in New York. Sweeney may not have made a profit till the tour, but it was sure talked about. Yes, it's relatively recent that he's become almost, maybe, *mainstream* outside of the musical theatre scene--I can remember as a teen in the 90s living here in Canada and becoming obsessed, even my friends at my theatre school mostly didn't know Sondheim, which would never be true now--but a lot of his shows had healthy original runs--and it's hard to compare with the recent Broadway revivals which have done spectacularly but are mostly shorter *limited* runs. Of course Sondheim himself sorta subscribed to this--he was always quick to point out that West Side Story wasn't a hit, except for a sort of cult following, until the movie became a phenomenon. Never mind that the original cast album charted well on Billboard, the original production turned a profit, had a hit tour, and then returned to Broadway to complete nearly 1000 performances, the London production was a blockbuster turning in MORE than 1000 performances, etc, etc...)
I fully respect your thoughts on the show and I want to say this in the most polite way I can but I admittedly can't help but feel a bit uncomfortable with the title and thumbnail? I can't quite explain why but it just rubs me the wrong way. Apologies if this offends.
It doesn't offend, don't worry - I appreciate you saying this, the challenge is always in condensing an extensive and nuanced talking point into a title and thumbnail that both summarises it while being attention grabbing.
1) I haven't seen it and I don't plan to. When I read Jesse Green's review, I saw exactly what you saw: Someone bending over backwards so hard to find something positive to say that it's a miracle he didn't rupture several vertebrae. Sondheim was a highly experienced artist with exceptionally well-honed theater instincts. If he didn't think the show was "finished" or "ready for primetime", THEN IT WASN'T. Everyone -- from his co-writer...to his producer...to the director -- has done him an immense disservice by plowing ahead both without him and in spite of him.
I don't know how there can be a debate about it being unfinished. There was essentially no singing in the last... 45?... minutes of the musical. Of course it's unfinished! (I know that they try to explain this away in the story with the non-functioning piano, but it should be noted that this is was not in the Buñuel film... I suspect it was developed to hide the gap.) Anyway, I loved hearing your thoughts on the show. I agree that it has many, many problems. I would call the biggest of them "Act 2." But I thought Act 1 was charming, full of Sondheim's indelible wit, and I enjoyed several flourishes throughout the show that called back to his more iconic works. Denis O'Hare's song was definitely a standout for me, though more as a fun patter song than as one of Sondheim's unforgettable ballads. Act 1 would get 5 stars from me. Act 2 perhaps 2 stars if I'm generous.
I saw it a little after you, and went in expecting something unfinished and at peace/looking forward to that. The ending especially felt like a placeholder for something that was meant to be written later. I went from heart eyes when Fritz first appeared to gradually building rage over the course of their character arc. There were certainly a lot of choices there. And when I was trying to relate what had impressed me, I ended up largely mentioning set design. From that point of view, moving it is hard to imagine.
I agree 100% with your reaction to this show. After loving Sondheim shows for 50+ years, I left this show with a deep sadness and awareness that in past cases, he would have been there repairing and fixing, bringing into focus what we need to connect with this odd material. As I left I was grieving his absence. In another way, the show is disrespectful to him because it is not finished.
Pretty close to my thoughts, however I didn't hate it. But I for sure was disappointed that it is not a full musical. Act II is just not a musical. No way in hell if Sondheim hadn't died would this have gone on as is. I disagree about the depiction of the hypocrisy of the daughter character, being socially irresponsible. The hypocrisy of entitled people as activists is real and valid to portray. The performance I saw Dennis O'hare was out so I saw the understudy, who looked like a taller version of him. Rachel Bay Jones was definitely my favorite performance.
You are saying We Are Are is the only Sondheim musical to not have a single memorable song, but it's likely the only Sondheim musical you've only heard the score to literally once. Of course it's not going to be as memorable as shows you've listened to the soundtrack to dozens of times. Now it's completely possible you'll feel the same way after hearing the music a few times, but in my experience Sondheim songs are usually complex enough that the first impression isn't the only impression.
Richard Rodgers himself said to Andrew Lloyd Webber: audiences thought "The King And I" was a weaker score than "South Pacific", when the show first opened, because they'd only just heard it.
There are many beautiful songs in HERE WE ARE, but like PASSION, they are not listed in the program, and many weave in and around the dialogue extensively. That said, (and I'm guessing at the titles) the entire opening sequence ("Perfect Day?"), "Sorry, Madame," "It's All The Same," "The End of the World," "Marianne," "I'm a Terrible Priest," and "Superficial" are lovely, as is the copious and beautifully orchestrated underscoring. Your point is well taken. It's way to early to make determinitive judgements on the music.
I vastly appreciate the bold honestly and intellect you bring to this commentary (I know better than to call it a "review," based on your ethical delineation). I was willing to, and wanted to, purchase a ticket to "Here We Are" at The Shed when they went on sale, but I had the sense, even then, that there was something fundamentally wrongheaded about the entire project. To be clear, if there's someone out there who reveres and truly loves the life work of Stephen Sondheim more than I do, I don't know who that would be. Maybe that's what caused me to hesitate and ultimately, to not buy a ticket. I would gladly shell out a handful of bucks to hear a cast recording, on the chance that there could be some hidden gems among the completed songs, but I'm not willing to risk the exorbitant cost of a ticket price to see a show that could in any way dishonor the oeuvre of such an extraordinary artist.
Mickey, I'd love a video where you talk about Passion, curious that you're not a fan. To me that was the one that's grown on me the most even though I didn't like it at first. Feels like a Douglas Sirk melodrama at its best (Whereas Assassins, for instance, I never really got, perhaps because I can't SEE it anywhere whereas Passion was broadcast)
Personally I think you're being a bit harsh on a musical we all know wasn't finished before Sondheim died. No it's not a masterpiece but it's something we can enjoy as it is, because we won't be getting anymore Sondheim musicals.
I’m rereading through Sondheim’s Lyric collection books, and there’s a quote where he talks about clarity that I think applies to this show, “If it’s only mysterious, it’s condescending and pretentious and soon monotonous.” I think this show is exactly that, too mysterious in both book and lyrics. While I found the music to be gorgeous and there were some clever lyrics everything just felt like it was trying to be too quirky and high minded. I will say the show mostly suffers from the second Act which probably would have been improved had sondheim still been alive so who knows what it could have looked like. I did truly enjoy the show though I wouldn’t say I hated it, but it just feels like it could be clearer.
"Having a good time at the theater is all about managing your expectations." So true and even truer today with so many theater goers--and especially critics (this is true of film today as well)--being so susceptible to the enormous PR and publicity machines telling you what's good--and what--and how--you should think. This is a wonderful rumination, though, and you do make this show sound very interesting.
Oh Mickey Jo, you've put me in a conundrum...I was going to splurge on tickets for this for Christmas but now I don't know if it's worth the nearly $300 I was going to spend. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece or anything, and I think I have a higher tolerance/enjoyment of surrealism then you may, but still...makes the decision a bit harder!
I think the fact that Sondheim recently died is more of a reason for the good reviews than his fame. For example, NYC critics had no problem tearing apart Bad Cinderella despite how many iconic musicals ALW has done. Also, I think some find it harder to criticize something super abstract because of the fear that people will come at them because they "just don't get it" 🤷♀️
21:42 Well, "withers wither with her" is far more clever and shorter than that. I love Sondheim's work, and frankly I wasn't expecting this musical to come out at all after his death. From what you described, I don't think it was ever intended for Bway, it was experimental. It also sounds like it needed more workshopping and maybe an out-of-town tryout or two (there's my age showing). I found Passion really the last great work of his, though I did enjoy "Bounce" (but not really "Road Show"). If there is a cast album (and considering the rush to put this show on, there probably will be) I will probably buy it and add to my collection, though it will (but I may be wrong) be the least listened to since "Road Show". If the team only had more time, maybe this would work better...Thank you for your review, as painful for you to do as it is for me to hear.
They didn’t change anything between previews and opening. That I can assure you. I also felt the same as you did: it didn’t make me happy. It made me cringe, quite frankly- at its worst it’s a mess and it’s not funny, it’s hokey and the jokes are dated. Worst of all the songs all blended into one big mush. Occasionally the songs were charming but they just don’t line up to what you want to expect from Sondheim. Even as a play on its own without music, it was kind of a jumble. I, too, was kind of surprised by the mainstream reviews. Unlike you, I really wasn’t expecting too much- I think they set the bar pretty low.
Well the two movies that the play is inspired are really surreal, and in very opposite time in Buñuel artistic journey, so I don’t know how they can blended. Both films had not a clear story, with very blurry endings, and never explained what happened.
Well, in a way the two films are kind of similar- as Sondheim said, one is about searching for a place to eat and the other about not being able to leave- but those are two different surrealist concepts and I think both films are masterpieces. While there are inherently comic elements to both films- especially Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie- Here We Are just smooshes them together and plays it all for very cheaplaughs.
There were minor changes. "Perfect Day" was reprised at the end of the show for the first Saturday preview, then was removed and the ending was restaged.
Hey MickeyJo- I always love your reviews but I really appreciated this one, as painful as it was for you to do. I saw the show last Friday, and I completely agree with everything you’ve said in this review. This show is a mess, with very little music, and in my opinion, depressing to watch. I have been a devoted Sondheim fan for 43 years, so I was beyond disappointed that this was the last work. I was baffled by the positive spin some of the critics have put on it, but I think they just can’t bring themselves to give the last Sondheim show a bad review. You spoke the truth. The show is a dud, and I don’t think there is any way it will move to Broadway. On the plus side, Merrily We Roll Along was brilliant. At least we have that.
