more info, via a couple of reviews:
"Is this the best, most exhilarating, most close-to-perpetual dancing ever to grace the Goodspeed Opera House stage?
It certainly could be.
The new stage adaptation of “Summer Stock” at the East Haddam theater has plenty to recommend it in terms of the canny script and the hummable songs. But it’s the dancing that leaves the biggest impression.
The show is jam-packed with choreography from Donna Feore, who also directs, that is thrillingly executed by the cast.
We’re talking: Gravity-defying kicks. Head-spinning turns. Male dancers lifting and tossing and catching the female ones. It runs the gamut from Cossack-dance athleticism to soft shoe grace, tap precision to Lindy hop energy.
How the cast manages to sing after executing these (literally) breathtaking numbers, I have no idea.
And how do they make it through two performances on some days? Amazing.
Also amazing: the fact that they do all this on Goodspeed’s small stage without making the space feel cramped.
So, yes, the dancing is phenomenal. But there’s more to the show than that.
This stage version of “Summer Stock” — which is enjoying its world premiere at Goodspeed — is inspired by the 1950 MGM movie starring Judy Garland and Gene Kelly. Writer Cheri Steinkellner, though, has reimagined the piece in many ways, making it better, stronger and propelled by a more modern sensibility. (Steinkellner’s writing credits range from “Cheers” to the Broadway adaptation of “Sister Act.”)
The foundational story, though, remains the same: A no-nonsense young woman named Jane is trying to save her family farm. Her actress sister (named Gloria in the version at Goodspeed) brings her compatriots to the farm to rehearse a show. Jane first spars with and then starts falling for Gloria’s beau Joe, the production’s director.
Steinkellner has also changed up the score, to great effect. While some tunes from the movie remain, she has pulled others that are in the public domain (such as “Accentuate the Positive,” “Paper Moon” and “It Had to Be You”), and she has woven them perfectly into various plot points and important emotional moments.
As director, Feore makes sure the whole enterprise has a dynamic spirit. It’s a story and a production that brims with optimism and cheerfulness.
Leading the cast is Corbin Bleu, who became famous with his work in “High School Musical” and has gone on to star in several Broadway shows, as Joe. Bleu is a true, and truly talented, triple-threat. He has a warm, welcoming presence as an actor; he also brings an authority to Joe so you believe he’s someone the actors respect and will follow. Bleu’s singing is strong and lustrous, and his dancing — particularly his tremendous tap ability — is … wow.
Arguably the biggest scene-stealer here is Veanne Cox, as the wealthy, snooty owner of huge property surrounding Jane’s. The way she trills dialogue can turn anything into a punchline. She can wave her arms about as her character repeats “l’amour” and generate audience laughs. When her character falls for the egoistic actor Montgomery Leach (played by J. Anthony Crane with Barrymore flair), Cox burbles with girlish romantic giddiness.
Danielle Wade does her own take on the Judy Garland role. She gives Jane a swagger and a tough façade that reveals a more human self during the course of the story. Wade’s most important feature is her voice, which is potent whether she’s finessing a ballad or powering through a big number. While she can’t compete with Garland’s renowned version of “Get Happy” (who could?), Wade does a good job in the number — choreographed and costumed in an homage to the original — that serves as the culmination of the production.
Arianna Rosario gets to play an interesting arc at Gloria. At first, Gloria seems to be a blithe, self-centered actress, but she later shows that she is quite the problem-solving producer. Rosario makes the transformation believable, as if Gloria is finally letting her real self come through.
The scenic design by Wilson Chin suggests the various elements of a Connecticut River Valley farm in the 1950s while still allowing room for the cast to burst into all of those big dance numbers. And the costume design by Tina McCartney provides a fun and functional take on country clothing of the era.
I will say that the second act could be tightened up (we don’t need to see so many beats of the rehearsal process), but, in total, this “Summer Stock” is sensational." [source]
(hooray for most directly explaining gloria's overall arc)
and the next review:
"A throwback to the golden age of Broadway and movie musicals, "Summer Stock" is a timeless, inspiring song-and-dance tale of good deeds, fairy tale showbiz, classic romance and backstage intrigue played out to such dazzling effect, you want to freeze frame it, take it home with you and watch it over and over again for pure fun and a let's-put-a-smile-on-your-face endorsement.
