S05.E17: Opening Night

[caracas1914]

I think they missed an opportunity with ITGS instead of People or His Love Makes Me Beautiful. And I know it was in the movie and not the musical and she probably wouldn't have matched Barbra or Idina but I would have like to hear Lea do Funny Girl. I got sucked in with DROMP and My Man but now that I've seen her do ITGS, You Are Woman, I Am Man, and Who Are You Now, I've lost my confidence in her ability to play Fanny. I don't think she can do the whole show. I think she just happens to do very good versions of two of the numbers.

Agreed, Babs was better.

[tom87]

I think Lea did all the songs great.  But  I think it is comparing  apples and oranges between a quick couple of scene with zero staging to what a all out Bway production would do with some of these  performances. 

....
EW review

http://tvrecaps.ew.com/recap/glee-recap-funny-girl-opens/4/

I know that all of the Funny Girl staging was oversimplified and isolated, not very representative of a big Broadway musical; maybe that was too much of a stretch. But for performance purposes, I enjoyed the simplicity. It gave us excellent scenes like this: a continuous close-crop shot of Rachel in her Fanny Brice wig, dressed in that Scene I sailor dress, making her way from her dressing room, through the extras backstage, to her first mark, the sounds of the orchestra warming up slowly fading into her heartbeat as she gets closer and closer to accomplishing the only dream she’s ever had. The curtain rises, and she’s just a girl on stage, opening her mouth, and absolutely slaying "I’m the Greatest Star." Suddenly, without much activity, we're supposed to be right in the middle of a Broadway show. But the minimalism makes sense. We’re seeing these numbers more from Rachel’s  perspective than from her audience's point of view. She’s spent her whole day dreading this moment, her whole life looking forward to it, and now here she is...just doing it. Dreams are only dreams until you achieve them -- they’re much simpler after that.

 

[aradia22]

Higgs, I'm usually on the side of whoever gives the best vocal performance but I like the emotion Idina and Barbra bring to their versions of Funny Girl. It's difficult to get a sense of what's happening with the Lea version (though I was happy to watch it, thanks for the link!). I don't know for sure that she would have performed it well but I think the humor she tried to bring to her versions of ITGS and YAW, IAM felt off. They felt artificial, cold, and lacking in energy for the most part (though they had their moments). I like Streisand's ITGS. It's a character song. She's a ham but it feels genuine to her. I think with Funny Girl (the song) Lea might have had a better chance of matching her DROMP and My Man performances. It's possible they could have made Who Are You Now work but for me it didn't. They undercut it by making it a duet with Sue and never giving it a chance to really breathe. And it doesn't have a lot of vitality to begin with (it's a pretty song that kind of drifts along instead of a song with dynamics and levels like My Man). 

 

tom87, I agree with that review to an extent. I liked that we started off backstage and I liked occasionally seeing the view from upstage of Lea looking out into the audience. But I just feel like it wasn't shot well. Instead of confining the kinetic energy to the stage, the camera kept flitting around as if it too was bored with her performance of ITGS. I think she did a pretty version of the song but I would have preferred it as a character song with more genuine humor and emotion or a big full Lupone/Merman kind of belt. I think that's why I kind of came around during the end of the song. 

[tom87]

 

tom87, I agree with that review to an extent. I liked that we started off backstage and I liked occasionally seeing the view from upstage of Lea looking out into the audience. But I just feel like it wasn't shot well. Instead of confining the kinetic energy to the stage, the camera kept flitting around as if it too was bored with her performance of ITGS. I think she did a pretty version of the song but I would have preferred it as a character song with more genuine humor and emotion or a big full Lupone/Merman kind of belt. I think that's why I kind of came around during the end of the song. 

The start of the song Rachel was hestiate and worried and than after Sue left she did get bigger but the more humoorus part of the song was over by then.  I actaully loved her cough it was way OTT.  Bu the point was  they weren't really foucuesd  on her song it was what was happening in the audience too not only to get Rachel going but also to have the producer worried Sue would distract the reviewer.

[Higgs]

The Streisand ITGS to which I linked was her multi-hundredth performance of the song, each done in the context of the stage drama, and with a mid-60s aesthetic that would never succeed today. Lea walks into a studio, listens to the standalone, iTunes-viable arrangement Anders has worked out with session vocalists and band, and several hours later leaves, her work there done. The two versions are so completely different because the two women are TRYING to do very different things. But even when it's the same vocalist singing the same song, their stage and concert versions can be completely different. (Listen to Streisand sing her FG songs in concert.) And if you want ITGS done in modern theatrical form, with an intelligence and expressiveness far beyond Streisand's, watch this:

That's Leslie Kritzer, who performed Fanny to universal rave reviews, and whose story is close to the one many wish had been used for Rachel's SL. http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/05/27/tem_leslie_kritzer.html

As to "You Are Woman", Ryan/Lea provided a total reinvention of Fanny, in general, and of the psychosexual dynamic between Fanny and Nicky, in particular. And who knows what Bartlett Sher intended to do with someone who sings like this:

A nasal, unfocused sound (ask Sugar) does not by itself more emotion make. (if it did, opera and jazz singing would be revolutionized. Country, not so much.) Lea is a better singer and actress than Idina, and it ain't even close. One doesn't have to search YouTube for valid comparisons, all it takes is this:

I like Streisand's ITGS. It's a character song. She's a ham but it feels genuine to her.