I didnt quite realise until you listed off the cast what a great company it is, and with Mantello at the helm def seems it had good grounding. I feel the show you have seen was a first draft....unfortunately never to be cleaned up, editted and completed
Thank you for the honest review. You are on point that other reviewers seem to tred lightly as any harsh criticism might be Spitting on his grave. Disclaimer: I have not seen HERE WE ARE. I did see the 2 movies which it was based. Also not a fan of surrealism. Some red flags for me were noted in the Frank Rich piece that talked about the long process and the constant self admitted procrastination of Sondheim, self doubting from Sondheim, the admission that time ran out to write songs for act 2. I was nervous about the “surreal” musical being pulled off, but then again, I thought, who knows, if anyone can do it, why not Sondheim? It is true that Sondheim’s last great show was Assassins (1991). Many will point to Passion (1994) which I personally hated. It took another. 14 years for his next musical, Road Show (2008), and we know how that turned out…. So for his last show there was a 15 year gap. Just seems if it takes that long to write and develop a show (at least in Sondheim’s case) it may not turn out all that great. Micky, you mentioned that you were tired of seeing shows portraying leftist as hypocritical. Can you name some examples? I don’t see that at all in musicals. In fact, I see a lot of political preachiness and virtue signaling. If creators are calling out wealthy priviledged leftist, that would be refreshing especially with the prices of tickets that essentially have eliminated most of us the opportunity to attend a Broadway show.
It's a fabulously funny evening of David Ives, as well, and with underscoring it's more musical than not. You may want more but it also makes sense as is. Hope it goes to video.
There are some valid critiques, especially concerning the backward-looking nature of the whole production as opposed to nurturing new talent. However, I would say that you were probably not going to enjoy the show even if it was fully realized. The way that the music operates throughout the first act is wonderful because of the seamless union between book and score that Sondheim had more perfectly realized in Passion. It may be disappointing to not have any distinct songs in the show (is that even the case, though? I was humming afterward), but I'd have to ask, what is the virtue in having distinct songs anyway? Why can't music flow through the piece continuously without obvious stops and starts?
Maybe we can find a psychic medium who can ask Sondheim to finish it. It’s worth a shot. (Edit: In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m 100% joking about this. Well, maybe 99%).
There is an opera of The Exterminating Angel that is far more successful, by the sounds of it (although I have minor issues about that as well). Perhaps opera is better placed to incorporate surrealism? Fascinating. Thank you.
12:23 ".... who is complicit in trying to bring about the abstract end of the world which is, I guess, nigh." Now now, if Alan Jay Lerner can have his Dance A Little Closer, Stephen Sondheim should be allowed to have his Here We Are
I was hoping for another "Road Show." But this reminding me of "The Frogs." A book with more political commentary than character development and ornamental songs that make little impression on the first few listens.
It all serves to show how difficult it is to write a successful musical. Even finding the right subject matter is a mountain to climb. So, huge respect to anyone who has even written two or three! Sondheim is up there with the very greatest and I understand people being desperate for this to work, but honest reviews are important.
I don't think the reviews were dishonest. Each critic stated what they did and didn't like about the show. I think the final takeaway from most of them was that they liked it more than they disliked it Art is subjective, especially a work like this which I knew would be polarizing.
@@jr5599 I’m not saying the reviews were necessarily dishonest - I haven’t seen it and won’t get the chance to - just that I can understand how the esteem in which Sondheim is held *might* make it hard for critics to be objective, knowing it’s his last work.
In terms of surreal, one year the Tony's rejected Lightning Thief (a musical), but included "music" from the Harry Potter (a play), so maybe this was Sondheim's way of one final flipping the script moment by having art imitate life …
Knowing the extremely surreal characteristics of the source material is important here. They are two movies that are HARD to follow. When you go with certain expectations, and not that aware of the route the play will take, I can see how you feel very disappointed. Further, once one is confronted with the unmatched expectations, it is hard to enjoy the show and to see its value. Now add the fact that Sondheim’s work is incomplete which probably explains the lack of THE ONE iconic song. This doesn’t seem like a material to be for Broadway musical. Maybe with a limited run with star power and advertised as a musical play, emphasis on the PLAY.
No doubt the fact that Sondheim's death affevted the full vission of the show, as he was still writing it. But, as someone from Buñuel's country, he's certainly overrated and some of his movies barely stand any fine study. A combination of a weird story, difficult to understand, let alone, adapt to a different medium, and people trying to figure out what someone else's would have done, or had thought, is a recipe for disaster
To me, Sondheim and Ives succeeded in reinventing the musical theatre by making music and dialogue seamlessly co-operate in the first act (and well into the second). Different people also hear echoes from a diversity of shows - because they are all there, in a typically Sondheim way he imitates the musical scope from everything he ever composed - Saturday Night to Road Show. Paired with the wittiest book by far in several seasons. But act 2 might need a little cutting. - Someone has criticized along the way that we are not made aware what these rather unsympathetic people learn along the way from their experience; but we certainly are: they learn nothing.
I haven't seen the original Exterminating Angel film, but I've seen the Met Opera production for the 2017/18 season. Having that experience and then hearing you review the musical makes me want to quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park about stopping to think if they should.
Thank you for your honesty. I also don't particularly enjoy surreal / abstract, so glad I held off buying tickets,. Grateful Merrily is already in the diary... roll on December 😀
Too bad. I didn't care for Road Show either. It's sort of like coming up with those last Kander and Ebb musicals. some of which are okay, but not quite top drawer. Sondheim was a genius; and Merrily is a much better memorial.
Here is the issue... A new Sondheim show in 2023 even if he was still of this earth would probably not do particularly well in this climate. Sondheim outside of Into The Woods has never been commercial and even then Into The Woods has only become commercial because of school theatre. This doesn't mean that he was obviously successful and brilliant and that we aren't going to see incredible revivals and adaptions for centuries to come... We will. His shows are much more timeless than those of his teachers and also thought provoking in a way that is lacking in many musicals (note I said musicals). We see what audiences (sadly?) want with musical theatre. Outside of Sweeney Todd and Into The Woods... People under a certain age aren't even interested in his shows unless you put Daniel Radcliff in the show... They want Pop and hip hop musicals. If it sounds musical theatre or expects you to think then it upsets the mainstream theatre goer. I saw the North American tour of Company on Saturday (brilliant loved it). There were a group of women behind me complaining about how it felt very art film and not easy to understand while they also were praising Phantom for the remainder of the intermission. Long story short... This will probably flop. It will get some form of a UK or West Coast production that will do far better. It will succeed regionally and in black box style theatre (where most Sondheim shows tend to thrive). Theatre critics want Six, Mulan Rouge, and Wicked... And don't get me wrong I like/ love two out of three of those shows.
I agree with your assessment of the show. I saw it the day before its official opening, and was similarly disappointed. I have seen every Sondheim show (except Anyone Can Whistle), and have been delighted or moved by almost all of them. Given his pattern of creating new songs and rethinking others late in the tryout period , I am certain the score would have been quite different had he been involved in the full creative process. Your feeling about the plot is also perceptive. I thought the actors were wonderful, but the show needs much more if it were to transfer to Broadway.
I really liked the first act (the zany surrealism did hit for me!) but the second act really fell flat, and was even painful at times. I didn’t realize that each act is based on a different movie, but it makes sense because both acts were so tonally different.
I’m so mad at you for this video that I don’t know how long it will be until I can even look at your face. The show is so good and fascinating. Not totally finished, but that just adds to its mystery.
Oh no! Sorry to hear that, but you don't need to agree with everything I say on here. Glad you enjoyed, I look forward to a second opportunity to try and connect with this show, I went in with the wrong expectations.
@@MickeyJoTheatre I’m sorry. I was having a late-night musicals queen meltdown. I’ve been obsessively listening to the “Here We Are” original cast recording all week, getting more and more out of it, about to watch the Bunel films it’s based on and otherwise just wallowing in its beauty. Still, my rudeness wasn’t acceptable. Rumour has it that National Theatre might do it next year and broadcast to movie screens, and that is the dream I am currently living for.
I watched it a couple of weeks ago and honestly still haven’t formed at opinion on the show. Pretty sure that means I didn’t like it but I feel so no thought head empty about it rn
Critics are simply not going to criticize St. Stephen, whose really good shows can be counted on less than one hand. To be sure, there are wonderful moments in every Sondheim shows, but in my opinion, in connection with most of his shows, the sum of the parts don't equal the whole. No matter how many revivals they do trying to fix Pacific Overtures and Merrily We Roll Along, they will never be good shows. Ditto Assassins, Road Show, Bounce and Sunday In the Park, even Company which can't decide if it's about a gay repressed man or a straight man with intimacy problems. The first act of Into The Woods is brilliant, but the second act is a giant bore. Sweeney Todd and A Little Night Music are brilliant fully-realized works, and I admire Passion, but I can live without the rest.
The critics have bashed Sondhein a lot. Even at the height of his fame. Just go back and dig up the reviews. I think Assassins is an excellant show and gets more relevant with time. The same with Sunday in the Park. I agree with you though on Road Show/Bounce. In the end, it's all of matter of opinion. His shows are NOT for everyone and never have been or will be.
I too was expecting great things bc of your love of Sondheim. Something to buy the DVD to add to my collection, bc I have yet to see it and probably won't. A Sondheim musical without a song that you remember is ... Besides the plot isn't something that l gravitate towards. What I'm grieving is that you were so disappointed by the production and did Aeron agree with you?
So the cast album has dropped.. I really really like it I was expecting less The score is very self-referential, isn't it? Full of quotes and hints at his previous works - lots of Anyone Can Whistle and Merrily and Company in the first act...and constant refernce to Move and We Do Not Belong Together in act two. I wonder if we will get a staging here in London
Yes to all of this!!!! I was in NY this weekend and only had one night to see a show. Naturally I picked, as you di, the opportunity to see the world premiere of Sondheim's last show. Little did I know how utterly disappointed I would be. I have vented long and loudly about this since, and have managed to narrow my thoughts to this. If they tried for satire, they missed. If they wanted surreal, it felt forced. And so much of the writing felt lazy. (We have no dialogue so just have the actors repeat their lines, or stand quietly and looked puzzled). My review has been "I've seen bad fringe festival shows that were better than this.". Actually there was a better show done in Blaine, Missouri...but I digress. So, no, you are not alone. And I completely agree that good sets and acting does not mean it deserves to be called a good show.