This is Goodspeed Musicals at its best - old-fashioned musical entertainment designed to deliver by the bucket's load, stir the senses, rhythmically intoxicate you and dance up a continual storm of good cheer that's guaranteed to leave you breathless.
Animated.
Airborne.
Magical.
Sweet-natured.
Fresh-faced.
Dance happy.
It's all here, wrapped up in shiny gold ribbons and signature colors that complement and complete the picture with a technicolor flourish, a big bang and an internal logic that flows with appropriate style, stamina, full command and intent.
Adapted to the stage by Cheri Steinkellner, "Summer Stock" replays that popular let's- put-on-a-show conceit where everything rests of the big opening night, the box-office intake, the big kiss between the leading man and the leading lady and how a complete unknown saves the day right before the final fadeout.
Here, struggling Connecticut farmer Jane Falbury decides to let her actress sister Abigail and her actor friends from New York use the family barn as a rehearsal space for their brand-new Broadway bound musical in exchange for doing the daily farm chores to raise enough money to keep the business from going completely under.
One slight problem.
During rehearsals, Jane finds herself falling for the show's handsome director, Joe Ross, who, happens to be engaged to the show's leading lady - her sister Abigail.
Staging "Summer Stock," director Donna Feore ("Chicago," "Billy Elliot," "A Chorus Line"), who doubles as choreographer, creates a loveable, intoxicating show that reels you in, grabs hold of you until the final curtain and lets you fall in love with every little detail, surprise, plot twist, joke, visual gag, one-liner and tilt of her jolly agenda while she articulates every element of this musical story with thrust, warmth, spin and splendid articulation.
Directorially, she pulls it off spectacularly.
No wrong moves here as "Summer Stock" catches fire with a spark, a gusto, a shine and a 1950s mentality infused with plenty of imagination, originality, style and flair. More importantly, the production never loses sight of its origins, its functional plotting and its love of musicals of yesteryear despite well-intentioned doses of kitsch, takeaway humor, giddy backchat and story arcs right out of the MGM library of backlot moviemaking.
Feore, free spirit that she is, fuels the musical with a sharpened wit and sentiment that works especially well as does her decision to let "Summer Stock" remain rooted in the period from whence it came in terms of staging, development, expression and interaction.
Moving from screen to stage," "Summer Stock" retains only four songs from the 1950 MGM musical. The addition of several new songs to the original version of the score turns the two-act musical into more of a showstopping event and adds clarity, luster and vintage spin to its already proven material, its let's launch into another song and dance routine blueprint and its firm grasp on characterization, story evolution and its happily ever after conclusion.
At Goodspeed, there are 28 important, recognizable, smartly placed musical numbers. They are: "Get Happy," "Happy Days Are Here Again/I Want to Be Happy," "Accentuate the Positive," "I'm Always Chasing Rainbows," "Always," "Always (reprise)," "It's Only a Paper Moon," "The Best Things in Life Are Free," "Dig for Your Dinner," "Me and My Shadow," "Howdy Neighbor, Happy Harvest," "Red Hot Mama," " 'Til We Meet Again," "You Wonderful You," "June Night," "Some of These Days," "Joe's Dance," "I'm Always Chasing Rainbows (reprise)," "It All Depends on You," "Always (reprise)," "Everybody Step," "Lucky Day," "How Ya Gonna Keep 'Em Down on the Farm," "Hinky-Dinky Parlez Vouz," "It Had to Be You," "Get Happy (reprise)" and "You Wonderful You (Finale)."
Musical director Adam Souza ("42nd Street," "Cabaret," "Next to Normal," "A Grand Night for Singing," "Because of Winn Dixie," "Rags") grabs hold of the "Summer Stock" score and allows it to breathe, gesticulate, excite, envelop and rhapsodize with the golden age sentimentality of MGM movie musicals and the timeless, larger-than-life spirit of old Broadway. Here, every song matters. Every song is important. Every song travels down memory lane. Every song is tuned to the max with sweet, centered, warm-heartedness. Every song fulfills its intended purpose.
