The Newsies Review
Apr. 23rd, 2012 12:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
next_to_normalOr, "how I ended up writing meta about a Disney production."
For some inexplicable reason, I did not grow up with Newsies like most musical theater nerds my age. I don't think I actually watched the movie until high school or maybe even college.I do, however, recall doing the "Seize the Day" dance moves with my college roommate in our senior-year suite, so I'd obviously seen it by then. Once I did, though, I fell in love with the adorableness, so I was hopeful that the Broadway adaptation would capture the charm and nostalgia of the movie.
I was immensely pleased with how it turned out. The songs we all know and love - "Carrying the Banner," "Santa Fe," "The World Will Know," "Seize the Day," "King of New York," and "Once and For All" - are still there and as catchy as ever, even if there were some lyrical changes. (The only one I really mourned was the loss of "When I dream on my own/I'm alone but I ain't lonely/For a dreamer night's the only time of day." I just adore that sentiment.) I especially love the new sections added to "Once and For All."
And they have a cast that can actually sing the songs! No disrespect to the movie actors, God love 'em, but let's be honest - David Moscow is the only one in that cast who had any real vocal talent. The rest of them, Christian Bale and Max Casella especially, pretty much got by on enthusiasm and sheer force of personality. In contrast, Jeremy Jordan (who is my new Broadway crush and is 27 in real life, so I don't feel as skeevy crushing on a 17-year-old character) is absolutely fantastic as Jack Kelly, and the rest of the cast is top-notch as well. Jack is different, certainly - he's an artist, not a cowboy - but it makes him more of a three-dimensional character, and Jordan plays the serious, introspective moments just as well as the energetic, rabble-rousing ones we're used to.
And of course, it wouldn't be Newsies without the dancing, and these kids pull it off spectacularly. I mean, seriously impressive leaps and flips and twirls (although a sad lack of the iconic pelvic thrusts, lol). "King of New York" is an epic tap number. Even my theater buddy Christi, who is the dance expert of the two of us, thought the choreography was great, and she's a tough one to please.
That said, we were wary of some of the major changes going in. Most notably, Bill Pullman's reporter character and Jack's love interest, Sarah, were combined into one female reporter/love interest, Katherine. I totally understand why they did it - the lack of good female roles in the show is pitiful, Sarah is a non-entity, and the Jack/Sarah "romance" is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it sort of thing. I don't think it even qualifies as a subplot, since they basically have two conversations in the entire movie, lol. So I'm thrilled to have a female character with an actual personality and backstory and goals. I was, however, somewhat skeptical of the believability of a teenage female reporter in 1899. Just... no.
Having seen how they did it, well, it's still a little silly? But it is sort of reasonable that she's only allowed to write about girly stuff for the social/culture section of the paper - when we first meet her, she's reviewing a vaudeville show. She dreams of being a real reporter, even though no editor would take a girl seriously, and that's what motivates her to cover the newsies' strike in the first place. She sees it as her chance to break a big story that no one else is paying attention to, and thinks it'll earn her some respect and a promotion. (There's another factor that makes her age more believable, too, but it's a Plot Twist, so I can't really talk about it without spoilers.)
Overall, I felt as though the plot was a lot tighter and made more sense than the movie's. The folks who made the movie have apparently been trying to turn it into a Broadway show for years, but it's never worked for one reason or another, and the consensus seems to be that the plot needed to be whipped into shape. But I also wonder if it's so popular because, thematically, it feels very relevant to current events, with the Occupy Wall Street movement still fresh in our minds and the generational power shift going on right now. "Give these kids and me the brand new century and watch what happens" could just as easily describe the attitude of my own generation, fed up with the way our parents have run things. The Broadway show definitely plays up the themes of corporate greed, populism rising from oppression, and power changing hands from the old to the young, even more so than the movie - the passing of the torch from the rich old men who ran the city to the youths who stood up and demanded their rights is all very explicit. And even though the first instinct is always to fear that an adaptation will ruin the original, I think the deepening of the story makes it BETTER than the movie, which is mostly just frivolous fun.