I've been waiting to watch this until after I experienced the show for myself, and now that I have, I feel I have to respond. I will start by saying I did not love the show, although I didn't hate it. In some ways I'm still making up my mind and my jury is still out, but I'm currently leaning towards the negative. That being said, I do agree with a number of your criticisms, but what I absolutely and vehemently take exception to is your calling it "not good" and/or "bad" over and over again. I have seen plenty of bad shows, and this is NOT a bad show. Experimental, yes; incomplete in certain respects, absolutely; but by your own admission you don't care for surrealism, so you were already (possibly unknowingly) predisposed to not like the show before it even started given what it is. You also by your own admission went in with certain expectations of what you wanted the show to be and your expectations were not met, leading you, I believe, to take the show not for what it is, but for what you wanted it to be. As a parallel example, similar to your distaste for surrealism I don't care for serial music at all when it comes to classical music. Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern all leave me cold and often with a headache afterwards. Nevertheless. Do I enjoy "Wozzeck" or "Lulu"? No. Do I appreciate the skill and artistry it took to create them? Yes. They are not bad despite the fact that I personally hate them, and I think that's an important distinction to make. Perhaps this is coming down to semantics, and you're using "not good" and "bad" to equate with your personal dislike for the material (i.e. surrealism), but in doing so, you're essentially advising people that the show is not worth seeing. I get that's what critics are generally supposed to do, but I don't agree that the shortcomings of "Here We Are" add up to enough that the show deserves to be called "bad". Even mediocre Sondheim is better that some people's best. Perhaps a more fair assessment from you might have been the well-known quote, "This is the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing." For myself, I personally enjoyed the more comic surrealism of Act 1, although to be fair Act 1 is where the bulk of the music resides, so I have a bias there. The "Cafe Everything" sequence was probably my favorite part of the show. It strongly reminded me of both the Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch and the restaurant scene in "A New Brain", while the overall tone of Act 1 was very reminiscent of any number of things from Firesign Theater. I felt Act 2 was somewhat unfocused, but I enjoyed the exchange between Marianne and the Bishop in particular. To conclude, I don't know that you will ever read this since it's very much a wall of text and I'm definitely late to the party, but I hope that you do, and if you do, I hope that you'll consider some of my points. I usually enjoy your videos, but I couldn't let this one pass by without comment. Thanks, and have a Happy New Year!
Appreciate your thoughts very much here and you are of course correct. There was definitely a desire to counterbalance the critics whose reviews felt disingenuous in their praise, but it's also true that I had expectations on arrival. Re people acting on my criticisms, it always goes without saying that whatever expressed is my opinion and people can buy tickets as they see fit. And I concur re the highlights, especially the exchange in the second act, I just wish there was more music of real strength.
The Variety and NY Post critics are the only two prepared to speak the truth. The rest are clearly terrified to criticise Saint Stephen and resort to hagiography to full their column inches. In my view, by the way, the 'latte line' is lamentably lame.
To be fair Stephen used to workshop and edit his shows up until the very last minute. Without Stephen there through the whole process I have no doubt that it wasn’t a good thing…
An excellent point!
Yes, I know someone who spoke about the first workshops when it was to be done at the Public--mostly of Act I (five or so years back.) They said that the team involved was not worried about Act II because they fully expected that Sondheim would write a lot of that during the preview phase while watching it come together (which of course once he separated from Prince--who would insist on having a fairly finalized show before previews--was how he worked, with Sunday having virtually no songs in Act II when the public workshop premiered, Into the Woods only getting songs in Act II during its first San Diego production as the three month run went on, etc.) I don't think Mantello and Ives are lying when they say Sondheim agreed to Act II having barely any songs--he seemed to have a lot of trouble writing Act II according to Frank Rich's article and I fully believe he agreed to this compromise late in his life--but it was not the original intention. (And if they stop singing when they realize they're "stuck" why don't they start singing at the end again when unstuck?)
@@EricMontreal22 I embrace you fellow nerd. You have travelled long to get here.
Thanks! (I think ;) ) @@PhimbleG-d
Years ago I watched the two movies used as source materials. Walked out. Unbelievable. When I read that Sondheim was basing last show on the films I thought oh no.
It’s hard, because Sondheim was well-known for delivering key songs at the very last minute - to the point that he’s acknowledged that Hal Prince was often mad at him for allowing the former so little time to stage the numbers. Send in the Clowns, No One is Alone, Lesson #8 and Children & Art - all songs delivered either very late in the rehearsal process or, in some cases, while the show was in preview, out of town or off-Broadway. I feel this show would have had a stand out song had Mr. Sondheim not passed away.
I don’t think critics should even review this - because it’s not really finished. It’s Sondheim’s Turandot or Requiem.
That's such a valuable point, thank you for sharing this! You'd have to imagine the final product with his consistent input would have been quite different.
Totally get your point... Although " It’s Sondheim’s Turandot or Requiem" confuses things because many consider those among Puccini and Mozart's best works, now.
I had no idea about this! It shows what a collaborative process MT is. Thanks for sharing!
Sondheim always stressed the importance of his collaborators, of course, and was happy to point out that often he would ask a bookwriter to write a scene he planned to musicalize, so he could "cannibalize" (his term!) the dialogue they wrote for his lyrics.@@Midlander83
They are presenting the work as a finished show, so it has the right to be reviewed.
I guess I'm a minority. I loved it. It makes perfect sense that the music is minimal in the 2nd act due to the structure of the material. No need to force music into a place that does not call for it.The material does not need to sing. I thought the music was wonderful in the first act- reminded me of Passion, which is my favorite Sondheim score. I saw Sweeney Thursday night, Merrily We Roll Along Friday night, and Here We Are on Saturday night. What more do I need?
You need "The Frogs" at Master Voices/Jazz at Lincoln Center in November!
This is awesome. Full Sondheim weekend. Much love ❤️⚡️✌️
I had a great time, too!
I saw it (1-12-24) and also loved it! You simply have to go in w/o any any expectations or comparisons to other Sondheim shows, & simply view it as a new & unique work. Taken as it is, it's very entertaining.
@@RaymondNYC1 Not just that. It's a most welcome overhaul of the genre. Hope is that it will inspire the current and upcoming crop of writers.
I saw the show twice - loved it. I was there to see surrealism onstage and see the collaboration of Sondheim, Ives, Mantello, et al. I didn’t come in looking to hold it up to anything else. I came to see Here We Are. As such, I was not disappointed.
That said, I think the familiar “content dictates form” axiom that governs the rest of the Sondheim library is at work here. (And certainly, a lengthy section of a musical without music was done long ago in the musical 1776.) I enjoyed the lack of song form throughout as I think it was a perfect fit for the style and a true match to the source material (at least Discreet Charm, as I have only seen that film). I actually had the opposite issue where I think the Ives book occasionally tries TOO hard to give us a moral, where I prefer the “choose your own” in this style.
In general, I think assertions as to ‘what might have been’ only muddy the ability to take in what is (what Jones’s Marianne character might call superficial, “what they seem and not what they are.”) I struggled the same with complaints about the Daniel Fish revival of Oklahoma, about what Hammerstein “didn’t intend” when he died years before his art could speak on the issues the new revival made comment on. It’s impossible to compare anything to something that doesn’t exist - whether Hammerstein’s ability to approve a 2018 revival of his show or Sondheim’s further (possible) work on a show that was completed two years after his death.
There may be some overblown reverence out there, certainly; but I also think there is room to objectively enjoy the show and believe it is a worthwhile piece.
The one true irony I enjoy plays directly into your criticism of the state of commercial art: the high price of tickets (minus rush seats which made it affordable to me) makes this show most accessible to the rich and elite that will clamor the loudest to seem sophisticated after viewing it (maybe even the same set who howled down Sondheim’s riskier ventures from his lifetime) and are exactly those who are being lampooned within this piece. They’ll delight in the buffoonish behavior of their own mirror reflections while the rest of us debate the worth of the exercise in the first place.
Maybe Sondheim is getting the last laugh after all…
Agree with all.
I don’t know if the location was specifically chosen but it’s really interesting how theater itself and audience mirrors the play. That for me added to the surrealism of it all
I loved the venue and designs as well. I can’t imagine it working as well in a Broadway house. I saw it the first time from the fourth row on the aisle of the center section, and my second viewing was from the first row of the right section. Viewing elements of the action through the mirrors the second time gave me a completely different visual experience. I loved it.
I also saw it and thought exactly the same thing. It’s what it’s supposed to be and it’s fantastic. Laughed out loud several times. The show is complete, it’s more play than musical. It’s very different from everything he did before, which is true of everything he did.
Couldn't agree more. The audience is complicit. We're keeping them confined to the stage, the box, as much as the revolution. At the end, the characters/cast revolts. The last three seconds took my breath away and is a perfect return to, and echo of, the fourth wall break in act one. This isn't just meta for meta sake. It's a skewer to privilege and a critique of all of us and of the venue and of itself. We're all the problem.
I agree completely about the audience looking at itself. Is there some sort of irony in the fact that the first act is about a long, harrowing journey, and to even GET into the theater you have to navigate lines and 6 flights of escalators?? Hilarious
Thank you for your honesty! It had to have been hard knowing your admiration for Sondheim, your expectations, and other critics' reviews. Your thoughtful views and analysis of other reviews will help me see it with an open mind next month(also on the same day I see Merrily...). I look forward to reading comment by others who have seen it.
Very glad you're seeing it and looking forward to hearing what you think!
I’m also seeing two shows on the same day
Just saw the show tonight, and I did end up really enjoying it! Definitely not masterpiece-level, but I had a great time. Honestly, the performances alone were enough to win me over (and I also have a bias to liking surrealist-type material as well, so that helps too, lol).