All of this is complemented by the strong, flavorful sound of Souza's orchestral team, all of whom share his tremendous sense of theatricality, musical interlude, impassioned communication and delight of the actual musical itself. They are: David Uhl (bass), Sal Ranniello (percussion), Liz Baker Smith (reed 1), Andrew Studenski (reed II), Travis Higgins III (trumpet) and Matthew Russo (trombone). As with other Goodspeed musicals, Souza doubles as conductor and keyboardist.
As "Summer Stock" zings and pops, pretty music every song unfolds with a contagious orchestral musical glow, matched by the splendid musicality of the entire cast who address the catchy, homespun music and lyrics with perfect harmony, rhythm, phrasing and nostalgic commitment. These elements heighten the on-stage mode of the production, its progression from Act I to Act II, its send offs, its pastiche and its electrifying, barn-raising influence and thwack.
As with any big stage musical, choreography is key to a production's success, its fluidity of form, its artistic expression and its accompanying dance routines. Here, Feore, as choreographer, gives "Summer Stock" a highly personal touch of invigoration and speedy excitement that is tipped and generated with wonderfully elongated inspiration, stamina and determination. This is star quality choreography that peaks, shines and tilts with clever build ups, catchy dance steps and bold, concentrated rhythms, moves and beats that joyfully celebrate 1950's musicals in all their technicolor glory.
As storyteller and dance interpreter, she brings great dimension and scope to the piece using techniques, styles, descriptions and an enriched canvas of thoughts and ideas that make their mark most engagingly. Everything that happens on the Goodspeed Musicals stage has been beautifully blocked, rehearsed and staged with such thrust and individuality, no two dance numbers are alike. In fact, once "Summer Stock" catches fire, there's no stopping it.
Creating a freshly minted fusion of moods, tableaus, lifts, twirls and swirls, Feore pays homage to the actual vintage look and mindset of the musical, its dance-friendly art form and its free-flowing feel of excitement and exhilaration.
Hands pop. Arms move heavenward. Dancers smile and glisten as they passionately ignite into joyful visions of sweetness, passion, frenzy and syncopation. Everyone is lost in the moment illustrating the traditions, the conscience and the power of musical theatre, giving and getting the most out of Feore's phenomenal, ovation-worthy choreography.
Trained, drilled and confident, they each get a chance to shine - and shine they do - all making strong impressions that will live long in memory.
Making his Goodspeed Musicals debut, Corbin Bleu, as Joe Ross, a character originated by Gene Kelly in the 1950 film version, creates a "Wow!" song-and-dance-man factor chock full of charm, personality, self-confidence and full-beam, champagne delightness that astounds, cajoles and sparkles with leading man gait and luxury like no other.
No matter what he does, he's a proverbial triple-threat (i.e., a player who excels at acting, singing and dancing) who makes everything that happens on stage feel fresh, spontaneous, real, raw and very much in the moment. It's in his eyes. It's in his moves. It's in his expressions.
Exhibiting a sweet, contagious rapport that extends far beyond the footlights, it's the performance of the year and one that Bleu exudes with a Gene Kelly/Fred Astaire aura of showbiz savvy, knockabout whimsy, graceful athleticism and sterling encapsulation. "Joe's Dance," a solo dance number in Act II performed by Bleu only furthers that notion.
In the role of Jane Falbury, a role made famous by Judy Garland in the original "Summer Stock" MGM musical, Danielle Wade lights up the Goodspeed Musicals stage with a breezy, intuitive musical comedy performance of real warmth and spirit that is a constant joy to watch. Veanne Cox, cast in the role of the wickedly devious Connecticut farming magnate Margaret Wingate, is jaw-dropping brilliant, using humor, music, dance and melodrama in divinely daft and glorious ways that prompt applause and laughter whenever she's in the limelight. It's a scene-stealing performance so seamlessly entrenched in glee and fiery abandon, Cox, would be the ideal choice to play narcissistic Broadway diva Dee Dee Allen in the 2024 summer presentation of "The Prom" at Playhouse in Park in West Hartford. I'll personally deliver the contract.