The Streisand ITGS to which I linked was her multi-hundredth performance of the song, each done in the context of the stage drama, and with a mid-60s aesthetic that would never succeed today. Lea walks into a studio, listens to the arrangement Anders has worked out with session vocalists and band, and several hours later leaves, her work there done. The two versions are so completely different because the two women are TRYING to do very different things. But even when it's the same vocalist singing the same song, their stage and concert versions can be completely different. (Listen to Streisand sing her FG songs in concert.) And if you want ITGS done in modern theatrical form, with an intelligence and expressiveness far beyond Streisand's, watch this:

That's Leslie Kritzer, who performed Fanny to universal rave reviews, and whose story is close to the one many wish had been used for Rachel's SL. http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/05/27/tem_leslie_kritzer.html

As to "You Are Woman", Ryan/Lea provided a total reinvention of Fanny, in general, and of the psychosexual dynamic between Fanny and Nicky, in particular. And who knows what Bartlett Sher intended to do with someone who sings like this:

A nasal, unfocused sound (ask Sugar) does not by itself more emotion make. (if it did, opera and jazz singing would be revolutionized. Country, not so much.) Lea is a better singer and actress than Idina, and it ain't even close. One doesn't have to search YouTube for valid comparisons, all it takes is this:

Edited April 26, 2014 by Higgs

[caracas1914]

The problem isn't whether Lea is a better singer or actress than Idina, Barbara, etc.  so stating emphatically that she is (per one's opinion) or isn't doesn't address the main problem:  it's that  the storyline of her success to Broadway fame has no build up, suspense or even feel good back payback in this episode.  It was a poorly constructed storyline for Rachel's triumph which was set up back in the pilot of Season One.

 

There is a Spanish expression that applies well to this episode of Rachel's triumph and how badly it was presented.

 

"Mucho pedo para cagar aguado".

Edited April 28, 2014 by caracas1914

[BizBuzz]

I think I might have to sit in my corner and meekly raise my hand to say I actually liked this episode.  ::giggle::

 

I guess I am not really watching it for continuity sake.  I learned a long time ago while watching this show that continuity wasn't a big thing for the writers.  So I suspend belief that it's going anywhere that makes any sense, and I am taking each episode as a stand alone, and then I can enjoy it.

 

I loved Rachel's smack down of Sue, it was about time.  And Mr Spacemen!  I almost died!  Didn't expect that.  I wasn't spoiled on that one at all.  I can't understand why they put it there, except to give Sue some screen time maybe?  The duet with Shue (gosh, it was great to see Shue) was pretty good.  I miss Shue I think most of all. 

 

I wasn't all that impressed with the music numbers that Rachel did, I have heard better matches for her voice, but as usual, I loved Kurt, and I loved how he helped Rachel.  Santana rawked it as per normal.  I think it made sense that she partied with her peeps after opening night. 

 

Over all, I give it an 8.

[Higgs]

Rachel's FG success was never meant to be the endpoint of the series or to be any more in doubt than ND winning Nationals. Yes, it might have been done better, even within the limited screen time given NYC with the choir room still in play - e.g., no NYADA, shown failed auditions. As to its realism, when Glee is over and RM gets ready to mount FG on Broadway, if a 19-year old girl shows up who can sing and act like Lea Michele, Lea's casting would suddenly be in jeopardy, due to the modern sociology of fame and it's effect on ticket sales. These factors have been directly alluded to on Glee, in the forms of the New York magazine cover shoot, the plethora and nature of social media attacks*, and the NYT review with its "wow" factor praise and explicit slack she was afforded, each in large part precisely because of her youth and newness.

As fundamentally a comedy, Glee will have a happy ending for all. It's what "happy" means for each of the characters that is the main story, and it begins with the aptly named "Back-up Plan". As it concerns Rachel, another commentator expresses the situation with great insight:

http://www.gleeforum.com/index.php/topic/33360-season-5-general-spoilers-discussion/?p=3226419

*There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde

The long tracking shot of Rachel walking from her dressing room down to the stage and the spotlight, with its rich visual and aural symbolisms, and ending with the split-second confident smile as she stepped out into her career, was one of the greatest filmed sequences I've ever seen on a TV drama.