I get why of course, but honestly, I think conversations + reviews that revolve around it being a "Sondheim work" does this show a disservice. Like you said, expectations should be properly set as to what the music's involvement and function is here: it is forgettable in any context other than being ancillary to what's happening in the plot. But as an overall work (and not as "Sondheim's final score"), it fits in well and works to create a better experience than without. But a lot of the reception (both positive and negative) is focusing too much on Sondheim, and not the show as a whole. Again, I get why, but it does seem a little silly.
That said, I appreciate the video! (Though I will say the title kind of rubs me the wrong way; but maybe that's just me!)
This video sent me into an intellectual and almost philosophical tailspin about the nature of theatre criticism, Sondheim’s experimentation in theatre, death of the author (in this case literal) and how dissonant that all is in this situation. I feel like I need to draw out a mind map. Thanks for your thoughts- I’m thinking of writing a Substack article on this topic (not necessarily a review of the show, more a query) and will be sure to reference this. :)
I'd be interested in those thoughts
It's one thing to not like a show...its another thing completly to claim every other reviewer is wrong about liking the show and is just hiding their opinions. You even admit yourself you came in with too high expectations and don't particularly enjoy surrealist theatre so that could easily explain why you had such a differing opinion.
Just my thought tho :)
Plus he admitted he had a hard time with Harold Pinter. Oh my god😂
I think he justifies why he thinks that by pointing out that so many reviewers who supposedly loved the show can't seem to articulate what is actually good about it in their reviews. And that one reviewer who said that the "latte" line was one of Sondheim's cleverest bits of wordplay ever... That's just idiotic.
Show me on the doll where "Here We Are" hurt you. I thought it was the perfect final Sondheim musical - it's not 70's Sondheim or '90's Sondheim it's 2020's Sondheim and feels like the perfect end to his legacy.
Right on your money! He reinvented FOR THE FOURTH TIME the American Musical Comedy.
MickeyJo, as I watched HERE WE ARE I was reminded that Sondheim often said that he wrote shows that HE wanted to see. Stephen delighted in puzzles and mysteries, hence his crafting this absurdist musical collage. There is genius about it, but overall HERE WE ARE is an unfinished experimental musical that is often intriguing -- but not always entertaining. Frankly, I liked the unsung Act 2 more than Act 1.
A very interesting and relevant anecdote! Likewise, I preferred act 2.
i would say it was always entertaining, if not always satisfying. (Though I did find it satisfying, all in all)
I saw it last night and quite enjoyed it. But I went in with managed expectations, particularly regarding the music of Sondheim. If I'm honest, I don't think Sondheim had done really great work since "Into the Woods." I'd also read that the music peters out early in Act 2, so I was there as much to see the concept of the play borne out as I was to hear new Sondheim. And in that respect, I think the play delivers. I thought combining the two Bunuel plots worked really well, and I thought the whole play had a lot to say about the meaning and absurdity of life. As you say, the performers and set (and the direction, I would add) are all first rate. I do think the marketing of the play as a Sondheim musical as well as the very high ticket prices have raised expectations -- understandably so. But judged on its own merits, I was pleasantly surprised.
NYT gave it a great review .. I think Mickey is showing his immaturity. He likes the predictable sequels and is out of his league when it comes to original art.
This is Assassins slander of the highest order
Let’s not forget most of Sondheim’s shows needed repeat viewing and listening before they were fully appreciated. Anyone finding their way to The Shed knew the backstory. Knew Sondheim was finally excited to see this show move forward after a reading with Nathan Lane and Bernadette Peters. Frank Rich’s article notes that Sondheim’s husband recounted Steve green lighting this concept of a song less second act. Yes he was not involved in the final preproduction or previews but he did spend years on the show. I was impressed that Sondheim entertained this genre and was very excited to see how he dealt with it. I thought the first act was brilliant. If I missed anything it would have been the connective music/songs that Sondheim is famous for. But the production, cast and staging made up for that. The staging of this show ranks pretty highly with some of the best musical stagings. The second act takes a darker turn and for my money is not surreal enough. It needed to be spectacular to top the first act and not make us miss the lack of songs. I would rate this above Road Show and Passion but that’s not the point. I am grateful to hear what Sondheim was last working on and to find him still at the top of his form. Who knows what future directors will do with this now that it’s been released into the world.
To your point about “a”’song standing out. Should we start a list of successful musicals without stand out songs ie Gentleman’s Guide
Speaking on Sondheim and swearing , he also wanted swearing in the oringnal West Side Story , but it wasn’t allowed back then so he had to invent his own swear word “foggin” and also “krup you” instead of “Fuck You” at the end of Gee Officer Krupee
the word was "buggin'," not "foggin;"
@@roburbinati358 my bad you’re right . But in Sondheims book on lyrics he metioned he wanted the F word there
And was overrulled by Bernstein, and he admitted later that was the correct call.
@@jaycee330 had the musical been written in 2023 I’m pretty sure he could had his F word
You’re entire review is based on the fact that you were not satisfied as it did not meet your expectations…. Which has nothing to do with the actual components of the show. I’m sorry to break it to you, but Steve wrote musicals not trying to please anyone. He was someone who took chances and wrote about real things.
I’ll admit, the music is not like a traditional musical. But to say there is no notable songs is a complete lie. There are 2 very notable songs from the show- the waiters song at everything cafe, hilarious! And Marianne’s final song.
Additionally, there were many “Sondheim” moments including wordplay, funny rhymes, and the music was totally Sondheim like.
I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy your time at the show, but you should’ve just been there thankful and grateful you can experience any new Sondheim content.
I think I’d love this, based on your comments. I’m an even bigger Ives than Sondheim fan, and I love surrealism. Thanks for being honest instead of hedging your opinions. It helps your viewers know what to expect.
I loved the show! Sondheim approved the version that is on right now. Please read the Frank Rich article.
Definitely producing a glorious revival of Merrily is a better tribute than putting up a (musically) half finished work that he wasn't around to complete.
So you've seen them both?
Ugly costumes as well
I met Stephen in 2001, and it was love at first site. We were together for the next 2 years, and that is the greatest gift life has given me. This new Merrily is so gratifying to me, knowing personally how happy he would be. We talked a lot about that show, which I was certain would emerge fully to the world when the world was ready . He did not like to be coddled, but he smiled when I said that. For me, “like it was” is its most poignant achingly beautiful moment, and of course so much more so now.
Saw "Here We Are" on Wednesday night, Nov 29, and LOVED it a lot ! Beautifully done, pertinent to our times (and perhaps to all times), and a fitting coda to an amazing life and artistic career. 😄
I saw it yesterday and thought that the production's greatest sin is that any way you slice it, is that it just isn't finished. There are holes in the second act where presumably there would have been songs had Sondheim lived to write them. But the pieces of it that are fully (or mostly) realized in the first act, are pretty wonderful.
I watch all your Broadway critiques & videos & always enjoy them. I saw HERE WE ARE tonight (Jan 12, 2024) and I loved it! I've never been a big fan of surreal or experimental films; I often find them too esoteric or self-consciously high-brow. But HERE WE ARE worked for me. I don't know if it was the unique setting & staging (in an event space often used for fashion shows & art installations), Joe Mantello's direction, or "the cast of can-you-top-this Broadway treasures," but I was left cheering. I don't think the show suffers from being unfinished. True there are no show-stoppers in the score. But what music there is works well in the context of the show & is well delivered by an unparalleled cast. I believe you went in with a set of expectations based on other Sondheim shows you've seen. If you went in viewing HERE WE ARE w/o those expectations, as simply a new & unique work, you would've enjoyed it more. I found it funny, engaging & very entertaining.
I really appreciate this review. If anyone would have been honest about this work it's Sondheim. He knew when something worked abd when it didn't. Even when people are genius it doesn't mean everything they do will be before.
I admit that as bizarre as the storylines were, I enjoyed laughing at and applauding the performances in the first act. I enjoyed Sondheim’s use of profanity much as in the way I enjoyed stealthily listening to older family members telling each other dirty jokes, thinking they were out of ear reach of “the kids”. One bizarre point was the 2 actors going about vacuuming and cleaning the mirrored set as we entered the theater at first made my think there’s a problem with the set being addressed last minute but when it opens on them it clicks that it was likely done due to a lack of a curtain and thus an alternative to them walking out onto an empty stage and beginning their pantomime. At times it felt like a sophisticated version of Saturday night live. At others, particularly in the second act, dragged on seemingly for the sake of reaching the conclusion. I wonder if perhaps the show would have benefited from just staging the 1st act alone? I will say my larger disappointment was not having the opportunity to run into you at the show (I wasn’t able to get a ticket for any of the performances until Wednesday night) having thoroughly enjoyed your reviews. I hope your first Ny adventure was as exciting as you hoped it would be.
I also saw it right before it opened (10/17). I have been to several staged readings and playwrights putting early versions of their works on their feet to see how it plays with a select audience, so I entered fully expecting that this was not a complete play that it might not be ready to unleash on the world. I didn't expect it be without problems. At first I thought the bare white stage was to give it a more workshopy feel. Like you, I also attended because I wanted to be able to say that I saw the original production of this work -- I got what I paid for. I enjoyed my night at the theatre and I am glad that I went. Was it earth-shattering, life-changing theatre - No. If the producers had thought it was, I am sure they would have cold opened onto Broadway and a thousand more tickets sold each night.
I LOVE Sondheim - but not as much as I love honesty. Thank you for your candour.
We need this honesty - when we are overwhelmed by juke box musicals - which would never be made if money wasn't the driving factor - people adjust - we begin to call what isn't good good.
You mean jukebox musicals like "Old Friends?"