As for the new musical numbers, I really enjoyed Katherine's song, "Watch What Happens" (I've been singing it all weekend), Spot Conlon's "Brooklyn's Here," and the Jack/Katherine duet, "Something to Believe In." They added a song for Pulitzer, which I don't think adds anything, but I suppose they needed to build up that part a bit. I'm totally indifferent to Medda's songs - honestly, I didn't even remember the ones from the movie, so I'm not sorry they were cut, but the new one isn't that memorable, either?
One of the things I noticed is that the new numbers sound very... Disney. That seems weird to say, but Disney songs just have a certain feel to them, you know? And the original Newsies material doesn't really have that sound. It's a distinctly more aggressive score, I think. The tone is (understandably) grittier. But the new ones definitely have that Disney feel, possibly because they're written for the other characters, and thus less reflective of the harshness of the newsies' situation. Also, Kara Lindsey, who plays Katherine, is such a plucky Disney heroine, I can't even get over it. I didn't notice it so much during the show, but now that I've listened to the soundtrack a few dozen times, I'm convinced that she sounds like she should be an animated character or something. She just has that quality to her voice. Which is not a bad thing, either. But it reminds you that this is Disney in a way the movie didn't, for me anyway.
My one real complaint? The costumes. They were waaaay too nice for poor orphans living on the street. Every single one of those boys needed to go outside and roll around in the dirt for an hour.
Has anyone else seen it? Want to see it? Or just want to talk about the movie? lol
For some inexplicable reason, I did not grow up with Newsies like most musical theater nerds my age. I don't think I actually watched the movie until high school or maybe even college.
I was immensely pleased with how it turned out. The songs we all know and love - "Carrying the Banner," "Santa Fe," "The World Will Know," "Seize the Day," "King of New York," and "Once and For All" - are still there and as catchy as ever, even if there were some lyrical changes. (The only one I really mourned was the loss of "When I dream on my own/I'm alone but I ain't lonely/For a dreamer night's the only time of day." I just adore that sentiment.) I especially love the new sections added to "Once and For All."
And they have a cast that can actually sing the songs! No disrespect to the movie actors, God love 'em, but let's be honest - David Moscow is the only one in that cast who had any real vocal talent. The rest of them, Christian Bale and Max Casella especially, pretty much got by on enthusiasm and sheer force of personality. In contrast, Jeremy Jordan (who is my new Broadway crush and is 27 in real life, so I don't feel as skeevy crushing on a 17-year-old character) is absolutely fantastic as Jack Kelly, and the rest of the cast is top-notch as well. Jack is different, certainly - he's an artist, not a cowboy - but it makes him more of a three-dimensional character, and Jordan plays the serious, introspective moments just as well as the energetic, rabble-rousing ones we're used to.
And of course, it wouldn't be Newsies without the dancing, and these kids pull it off spectacularly. I mean, seriously impressive leaps and flips and twirls (although a sad lack of the iconic pelvic thrusts, lol). "King of New York" is an epic tap number. Even my theater buddy Christi, who is the dance expert of the two of us, thought the choreography was great, and she's a tough one to please.
That said, we were wary of some of the major changes going in. Most notably, Bill Pullman's reporter character and Jack's love interest, Sarah, were combined into one female reporter/love interest, Katherine. I totally understand why they did it - the lack of good female roles in the show is pitiful, Sarah is a non-entity, and the Jack/Sarah "romance" is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it sort of thing. I don't think it even qualifies as a subplot, since they basically have two conversations in the entire movie, lol. So I'm thrilled to have a female character with an actual personality and backstory and goals. I was, however, somewhat skeptical of the believability of a teenage female reporter in 1899. Just... no.
Having seen how they did it, well, it's still a little silly? But it is sort of reasonable that she's only allowed to write about girly stuff for the social/culture section of the paper - when we first meet her, she's reviewing a vaudeville show. She dreams of being a real reporter, even though no editor would take a girl seriously, and that's what motivates her to cover the newsies' strike in the first place. She sees it as her chance to break a big story that no one else is paying attention to, and thinks it'll earn her some respect and a promotion. (There's another factor that makes her age more believable, too, but it's a Plot Twist, so I can't really talk about it without spoilers.)