[camussie]

I absolutely believe that at one point Rachel making her FG debut with the glee club celebrating with her was supposed to be how Glee ended or at the very least how Rachel's time on Glee ended. It was the story they set up for the first three seasons.  They obviously changed their mind in season 4 but the writing has not been there to  make such a monumental change in direction without it falling completely flat.  If they couldn't even get the build up to that right I have no faith they will get the aftermath right especially when they are turning their whole show into meta

 

As far as the long tracking shot being one of the greatest filmed sequences, while it was effective (for glee) it was hardly original or a masterpiece. Watch any West Wing episode and you get about 5 of those tracking shots an episode.   

Edited April 28, 2014 by camussie

[caracas1914]

Fuck, Orson Welles did those long tracking shots 70 years ago.

I'm trying to think which 19 year old novice fronted a mega investment Broadway show as the title character with zero professional experience in the last 75 years of BW.

Oh that's right, zero, zippo, nobody. It's fantasy hyped up even for Glee.

Even Susan Stratsberg had a critically acclaimed role in the movie "Picnic" before she starred in " The Diary of Anne Frank" nearly 60 years ago.

This SL is nothing but fan girl fantasy that is badly written fan fiction.

Edited April 29, 2014 by caracas1914

[Higgs]

When Lea was 19 she did not sing as Rachel does now. Rachel is a wunderkind, a prodigy, not because of exceptional technique, but primarily due to the incredible intelligence and maturity of her interpretive skills.

The "West Wing" had staff walk 'n talks, an utterly different thing from the realistic/symbolic march to dream fulfillment of a show's main character.

Welles' "A Touch of Evil" opened with an extremely long tracking shot, but it wasn't on a "TV drama" and was only an introduction of a story, not the symbolic summation and culmination of a journey.

See the differences?

As to fan fiction, the main instance of it was on Glee itself, which had a high school sophomore who could sing DROMP better than anyone else in the world tethered to a ridiculous show choir. That Rachel was so professionally inexperienced by the time she got to NYC was the most unrealistic aspect of the entire series, including the non-incarceration of Sue.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Higgs

[camussie]

If you watched West Wing at all you would know that more than once before POTUS went to make a big speech they did a long tracking shot as he walked  to the podium.  Also Gray's Anatomy has followed more than one surgeon in a tracking shot on their way to the OR to perform a tricky career making or breaking surgery so what "Glee" did is hardly revolutionary.  Do you see that there isn't a difference?  

 

As far as Rachel being a "wunderkind" I know that is what the show tells us but her mimicry of Barbra Streisand does not show me incredible intelligence or maturity of interpretive skills.  It shows me a very green performer.  

Edited April 29, 2014 by camussie

[Higgs]

Rachel's FG performances in NYC were very different from, and superior to Streisand's in the 60's. (And as James Lipton said in the Actors Studio session, so was Rachel's "Papa Can You Hear Me") In the case of the entire "You Are Woman" scene, in both acting and singing, Rachel was diametrically opposite to the Streisand travesty. And for those who still think Streisand's Fanny was the impeccable gold standard, here's "My Man" performed by real artists:

Rachel musters up the courage to emerge from the small, protective space where she has just been with her teacher and mentor, and walks alone, accompanied by the sounds of a discordant orchestra tuning up and then her heartbeat and breath, and steps out into the spotlight and a welcoming audience, just as she has imagined it forever. One may think, as I do, that Glee is mostly crap, but that was brilliant and moving, unmatched in my experience in its key generic elements and, like Will turning off the lights before exiting the choir room, would have been an appropriate series final scene.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Higgs

[aradia22]

 

I'm trying to think which 19 year old novice fronted a mega investment Broadway show as the title character with zero professional experience in the last 75 years of BW.

I had to check on Sutton Foster's age when she did Millie but no, amazingly she was closer to thirty. Somehow Sutton has seems like she's been in her late twenties/early thirties for years. Anyway, if we're really having this conversation, I can think of Broadway shows that starred younger actors but they were purposefully cast with young actors (e.g. Summer of 42 Off Broadway, The Little Prince and the Aviator on Broadway; closed in previews). Laura Osnes was 23 when she did Grease. Sierra Boggess was 25 when she did The Little Mermaid. Josefina Scaglione was 22 when she did West Side Story.

 

To each his own but I enjoy both Lea's and Barbra's versions of My Man though I found Lea's version of You Are Woman, I Am Man to be too over the top and thus kind of cold. I will say it was partially the fault of her Nick but I feel like she was at the same level she was at the beginning of ITGS. There was a distinct artificiality to both performances. I didn't believe that a character was speaking or feeling what was happening in the moment. I saw an actress reciting the things she had memorized with no emotional connection to them. YMMV

[caracas1914]

unmatched in my experience in its key generic elements

 

And more then matched in my experience by hundreds of shots in hundreds of shows throughput  the years.   It was a nice extended take, but it wasn't certainly "unmatched" or unprecedented. 

 

The exercise of futility in trying to drum up suspense in Rachel's reviews was so ludicrous and contrived it bordered on amateur hour.;  They pay these writers for such drivel?