Based on your review/not review, I'm getting the same read on this as the film AI. The last production of someone critically acclaimed, in part put together by a long time collaborator hoping to deliver a final goodbye worthy of the deceased partner's acclaim. Ultimately, I come out with the same idea. No, we shouldn't say it's good if it's not (I haven't seen it so how would I know) but to an extent, it doesn't matter if it's critically good or not? Or not that it doesn't matter, but that it's probably not the most important thing to the people who created it. That's no disrespect to you, it's more, don't feel bad if you didn't like it because the people involved will kind of decide on a more personal level if they feel they did justice to the deceased.
Honestly, I am not surprised “Here We Are” is bad. Stephen Sondheim never finished composing it, before he died. Meaning, staging the show was nothing more than a cash grab. Something never sat right with me, ever since the World Premiere was announced. Not to mention, “Here We Are” was not met with positive response from the majority of the audience and critics. Do not feel bad, Mickey.
Before his death Sondheim had already talked to his godson, the fantastic composer Adam Guettel, and asked him to finish the show if he wasn’t able to. This ask came after the workshop had began, and the majority of the work was completed.
The conversation around what the show is, and how much Sondheim’s work in the moments leading up to opening, is fair. But, the idea that this was merely a cash grab is unfair.
THIS is what they should've done..had Adam finish/re-tool the show. Adam is brilliant @@mctheplaywright
@@Thisismyusername227 he did a bit of polishing on incomplete numbers, but nobody involved really wanted to overhaul the script. Especially not Adam, who was mentored by Sondheim since he was a teenager.
I think someone might be able to elevate the text in the future, because there is something really fascinating within the work. But, it’s just too soon for that.
I agree that this entire production happened too soon. it was def a cash grab to capitalize on the success of SS's death. I think if it were given more time in between AND they put a creative team that was not so beholden to upholding a legacy - rather than telling a great story in a great way- it would've become a hit @@mctheplaywright
I scoured the internet, but was unable to find any information about Adam Guettel having any involvement with Here We Are… would you mind providing a source that claims as such? Thanks.
Thank you for your honesty. This is why we respect your opinion. Is there going to be an episode about location The Shed?
I think the reviews were really fair. It's an enjoyable show, with moments of it being great, moments of it being meh, and it does feel unfinished in some ways. I would never say I hate it or it's bad though. I think that's a little ridiculous when there's a lot there that works.
How did you enjoy the cast album? As with most of Sondheim's shows, I hated it the first time I listened, but as I kept listening I fell in love with it!!
This is so interesting-I feel like I agree with most everything you said, but experienced the opposite effect. The fact that the show subverted all my expectations of what musical theater was or even could be thrilled me! As we left, I said to my husband: "How could Sondheim STILL surprise me so much, after all this time?" I'd always felt that the rhapsodical form of having music "illuminate" dialogue without ever becoming "song" (or even "number")-started in the bench scene in Carousel, flirted with in Sunday in the Park with George, and more seriously utilized in Passion-was an extremely powerful technique that had never been fully explored. I felt like the first act of Here We Are finally explored it fully-and I loved it. And then when the second act happened, I felt like, no mater how much you think there's nothing new under the sun for a musical to do to surprise you, well... here we are-a musical with no music, and in a way that makes perfect sense! As for the content, I could not make heads or tails of the first act until halfway through the second act-at which point it suddenly struck me that the first act had been about our constant, manic chase for whatever each of us loudly tries to convince ourselves that life is all about, and how we meet every failed attempt to find fulfillment with just more of the same mindless chasing, whereas the second act is about what we find when we’re forced to look at ourselves when all is quiet and we have nowhere to run. The whole experience has been haunting me for the last 24 hours (since I first saw the show), and it's helping me process aspects of my own life that I can't imagine having been able to access in any more linear ways...
As for the music itself, I have to admit that my ear is unsophisticated enough that I’ve seldom appreciated Sondheim’s scores on first hearing. I’m eagerly waiting for a cast album to come out, and to seeing, after ten hearings or so, whether any of this new music will move me to tears the way so much of his other music does.
All of that said, I really appreciated your (non-)review. For one thing, I think it’s really brave to be the one to say the emperor has no clothes. And, for another, in all honesty, you may very well be right. What you referred to as critics’ being “soft” with creators who have already proven themselves I tend to see more as a natural bias to approach the work of a time-tested creator with the assumption that “surely this MUST be on purpose, so what on earth could that purpose possibly be?” (Whereas in the case of newcomers, we are far quicker to assume that if we don’t get it right away, then the simplest explanation is that the work was flawed.) While I think this assumption is generally a good thing (and would be good to adopt in the case of newcomers, too!), it can certainly lead to the kind of “look how beautiful the emperor’s clothes are” phenomenon I think you’re describing. And I certainly know that I am not immune from being a victim of that mentality myself. It is not impossible that I am duping myself. But, then again… what would that really mean?
I absolutely loved this SO MUCH. It's the most original thing i've seen in forever. The performances, the direction, the themes, the lyrics, the music, but most importantly the book. I loved the David Ives of it all. Abstract surrealist theatre to me is perhaps the most exciting. I like the whole throw in all these random things and let the audience decide for themselves what it means to them. Everyone takes away something different which can say more about them than the writing. Having rich people being objectified by making them make sheep noises was brilliant. I was howling. Its an absolutely perfect show, and i hope it transfers and wins all the awards.
I completely agree; but it does have this layer of quotes from all of Sondheim's shows, which intrigues me even more. 😀
Thank you, Mickey. Always a pleasure listening to you.
I saw the show last night. I both agree and disagree with you. I came in not expecting a sung--near through book musical. I arrived with an open heart and mind for a play with music, much sung in act 1, little sung in act 2. With that in mind, I loved act 1, a lovely delightful very funny romp in the spirit of the loopy Discreet Charm. Alas, act 2 does not work. Ives simply doesn't bring the elements together as imho he beautifully does in act 1. Act 2 has some strengths: Mantello brilliantly stages the pivotal physical obstacle, the inexplicable inability of the guests to leave and Sondheims's underscoring is superb in these moments. I agree with you fully that midway through the act is a lovely, poignant, hilarious and tender scene between Rachel Bay Jones and David Hyde Pierce, both wonderful. But the second act descends to triteness in its class struggle narrative. Unlike Act 1 vis a vis Discreet Charm, the equally loose adaptation in no way conveys the elegant, delicious froth and subtly surreal atmosphere of Exterminating Angel.
You are right there is no standout musically and lyrically stand alone song but for me the score beautifully matches the material and its classic sources. The highlight is whenever Micaela Diamond's voice joins Jin Ha's in song. Wow. Alas, Ives's libretto gets the source material and matches it in tone but only in Act 1.
The sets are outstanding. The cast sensational.
I think this show could still pull through and be all it can be but Ives, whom I admire--like you I revere Venus in Furs (preemptive self edit: Fur)--would have to completely revamp act 2. I suggest he rewatches Exterminating Angel and begins again fresh.
To be fair, I deal much better than you with abstraction and the surreal and can find the there there.
Thank you so much! Your reviews are wonderfully thought out and thorough. I was hoping this would be a fantastic show, given that it’s Sondheim. I really appreciate your honesty on all the shows you critique, even when it’d hard. I’ve been fortunate to see a number of shows on Broadway, but would love to see a show at the West End. Could you could give some guidance for Americans on what shows to look for, where to get tickets, best restaurants, etc and anything else you would suggest. I hope you had a great time in New York!
Some "Broadway shows" are on Broadway to increase their market value. "Title of Show" is a case in point. I saw it originally off-Broadway. It was a small intimate show. The show is too small to have been on Broadway--it looked awkward on a big Broadway stage. So, why did it go? To increase its viability to regional and school theaters.
A very interesting point!
There have been many one and two-person shows on Broadway that didn't feel "too small," but it's true that certain shows use Broadway as imprimatur to spur interest in regional productions.
@@roburbinati358 Absolutely. "The Year of Magical Thinking" was amazing, as was "Well." "A Behanding in Spokane" was another show that I found riveting with only 4 performers (with 99% just the 3 main characters.) So, there have been many wonderful shows that fit perfectly with a small cast. Also, there have been wonderful shows that were too intimate to be as effective on Broadway, as they were, or would have been, in a smaller venue. YMMV
Can't you just say it was not good "for you"? These ultimate declarations do no one any good. I thought the show was superb--perhaps a final masterpiece. It will take time for me to see where exactly I place it in Sondheim's oeuvre, but it was far from an artistic failure. And discounting ten years of work by Sondheim and Ives with one viewing and a gut reaction should give anyone a little pause. This is not a piece that should be reviewed like a road tour production of FROZEN. Isn't it possible you just didn't get it? Surrealism, Bunuel, decadence, and social critique take some thought. Do you Know why the bear is there in the second half? Or why Marianne's song in Act II is so important? Why Bobby Cannavale's character comes back to life? Why the seemingly redemptive conclusion for Marianne and the others is immediately undercut by explosions and a final blackout? I won't try to convince you of anything because your mind seems to be completely made up and your confidence in your own taste and judgment is final. Oh, well.
I don't think we realistically were expecting much with this show. As well documented, it wasn't finished and after Passion in 1994 we didn't have another until Bounce/Roadshow some years later so it was always unlikely to be compared to earlier works
Well I don’t know what people expected in a musical based in two of the most weird, surreal, odd movies by one of the founders of the surrealist movement: Buñuel. Ok is unfinished, but the material who is based is super dire, difficult, and wierd. I imagine that the most wierd scenes are not in the musical: the running hands or the goats walking in the house without any explanation. The bear is in the exterminator anger and the is not explanation. Other thing both films are very different in their themes, in very different place in Buñuel artistic journey: one in his Mexican exile and the other in his French period.
Spoiler: There's a sheep and a bear
It's droll that you don't feel comfortable delivering a Sondheim pan when that's all critics have been giving him since Passion. 😅
Even plenty of Tonys voters admitted, over the past 30 years, that “Passion” only won Best Musical, because they did not want to give it to Disney for “Beauty and the Beast”. As good as”Sunday in the Park with George” and “Into the Woods” are, they are still weaker than Sondheim’s work from “Sweeney Todd” and backwards.