Overall, I felt as though the plot was a lot tighter and made more sense than the movie's. The folks who made the movie have apparently been trying to turn it into a Broadway show for years, but it's never worked for one reason or another, and the consensus seems to be that the plot needed to be whipped into shape. But I also wonder if it's so popular because, thematically, it feels very relevant to current events, with the Occupy Wall Street movement still fresh in our minds and the generational power shift going on right now. "Give these kids and me the brand new century and watch what happens" could just as easily describe the attitude of my own generation, fed up with the way our parents have run things. The Broadway show definitely plays up the themes of corporate greed, populism rising from oppression, and power changing hands from the old to the young, even more so than the movie - the passing of the torch from the rich old men who ran the city to the youths who stood up and demanded their rights is all very explicit. And even though the first instinct is always to fear that an adaptation will ruin the original, I think the deepening of the story makes it BETTER than the movie, which is mostly just frivolous fun.
As for the new musical numbers, I really enjoyed Katherine's song, "Watch What Happens" (I've been singing it all weekend), Spot Conlon's "Brooklyn's Here," and the Jack/Katherine duet, "Something to Believe In." They added a song for Pulitzer, which I don't think adds anything, but I suppose they needed to build up that part a bit. I'm totally indifferent to Medda's songs - honestly, I didn't even remember the ones from the movie, so I'm not sorry they were cut, but the new one isn't that memorable, either?
One of the things I noticed is that the new numbers sound very... Disney. That seems weird to say, but Disney songs just have a certain feel to them, you know? And the original Newsies material doesn't really have that sound. It's a distinctly more aggressive score, I think. The tone is (understandably) grittier. But the new ones definitely have that Disney feel, possibly because they're written for the other characters, and thus less reflective of the harshness of the newsies' situation. Also, Kara Lindsey, who plays Katherine, is such a plucky Disney heroine, I can't even get over it. I didn't notice it so much during the show, but now that I've listened to the soundtrack a few dozen times, I'm convinced that she sounds like she should be an animated character or something. She just has that quality to her voice. Which is not a bad thing, either. But it reminds you that this is Disney in a way the movie didn't, for me anyway.
My one real complaint? The costumes. They were waaaay too nice for poor orphans living on the street. Every single one of those boys needed to go outside and roll around in the dirt for an hour.
Has anyone else seen it? Want to see it? Or just want to talk about the movie? lol
no subject
Date: Apr. 23rd, 2012 06:09 pm (UTC)LOL. It's so true - EXCEPT, there's one of the secondary newsies, a guy named Mud, who can sing. It's hilarious. They'll be doing an ensemble piece, and suddenly there will be one line sung in actual singing voice.
I love the movie with unironic love. I adore it to pieces.
Speaking of ironic pelvic thrusts, Newsies led to my very first introduction to slash. When I was an innocent young thing web searching stuff on the movie (before Google, even), I ran across a reference to David Moscow's character inviting Bale's character to stay with his family for the night, and how this was clearly a come-on. I was utterly scandalized, and I didn't look up anything else fannish for years.
Also, this is my favorite Christian Bale movie. I read somewhere that he hated the entire experience and refuses to talk about it, but in time since as a 'serious' actor, the only thing he's done that I liked half as well was The Prestige, which is a very different sort of a thing.
no subject
Date: Apr. 23rd, 2012 06:24 pm (UTC)When I was an innocent young thing web searching stuff on the movie (before Google, even), I ran across a reference to David Moscow's character inviting Bale's character to stay with his family for the night, and how this was clearly a come-on. I was utterly scandalized, and I didn't look up anything else fannish for years.
HA! Yeah, Jack/Davey is a popular ship, it seems. In reading articles about the adaptation, I saw comments to the effect of, "Boo! Katherine is taking away from the Jack/Davey OTP." :-P Though, to be fair, Jack DID have more chemistry with Davey than he ever had with Sarah...
I read somewhere that he hated the entire experience and refuses to talk about it
I have heard that, too. He swore never to do another musical again, which... I can't say is a bad decision, really, given his talents, lol.
But - but - Little Women! I wanted to marry movie!Laurie.
no subject
Date: Apr. 23rd, 2012 06:29 pm (UTC)Though, to be fair, Jack DID have more chemistry with Davey than he ever had with Sarah...
Not that that would be difficult.
I don't believe I've ever seen a movie version of Little Women, so I have no opinion. *g*
no subject
Date: Apr. 25th, 2012 06:56 pm (UTC)I don't believe I've ever seen a movie version of Little Women, so I have no opinion. *g*
GASP! Really? This surprises me for some reason...