Other memorable performances are delivered by Arianna Rosario (Gloria Falbury), Stephen Lee Anderson (Henry "Pop" Falbury), Gilbert L. Bailey II (Phil Filmore), Will Roland (Orville Wingate) and J. Anthony Crane (Montgomery Leach).
A musical escape brimming with delightful songs, engaging performances and full-beam dance numbers, "Summer Stock" is not only a bubbly tonic for theatergoers of all ages, but one that kicks nostalgia into high gear with uncomplicated bliss, fizz and vintage sparkle.
It sings. It dances. It pops. It dazzles.
Like "42nd Street" which played Goodspeed Musicals last season, it overflows with Kelly/Astaire lightness, punch and precision, sunny vibes and well-played exactitude.
The energy displayed here is fast and furious with first-night exhilaration and thrill paired especially well with Corbin Bleu's charming star turn, Danielle Wade's joyous "Get Happy" abandon and Veanne Cox's well-prepped, icy cool villain.
This is musical theatre of the highest order - infectious, irresistible, glorious. Its leave-your-troubles-at-the-door/Let's-put-on-a-show mentality accelerates with sparkle and cherry pie goodness.
And boy, do we need it now!" [source]
(the reference to jane's sister abigail uses the film's names: abigail becomes gloria in this production, which is the name of abigail's actor in the film, which also mirrors how the role of herb is now phil, also the name of herb's actor in the film)
(also shoutout to providing A Full, Chronological List Of Songs. noting that according to another interview, intermission would be between "you wonderful you" and "june night")
5 notes
·
View notes
#i don’t think i can overstate how much i hate the ‘poor reggie forced into bad things :(‘ take lol#i mean. i get that it’s probably the only way people who don’t like dealing w complexity can make sense of this ship#which like. fair i guess. but they’re also often the loudest in the fandom and that’s when i get annoyed
literally taking words out of my own mouth. and yknow, i love jegulus actually, but what i love is the opposite dynamic that you could never get with prongsfoot, the "running into each other in the battlefield from opposite sides" kind of drama and the way they really force each other to get out of their comfort zone and confront their biases. and i swear i can't read 90% of todays jegulus fics for this exact reason it drives me insaneeeee
(also the best kind of jegulus (and the only right kind) is the one where both of them would still choose sirius over each other)
(also how are your tags always better than the actual post asfjk)
i’ve read exactly two jegulus fics i like so far. i don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone that both of them have sirius as a central character who’s in the know about the relationship since the beginning lol (it’s this and this) sadly, i don’t think either of those are angsty enough for ur tastes :p
also gosh yes!! i think, of all we know about them, one thing both of them would be agreed on is that sirius is no. 1. like even in a war setting for example, where they’re both on different sides, i can see them meeting clandestinely just to come to the mutual conclusion that no matter what happens, sirius does not get hurt. but also, the possible flip side of that is so much angst. jealousy, bitterness, possessiveness—both of them want sirius’ attention in different ways and there’s resentment between them for the longest time because of it. reg because he thinks james stole his brother and james because he thinks reg could’ve done more to protect him/doesn’t like how his actions hurt sirius.
i think james’ black and white morality would also play a big role here. in his mind, regulus should’ve chose sirius above everything else. his actions of siding with his family would read as betrayal to james who has no patience for that or anything that hurts sirius. he doesn’t care for the complexities and nuances that reg’s life is probably made of.
on the other hand, i think regulus would also be at least a little aware of that fact? and he’d hate the fact that james has it so easy. not just in terms of obvious privilege (which the blacks do too) but also like, how easy it is for him to be brave and moral and good when regulus has to claw his way out to achieve some semblance of balance in his life. james’ judgement seems not just hypocritical but also unfounded for him, because james has never had to fight against the kind of pressures he had. and he knows, deep down, where j is coming from too which makes him even more angry at the whole situation.