And yet I think Passion is his last masterwork. To each their own (I know even among Sondheim fans that's not a popular opinion.) @@ChienaAvtzon
@@ChienaAvtzonPassion is beautiful though. It's not for everyone for sure, but it's great.
@@EricMontreal22 Passion had some lovely music, but the book is the problem for me. I know Giorgio’s change of heart is explained, but it never rings true. Not that this is Sondheim’s fault!
Well it's somewhat Sondheim's fault since it was his obsession with the Italian movie of the original novel Fosca, called Passione D'Amore that made him want to musicalize it for over a decade (as you probably know Sweeney, Passion and Road Show were the only ones of his shows he instigated and had the initial ideas for.)
I... disagree with you. I buy it, and I appreciate that Sondheim is uncompromising in his vision (Sondheim and Lapine I should say) but I know many people feel the same as you do, and I can accept that ;) @@Midlander83
It's odd that once someone prominent passes, we revere all their works as golden. Even the largest names in entertainment have duds.
Exactly this. And even before sometimes! Sir Paul McCartney wrote Yesterday, The Long and Winding Road and Let It Be. He also wrote Wonderful Christmastime. 😏
Have you seen it? You probably should before calling it a "dud."
Thanks for doing this. I will be seeing it next month, but not expecting too much. Will see what I think. Does not seem like it will have a transfer to Broadway which is probably a good thing. I will actually be seeing Merrily later the same day in November.
Have never been to a show there so am looking forward to seeing a show at the Shed. And to seeing what you guys thought of the venue if Aeron does a video.
I Could tell it pained you to say this was a subpar part of Sondheim’s work.
Are you sorry you saw it, or was it worth seeing his last show?
Could also tell from reviews I read that most were trying to be nice regardless of what they actually saw.
I'm definitely not sorry I saw it, separated from its expectations it's still a very rich piece of theatre and now at least I can say I saw a Sondheim world premiere!
The Theatre was so interesting as well, so much empty space in those corridors - Aeron will be sharing a vlog, yes!
What did you make of the last scene of the show? The characters are mid stage at that point and don't seem to be able to continue walking towards the light, while all these very loud explosions are going on outside. Are they trapped again?
I interpreted that as the group is no longer trapped, able to continue their lives, but they also have to remember that they have no escaped death and that it is still coming for them.
Agree to disagree. It IS good. It's not for everyone, but I'm sorry... a raging standing ovation is a show of success. A deep, dark story. A jewel. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this.
No need to apologise, everyone's entitled to an opinion!
I wish I could remember the last show I saw that didn't get a standing ovation.
This was a great watch, even if just to get such a different opinion on the show. I will say I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the critics and audiences who liked it are essentially forcing themselves to like it because it's Sondheim, his last show, and they don't want to look like they didn't "get" it. (Though judging by the comments on the New York Times review, a lot of people agree with this take.) Sure, people are interested in it mostly due to Sondheim's involvement, and a lot of people like it due to that. But I also have no doubt they genuinely do like it--and if a lot of that is to try to piece together how it fits with past Sondheim works, etc, I think that's still more than fair.
You don't outright say this, but I have read people asking if anyone would like it if it wasn't Sondheim. And I think that's irrelevant, frankly. Sondheim's importance has meant that even his minor pieces are worth examining and are works many fans can find joy in. I'm not sure I'm making *any* sense lol
That said, Passion is one of my top three Sondheim shows, and I see it largely as a bookend of Sondheim's best work (25 years from Company to Passion--quite a run.) It was the last time Sondheim really seemed to be trying something new (with none of the songs having a proper tonal resolve until the very final chord) and I just find it perfect. But even many Sondheim fans disagree with me. Bounce/Road Show (and I like a lot more about Hal Prince's Bounce than Doyle's Road Show) is a nice coda, with a slight "Sondheim's greatest hits" type score. It's worthy but doesn't fit into his main canon to me. As for this show? I can't say yet, and I may very well agree with you. But I still insist it is a sticking point to me to insist that people who disagree with you are fooling themselves because they HAVE to like Sondheim's last show at all costs.
(And I think it's a bit of a false narrative to act like Sondheim didn't have success in his younger years. Ignoring WSS and Gypsy, and the fact that Forum was a big success even if he didn't get much credit for it, Company made a tidy amount of money and absolutely put him on the map. A Little Night Music, despite not running for years and years, made even more and already he was getting all star tribute concerts in New York. Sweeney may not have made a profit till the tour, but it was sure talked about. Yes, it's relatively recent that he's become almost, maybe, *mainstream* outside of the musical theatre scene--I can remember as a teen in the 90s living here in Canada and becoming obsessed, even my friends at my theatre school mostly didn't know Sondheim, which would never be true now--but a lot of his shows had healthy original runs--and it's hard to compare with the recent Broadway revivals which have done spectacularly but are mostly shorter *limited* runs.
Of course Sondheim himself sorta subscribed to this--he was always quick to point out that West Side Story wasn't a hit, except for a sort of cult following, until the movie became a phenomenon. Never mind that the original cast album charted well on Billboard, the original production turned a profit, had a hit tour, and then returned to Broadway to complete nearly 1000 performances, the London production was a blockbuster turning in MORE than 1000 performances, etc, etc...)
I fully respect your thoughts on the show and I want to say this in the most polite way I can but I admittedly can't help but feel a bit uncomfortable with the title and thumbnail? I can't quite explain why but it just rubs me the wrong way. Apologies if this offends.
It doesn't offend, don't worry - I appreciate you saying this, the challenge is always in condensing an extensive and nuanced talking point into a title and thumbnail that both summarises it while being attention grabbing.
Gosh, I want to hug you! I can *feel* how hard it was to put this together.
1) I haven't seen it and I don't plan to. When I read Jesse Green's review, I saw exactly what you saw: Someone bending over backwards so hard to find something positive to say that it's a miracle he didn't rupture several vertebrae.
Sondheim was a highly experienced artist with exceptionally well-honed theater instincts. If he didn't think the show was "finished" or "ready for primetime", THEN IT WASN'T. Everyone -- from his co-writer...to his producer...to the director -- has done him an immense disservice by plowing ahead both without him and in spite of him.
shut up
That moment of “I don’t need to read in between the lines” is at the end of the second act, not first.
I don't know how there can be a debate about it being unfinished. There was essentially no singing in the last... 45?... minutes of the musical. Of course it's unfinished! (I know that they try to explain this away in the story with the non-functioning piano, but it should be noted that this is was not in the Buñuel film... I suspect it was developed to hide the gap.) Anyway, I loved hearing your thoughts on the show. I agree that it has many, many problems. I would call the biggest of them "Act 2." But I thought Act 1 was charming, full of Sondheim's indelible wit, and I enjoyed several flourishes throughout the show that called back to his more iconic works. Denis O'Hare's song was definitely a standout for me, though more as a fun patter song than as one of Sondheim's unforgettable ballads. Act 1 would get 5 stars from me. Act 2 perhaps 2 stars if I'm generous.
I saw it a little after you, and went in expecting something unfinished and at peace/looking forward to that. The ending especially felt like a placeholder for something that was meant to be written later.
I went from heart eyes when Fritz first appeared to gradually building rage over the course of their character arc. There were certainly a lot of choices there.
And when I was trying to relate what had impressed me, I ended up largely mentioning set design. From that point of view, moving it is hard to imagine.
I agree 100% with your reaction to this show. After loving Sondheim shows for 50+ years, I left this show with a deep sadness and awareness that in past cases, he would have been there repairing and fixing, bringing into focus what we need to connect with this odd material. As I left I was grieving his absence.
In another way, the show is disrespectful to him because it is not finished.
He wanted it produced
Pretty close to my thoughts, however I didn't hate it. But I for sure was disappointed that it is not a full musical. Act II is just not a musical. No way in hell if Sondheim hadn't died would this have gone on as is.
I disagree about the depiction of the hypocrisy of the daughter character, being socially irresponsible. The hypocrisy of entitled people as activists is real and valid to portray.
The performance I saw Dennis O'hare was out so I saw the understudy, who looked like a taller version of him.
Rachel Bay Jones was definitely my favorite performance.
You are saying We Are Are is the only Sondheim musical to not have a single memorable song, but it's likely the only Sondheim musical you've only heard the score to literally once. Of course it's not going to be as memorable as shows you've listened to the soundtrack to dozens of times. Now it's completely possible you'll feel the same way after hearing the music a few times, but in my experience Sondheim songs are usually complex enough that the first impression isn't the only impression.
Richard Rodgers himself said to Andrew Lloyd Webber: audiences thought "The King And I" was a weaker score than "South Pacific", when the show first opened, because they'd only just heard it.
There are many beautiful songs in HERE WE ARE, but like PASSION, they are not listed in the program, and many weave in and around the dialogue extensively. That said, (and I'm guessing at the titles) the entire opening sequence ("Perfect Day?"), "Sorry, Madame," "It's All The Same," "The End of the World," "Marianne," "I'm a Terrible Priest," and "Superficial" are lovely, as is the copious and beautifully orchestrated underscoring. Your point is well taken. It's way to early to make determinitive judgements on the music.
Shame you found it disappointing, but still pretty cool to be there for a piece of theatre history, especially if it gets no life past this run.
Oh for sure! I wouldn't have missed it.