i can see both of them hiding this animosity from sirius for the longest time, because they know he wouldn’t like it, at all. he puts up this front that he doesn’t care about his family but he does, and james doesn’t wanna make that anxiety worse. no one can be blind to how close sirius is to james, def not regulus, so he puts up the bare minimum effort into making sure he doesn’t show more hostility than required. also,,,,i think both of them might have this latent fear that if they force sirius to choose, they might be the ones left behind? like,,i don’t think sirius will actually do that but it’s an irrational anxiety that they do not wanna materialise under any circumstance so they try their best to make sure it never happens.
and sirius would be the impetus of change for both of them, in my mind. they’re a package deal on both ends so they have to learn to, like u said, confront their biases. i genuinely think sirius is central to a jegulus arc so seeing him cut out or turned into the villain or used only as a wolfstar puppet just really, really enrages me lol
25 notes
·
View notes
According to Chapuys, ‘the King, immediately on receiving the news of the decapitation of [anne], entered his barge and went to [Jane]’ at Chelsea. We do not know how she reacted. But, at the least, she showed no compunction in stepping to the throne over the headless corpse of her rival. Anne might talk of killing Catherine; the gentle Jane went further and was an accessory-after-the-fact to the judicial murder of her predecessor.
Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII by David Starkey
+
Strickland conveniently forgot that Anne, only a decade earlier, had begun scheming to supplant her royal mistress, and later tried to compass that lady’s death.
In refusing the King’s advances without removing herself from his presence, and accepting her role as his wife’s replacement (which is just what Anne, in her day, had done), she behaved discreditably. Probably she had had little choice in the matter, with the King ardently pursuing her and her family vigorously maneuvering [...]
Weir A. (2010). The lady in the tower : the fall of anne boleyn.
so....woof.... lots to unpack here.
1) i’m not going to split hairs here, if the language/presentation is offensive to some here, like, okay, but at the core of it, the sequence of events is not...wrong?
there’s debate to the reports of AB saying she wanted catherine AND mary dead, we could circle that for hours, i’d rather not (the main thing here is contradiction...chapuys both asserts that she’s said she will do this if it’s ever in her power, wants to do this, wants henry to do this, asks this of henry, constantly, but he also asserts that anne’s influence and power over henry is limitless/ultimate. the two simply cannot have been true at the same time. either she was constantly pushing for this and henry was unwilling or she wasn’t and his assessment of her influence was correct or near-correct); and there’s debate to the tone (myself, i don’t believe she was ‘joking’ per say, rather frustrated to the level of venting recklessly, but i do think she was being flippant... and i think it’s maybe relevant to remember she had a rather cavalier attitude about her own death, even before her imprisonment, so possibly just death in general) ;
regardless,
assuming it’s completely true, i understand having contempt for AB in this matter, however, if you do, how can you not for her successor? starkey isn’t wrong here, talking about something is absolutely not the same as accepting it at the price of admission. we don’t have any records of jane’s contempt for anne and elizabeth the same way we do for anne’s of catherine and mary; but we do have record of her connection to a group that had that contempt for them in extremity...so, ultimately, it’s not that far a leap of supposition, no?
2) ‘which is just what anne had done’ except she did remove herself from henry’s presence. the letters demonstrate that he asked her to return to it several times and several times she refused.
now, again, myself, i don’t believe that’s proof-positive of ‘sexual harassment’, per say. i believe there are multiple explanations for anne’s choice of separation (maybe it was her choice, maybe it was the choice/advice of her family, if they knew of it at the time, just for starters); however, the above alone...sure, i can see why some believe that’s what that evidence proves, or at least suggests. we don’t have anything similar for jane, we have a public protestation/rejection and a continuation of her visiting henry in the chambers that cromwell granted the seymours. we have, again, beliefs/words not aligning with actions.
so again, the answer to/of ‘why are these women/relationships spoken of differently/ “treated” (?) differently’, well...because they were? one is a passionate union of years with twists and turns, whereas the other has the singular twist and turn of my wife was a murderous whore and now she’s dead, you’re up.
what we have, also, with anne that we don’t with her successor, is evidence of years that would suggest she was deeply committed to henry. was jane as deeply committed? she must have been to the extent that she married him, but we simply know much less about how she ultimately felt.
8 notes
·
View notes