Also to be fair to the first Merrily audience I’m not sure Hal Prince got that show ethier
I vastly appreciate the bold honestly and intellect you bring to this commentary (I know better than to call it a "review," based on your ethical delineation). I was willing to, and wanted to, purchase a ticket to "Here We Are" at The Shed when they went on sale, but I had the sense, even then, that there was something fundamentally wrongheaded about the entire project. To be clear, if there's someone out there who reveres and truly loves the life work of Stephen Sondheim more than I do, I don't know who that would be. Maybe that's what caused me to hesitate and ultimately, to not buy a ticket. I would gladly shell out a handful of bucks to hear a cast recording, on the chance that there could be some hidden gems among the completed songs, but I'm not willing to risk the exorbitant cost of a ticket price to see a show that could in any way dishonor the oeuvre of such an extraordinary artist.
Your loss
Mickey, I'd love a video where you talk about Passion, curious that you're not a fan. To me that was the one that's grown on me the most even though I didn't like it at first. Feels like a Douglas Sirk melodrama at its best
(Whereas Assassins, for instance, I never really got, perhaps because I can't SEE it anywhere whereas Passion was broadcast)
I love Sondheim, but Passion *and* Assassins are probably my two least favorite Sondheim musicals.
Personally I think you're being a bit harsh on a musical we all know wasn't finished before Sondheim died. No it's not a masterpiece but it's something we can enjoy as it is, because we won't be getting anymore Sondheim musicals.
Genuine question - do you think that response is what he would have wanted?
I’m rereading through Sondheim’s Lyric collection books, and there’s a quote where he talks about clarity that I think applies to this show, “If it’s only mysterious, it’s condescending and pretentious and soon monotonous.” I think this show is exactly that, too mysterious in both book and lyrics. While I found the music to be gorgeous and there were some clever lyrics everything just felt like it was trying to be too quirky and high minded. I will say the show mostly suffers from the second Act which probably would have been improved had sondheim still been alive so who knows what it could have looked like. I did truly enjoy the show though I wouldn’t say I hated it, but it just feels like it could be clearer.
"Having a good time at the theater is all about managing your expectations." So true and even truer today with so many theater goers--and especially critics (this is true of film today as well)--being so susceptible to the enormous PR and publicity machines telling you what's good--and what--and how--you should think. This is a wonderful rumination, though, and you do make this show sound very interesting.
Oh Mickey Jo, you've put me in a conundrum...I was going to splurge on tickets for this for Christmas but now I don't know if it's worth the nearly $300 I was going to spend. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece or anything, and I think I have a higher tolerance/enjoyment of surrealism then you may, but still...makes the decision a bit harder!
See it
See it. It's delightfully bizarre.
I think the fact that Sondheim recently died is more of a reason for the good reviews than his fame. For example, NYC critics had no problem tearing apart Bad Cinderella despite how many iconic musicals ALW has done. Also, I think some find it harder to criticize something super abstract because of the fear that people will come at them because they "just don't get it" 🤷♀️
So you've seen it?
21:42 Well, "withers wither with her" is far more clever and shorter than that. I love Sondheim's work, and frankly I wasn't expecting this musical to come out at all after his death. From what you described, I don't think it was ever intended for Bway, it was experimental. It also sounds like it needed more workshopping and maybe an out-of-town tryout or two (there's my age showing). I found Passion really the last great work of his, though I did enjoy "Bounce" (but not really "Road Show"). If there is a cast album (and considering the rush to put this show on, there probably will be) I will probably buy it and add to my collection, though it will (but I may be wrong) be the least listened to since "Road Show". If the team only had more time, maybe this would work better...Thank you for your review, as painful for you to do as it is for me to hear.
They didn’t change anything between previews and opening. That I can assure you. I also felt the same as you did: it didn’t make me happy. It made me cringe, quite frankly- at its worst it’s a mess and it’s not funny, it’s hokey and the jokes are dated. Worst of all the songs all blended into one big mush. Occasionally the songs were charming but they just don’t line up to what you want to expect from Sondheim. Even as a play on its own without music, it was kind of a jumble.
I, too, was kind of surprised by the mainstream reviews. Unlike you, I really wasn’t expecting too much- I think they set the bar pretty low.
Well the two movies that the play is inspired are really surreal, and in very opposite time in Buñuel artistic journey, so I don’t know how they can blended. Both films had not a clear story, with very blurry endings, and never explained what happened.
Well, in a way the two films are kind of similar- as Sondheim said, one is about searching for a place to eat and the other about not being able to leave- but those are two different surrealist concepts and I think both films are masterpieces. While there are inherently comic elements to both films- especially Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie- Here We Are just smooshes them together and plays it all for very cheaplaughs.
@@LionWriter1012 yes I don’t thing they really function for a broadway sondheim musical, I think even the opera lose so much from the movie.
There were minor changes. "Perfect Day" was reprised at the end of the show for the first Saturday preview, then was removed and the ending was restaged.
Hey MickeyJo- I always love your reviews but I really appreciated this one, as painful as it was for you to do.
I saw the show last Friday, and I completely agree with everything you’ve said in this review. This show is a mess, with very little music, and in my opinion, depressing to watch.
I have been a devoted Sondheim fan for 43 years, so I was beyond disappointed that this was the last work.
I was baffled by the positive spin some of the critics have put on it, but I think they just can’t bring themselves to give the last Sondheim show a bad review.
You spoke the truth.
The show is a dud, and I don’t think there is any way it will move to Broadway.
On the plus side, Merrily We Roll Along was brilliant.
At least we have that.
I didnt quite realise until you listed off the cast what a great company it is, and with Mantello at the helm def seems it had good grounding. I feel the show you have seen was a first draft....unfortunately never to be cleaned up, editted and completed
Have you seen it?
Thank you for the honest review. You are on point that other reviewers seem to tred lightly as any harsh criticism might be Spitting on his grave. Disclaimer: I have not seen HERE WE ARE. I did see the 2 movies which it was based. Also not a fan of surrealism. Some red flags for me were noted in the Frank Rich piece that talked about the long process and the constant self admitted procrastination of Sondheim, self doubting from
Sondheim, the admission that time ran out to write songs for act 2. I was nervous about the “surreal” musical being pulled off, but then again, I thought, who knows, if anyone can do it, why not Sondheim?
It is true that Sondheim’s last great show was Assassins (1991). Many will point to Passion (1994) which I personally hated. It took another. 14 years for his next musical, Road Show (2008), and we know how that turned out…. So for his last show there was a 15 year gap. Just seems if it takes that long to write and develop a show (at least in Sondheim’s case) it may not turn out all that great.
Micky, you mentioned that you were tired of seeing shows portraying leftist as hypocritical. Can you name some examples? I don’t see that at all in musicals. In fact, I see a lot of political preachiness and virtue signaling. If creators are calling out wealthy priviledged leftist, that would be refreshing especially with the prices of tickets that essentially have eliminated most of us the opportunity to attend a Broadway show.
Wish we knew whether there is a grave. Still don't know if he is buried somewhere, cremated, donated body to science, etc.
It's a fabulously funny evening of David Ives, as well, and with underscoring it's more musical than not. You may want more but it also makes sense as is. Hope it goes to video.
There are some valid critiques, especially concerning the backward-looking nature of the whole production as opposed to nurturing new talent. However, I would say that you were probably not going to enjoy the show even if it was fully realized. The way that the music operates throughout the first act is wonderful because of the seamless union between book and score that Sondheim had more perfectly realized in Passion.
It may be disappointing to not have any distinct songs in the show (is that even the case, though? I was humming afterward), but I'd have to ask, what is the virtue in having distinct songs anyway? Why can't music flow through the piece continuously without obvious stops and starts?
Interesting, always great to hear your thoughts!
Maybe we can find a psychic medium who can ask Sondheim to finish it. It’s worth a shot.
(Edit: In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m 100% joking about this. Well, maybe 99%).
That in and of itself sounds like a great plot for a musical 😅
Somebody contact Rosemary Brown.
There is an opera of The Exterminating Angel that is far more successful, by the sounds of it (although I have minor issues about that as well). Perhaps opera is better placed to incorporate surrealism? Fascinating. Thank you.
The opera house is at least a place where audiences have a higher tolerance for being bored and confused.
I think leaving the work unfinished was a tragedy. I don’t think Sondheim would have wanted it this way…
He's on record saying he did
I saw it on Saturday but I thought the “Sorry” song was a stand out Sondheim comedy song.
12:23 ".... who is complicit in trying to bring about the abstract end of the world which is, I guess, nigh."
Now now, if Alan Jay Lerner can have his Dance A Little Closer, Stephen Sondheim should be allowed to have his Here We Are
I love DANCE A LITTLE CLOSER. But Lerner was working on another show, an adaptation of MY MAN GODFREY, when he died.
Sad that Sondheim's final musical could never be truly finished by him
I was hoping for another "Road Show." But this reminding me of "The Frogs." A book with more political commentary than character development and ornamental songs that make little impression on the first few listens.
It all serves to show how difficult it is to write a successful musical. Even finding the right subject matter is a mountain to climb. So, huge respect to anyone who has even written two or three! Sondheim is up there with the very greatest and I understand people being desperate for this to work, but honest reviews are important.
I don't think the reviews were dishonest.
Each critic stated what they did and didn't like about the show. I think the final takeaway from most of them was that they liked it more than they disliked it
Art is subjective, especially a work like this which I knew would be polarizing.
@@jr5599 I’m not saying the reviews were necessarily dishonest - I haven’t seen it and won’t get the chance to - just that I can understand how the esteem in which Sondheim is held *might* make it hard for critics to be objective, knowing it’s his last work.
that's exactly right@@jr5599
In terms of surreal, one year the Tony's rejected Lightning Thief (a musical), but included "music" from the Harry Potter (a play), so maybe this was Sondheim's way of one final flipping the script moment by having art imitate life …
Knowing the extremely surreal characteristics of the source material is important here. They are two movies that are HARD to follow.
When you go with certain expectations, and not that aware of the route the play will take, I can see how you feel very disappointed. Further, once one is confronted with the unmatched expectations, it is hard to enjoy the show and to see its value.
Now add the fact that Sondheim’s work is incomplete which probably explains the lack of THE ONE iconic song.
This doesn’t seem like a material to be for Broadway musical. Maybe with a limited run with star power and advertised as a musical play, emphasis on the PLAY.
No doubt the fact that Sondheim's death affevted the full vission of the show, as he was still writing it. But, as someone from Buñuel's country, he's certainly overrated and some of his movies barely stand any fine study.
A combination of a weird story, difficult to understand, let alone, adapt to a different medium, and people trying to figure out what someone else's would have done, or had thought, is a recipe for disaster
To me, Sondheim and Ives succeeded in reinventing the musical theatre by making music and dialogue seamlessly co-operate in the first act (and well into the second). Different people also hear echoes from a diversity of shows - because they are all there, in a typically Sondheim way he imitates the musical scope from everything he ever composed - Saturday Night to Road Show. Paired with the wittiest book by far in several seasons. But act 2 might need a little cutting. - Someone has criticized along the way that we are not made aware what these rather unsympathetic people learn along the way from their experience; but we certainly are: they learn nothing.
I haven't seen the original Exterminating Angel film, but I've seen the Met Opera production for the 2017/18 season. Having that experience and then hearing you review the musical makes me want to quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park about stopping to think if they should.
The film is fantastic, one of best films in Mexican history
This made me so sad because your joy is so muted and I just want to give you a virtual hug! 😢
Thank you for your honesty. I also don't particularly enjoy surreal / abstract, so glad I held off buying tickets,. Grateful Merrily is already in the diary... roll on December 😀
So excited for you - have the best time!
Too bad. I didn't care for Road Show either. It's sort of like coming up with those last Kander and Ebb musicals. some of which are okay, but not quite top drawer. Sondheim was a genius; and Merrily is a much better memorial.
Here is the issue... A new Sondheim show in 2023 even if he was still of this earth would probably not do particularly well in this climate. Sondheim outside of Into The Woods has never been commercial and even then Into The Woods has only become commercial because of school theatre. This doesn't mean that he was obviously successful and brilliant and that we aren't going to see incredible revivals and adaptions for centuries to come... We will. His shows are much more timeless than those of his teachers and also thought provoking in a way that is lacking in many musicals (note I said musicals). We see what audiences (sadly?) want with musical theatre. Outside of Sweeney Todd and Into The Woods... People under a certain age aren't even interested in his shows unless you put Daniel Radcliff in the show... They want Pop and hip hop musicals. If it sounds musical theatre or expects you to think then it upsets the mainstream theatre goer. I saw the North American tour of Company on Saturday (brilliant loved it). There were a group of women behind me complaining about how it felt very art film and not easy to understand while they also were praising Phantom for the remainder of the intermission.
Long story short... This will probably flop. It will get some form of a UK or West Coast production that will do far better. It will succeed regionally and in black box style theatre (where most Sondheim shows tend to thrive). Theatre critics want Six, Mulan Rouge, and Wicked... And don't get me wrong I like/ love two out of three of those shows.
I agree with your assessment of the show. I saw it the day before its official opening, and was similarly disappointed. I have seen every Sondheim show (except Anyone Can Whistle), and have been delighted or moved by almost all of them. Given his pattern of creating new songs and rethinking others late in the tryout period , I am certain the score would have been quite different had he been involved in the full creative process. Your feeling about the plot is also perceptive. I thought the actors were wonderful, but the show needs much more if it were to transfer to Broadway.
I really liked the first act (the zany surrealism did hit for me!) but the second act really fell flat, and was even painful at times. I didn’t realize that each act is based on a different movie, but it makes sense because both acts were so tonally different.
Not the first time a Sondheim show has tonally different acts
Somewhat similar to road show, the music in act 1 felt much like how Sondheim often described operas, which I feared would be the case going in.
That said I do enjoy what I later learned was called ‘waiter’s song’.
I’m so mad at you for this video that I don’t know how long it will be until I can even look at your face. The show is so good and fascinating. Not totally finished, but that just adds to its mystery.
Oh no! Sorry to hear that, but you don't need to agree with everything I say on here. Glad you enjoyed, I look forward to a second opportunity to try and connect with this show, I went in with the wrong expectations.
@@MickeyJoTheatre I’m sorry. I was having a late-night musicals queen meltdown. I’ve been obsessively listening to the “Here We Are” original cast recording all week, getting more and more out of it, about to watch the Bunel films it’s based on and otherwise just wallowing in its beauty. Still, my rudeness wasn’t acceptable. Rumour has it that National Theatre might do it next year and broadcast to movie screens, and that is the dream I am currently living for.
I watched it a couple of weeks ago and honestly still haven’t formed at opinion on the show. Pretty sure that means I didn’t like it but I feel so no thought head empty about it rn
Critics are simply not going to criticize St. Stephen, whose really good shows can be counted on less than one hand. To be sure, there are wonderful moments in every Sondheim shows, but in my opinion, in connection with most of his shows, the sum of the parts don't equal the whole. No matter how many revivals they do trying to fix Pacific Overtures and Merrily We Roll Along, they will never be good shows. Ditto Assassins, Road Show, Bounce and Sunday In the Park, even Company which can't decide if it's about a gay repressed man or a straight man with intimacy problems. The first act of Into The Woods is brilliant, but the second act is a giant bore. Sweeney Todd and A Little Night Music are brilliant fully-realized works, and I admire Passion, but I can live without the rest.
The critics have bashed Sondhein a lot. Even at the height of his fame. Just go back and dig up the reviews.
I think Assassins is an excellant show and gets more relevant with time. The same with Sunday in the Park. I agree with you though on Road Show/Bounce. In the end, it's all of matter of opinion. His shows are NOT for everyone and never have been or will be.
I too was expecting great things bc of your love of Sondheim. Something to buy the DVD to add to my collection, bc I have yet to see it and probably won't. A Sondheim musical without a song that you remember is ... Besides the plot isn't something that l gravitate towards. What I'm grieving is that you were so disappointed by the production and did Aeron agree with you?
23:50 They did do that when I saw it at the National in 1994 (The one with Adrien Lester in it), and it was rather jarring.
So the cast album has dropped.. I really really like it
I was expecting less
The score is very self-referential, isn't it? Full of quotes and hints at his previous works - lots of Anyone Can Whistle and Merrily and Company in the first act...and constant refernce to Move and We Do Not Belong Together in act two.
I wonder if we will get a staging here in London
Yes to all of this!!!! I was in NY this weekend and only had one night to see a show. Naturally I picked, as you di, the opportunity to see the world premiere of Sondheim's last show. Little did I know how utterly disappointed I would be. I have vented long and loudly about this since, and have managed to narrow my thoughts to this. If they tried for satire, they missed. If they wanted surreal, it felt forced. And so much of the writing felt lazy. (We have no dialogue so just have the actors repeat their lines, or stand quietly and looked puzzled). My review has been "I've seen bad fringe festival shows that were better than this.". Actually there was a better show done in Blaine, Missouri...but I digress. So, no, you are not alone. And I completely agree that good sets and acting does not mean it deserves to be called a good show.
I've been waiting to watch this until after I experienced the show for myself, and now that I have, I feel I have to respond. I will start by saying I did not love the show, although I didn't hate it. In some ways I'm still making up my mind and my jury is still out, but I'm currently leaning towards the negative. That being said, I do agree with a number of your criticisms, but what I absolutely and vehemently take exception to is your calling it "not good" and/or "bad" over and over again. I have seen plenty of bad shows, and this is NOT a bad show. Experimental, yes; incomplete in certain respects, absolutely; but by your own admission you don't care for surrealism, so you were already (possibly unknowingly) predisposed to not like the show before it even started given what it is. You also by your own admission went in with certain expectations of what you wanted the show to be and your expectations were not met, leading you, I believe, to take the show not for what it is, but for what you wanted it to be.
As a parallel example, similar to your distaste for surrealism I don't care for serial music at all when it comes to classical music. Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern all leave me cold and often with a headache afterwards. Nevertheless. Do I enjoy "Wozzeck" or "Lulu"? No. Do I appreciate the skill and artistry it took to create them? Yes. They are not bad despite the fact that I personally hate them, and I think that's an important distinction to make. Perhaps this is coming down to semantics, and you're using "not good" and "bad" to equate with your personal dislike for the material (i.e. surrealism), but in doing so, you're essentially advising people that the show is not worth seeing. I get that's what critics are generally supposed to do, but I don't agree that the shortcomings of "Here We Are" add up to enough that the show deserves to be called "bad". Even mediocre Sondheim is better that some people's best. Perhaps a more fair assessment from you might have been the well-known quote, "This is the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing."
For myself, I personally enjoyed the more comic surrealism of Act 1, although to be fair Act 1 is where the bulk of the music resides, so I have a bias there. The "Cafe Everything" sequence was probably my favorite part of the show. It strongly reminded me of both the Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch and the restaurant scene in "A New Brain", while the overall tone of Act 1 was very reminiscent of any number of things from Firesign Theater. I felt Act 2 was somewhat unfocused, but I enjoyed the exchange between Marianne and the Bishop in particular.
To conclude, I don't know that you will ever read this since it's very much a wall of text and I'm definitely late to the party, but I hope that you do, and if you do, I hope that you'll consider some of my points. I usually enjoy your videos, but I couldn't let this one pass by without comment. Thanks, and have a Happy New Year!
Appreciate your thoughts very much here and you are of course correct.
There was definitely a desire to counterbalance the critics whose reviews felt disingenuous in their praise, but it's also true that I had expectations on arrival.
Re people acting on my criticisms, it always goes without saying that whatever expressed is my opinion and people can buy tickets as they see fit.
And I concur re the highlights, especially the exchange in the second act, I just wish there was more music of real strength.
The Variety and NY Post critics are the only two prepared to speak the truth. The rest are clearly terrified to criticise Saint Stephen and resort to hagiography to full their column inches. In my view, by the way, the 'latte line' is lamentably lame.
That's absurd
I saw it two days ago and I actually really liked it