I SING THE BODY HORROR: My Review of Coralie Fargeat's THE SUBSTANCE

*SPOILERS AND KEY PLOT POINTS WILL BE DISCUSSED*

There are times I sit down to write a review, and my thoughts are pretty easy to pin down. I would argue my recent review of SATURDAY NIGHT is a prime example of this. 

This is NOT one of those times.

I feel like The Substance just appeared out of nowhere earlier this year when it made quite the splash at the Cannes Film Festival where it netted a win for its writer/director Coralie Fargeat in the Screenplay competition.

When it made its eventual US premiere back in September, the response was simultaneously rapturous and revolting...which is about what one might expect for a body horror film. However, what made a lot of this buzz very interesting to follow was that it seemed to be the next entry in the "Can This Horror Film Get Nominated for Awards?" discussion that has seemed to happen every year since Toni Collette got unfairly shafted for her work in Ari Aster's brutal horror drama Hereditary during the 2019 award season.

While it is still early...at least in case from what I have seen so far...2024 is shaping up to be a rather meager year for film, and this isn't a surprise. I sort of feel like I expected a dip after the 2023 Writers Strike, but it also just feels especially jarring considering 2023 shaped up to be one of my favorite years for film of this century so far. 

While this question will age poorly depending on the outcome, one has to wonder: can The Substance actually break into the awards race in several major categories?

There seems to be a pretty obvious divide with this opinion with some thinking it'll actually slip into the Picture, Actress, Screenplay races along with a couple of tech categories while some think it'll be lucky to just get the Makeup/Hairstyling nomination.

If I were to make the prediction now, I think that it will actually score a couple of those major nominations based on enough of the passion the film has...but it'll be interesting to see how it pans out considering very, very, very, very few horror films get nominated for Best Picture...let alone one that is a rather graphic body horror film. 

Does that mean I love the film personally?

Honestly, I wouldn't say I loved it...but I am not sure if it is an easy movie to love. Although, I love the idea of it being embraced with nominations because this is a movie that took big, bold chances addressing issues that are clearly a huge problem for women not just in Hollywood, but in general...and I would argue that despite some quibbles, Fargeat created a truly vibrant, shocking, graphic experience here.

This is a film that lacks subtlety, and at times, that did pull me out of it in ways I wish it didn't...and while this may seem like a drastic comparison, it sort of reminded me of Don't Look Up.

Before some of you get very angry at that comment, I will say The Substance was certainly better than Don't Look Up, which I did like to some degree, but that was a film that opted for pushing its message forward with the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face. Comedically though, it worked well a lot of the time in that film, and it made the final act all the more poignant. It also served to respond to how little people seemed to respond to the insanity of what was happening around them...and in that film's case, it was the clear end of the world that was upon them and the clear Trump team parallels that led the charge with their obtuseness.

Here, Fargeat takes the idea of a woman being pushed to the brink because she is being told she is too old and dated in style and presents in ways that are at times cartoonish and campy, but also horrific and tragic.

The protagonist is Elisabeth Sparkle, played by Demi Moore, who is a fading Hollywood movie star who...strangely...hosts a primetime fitness show because THAT would actually happen. She is fired by her producer Harvey (Dennis Quaid) over a lunch where he sloppily eats shrimp and has the inner depth of a sidewalk puddle. Being named Harvey is another clear blunt example of Fargeat going for the obvious, but hey...a shallow character may as well be treated with no real care. 

When Elisabeth leaves to go home, she notices a billboard of hers being promptly torn down and her distraction leads to a pretty brutal car accident. Miraculously, she seems to have survived it fairly unscathed but is clearly distraught. The young nurse in the room waits for the doctor to leave and he proceeds to check her spine. After cryptically telling her she would be a perfect candidate, he slips her a flash drive advertising a black-market serum called "The Substance", which promises a "younger, more beautiful, more perfect" version of oneself. 

This product has clear warnings/guidelines to follow, just as if one were caring for a Mogwai. Once you create the younger version of yourself, you must live your existence as both because in the end, you are one and the same. You will live one week as younger you and the next week as the original you, rinse and repeat. NO EXCEPTIONS! If you hold out longer than the allotted time, there will be consequences. You can also only create one "perfect" you, so the serum cannot be used again following the first input. 

Elisabeth injects the serum, collapses to the floor with convulsions, and essentially births her perfect younger self from a slit formed right at her spine. And thus, we get Sue, played by Margaret Qualley.

Her first assignment is to answer the casting call that from the paper that announced that the search for the new Elisabeth Sparkle is underway...with the caveat that she must be within the age range of 18-30.

As we expect, she singlehandedly impresses Harvey and his gaggle of sleazy cads to land the gig, proving that she was always the right one for the job, but now seemingly has the youth to seem worthy of the gig.

As expected though, the inner demons of Elisabeth cause her to battle herself but the message from the guy from "The Substance" is clear: this is all her own doing. Sue is Elisabeth/Elisabeth is Sue. And that is when the film begins to progress down its more abstract and darker path.

As a queer man, I do hear a lot about and have even felt a certain uneasiness with growing older...but at the same time, I also find myself wholly embracing it. This is why as a man, especially a cis white man, I know that I have no authority to speak on this experience because I can clearly see from the outside that what women are put through in pretty much every aspect, Hollywood or not, is atrocious.

We are a watching a woman being so desperate to hold onto everything she knows and her youth that she goes deep into an old warehouse to retrieve a serum that she truly knows nothing about and then injects it inside of her. 

This is where I think Demi Moore excels because she truly makes us believe this journey, even if it is clearly heightened to an almost cartoonish satirical level. 

Moore has never been nominated for an Oscar, and has only ever had a couple of nominations from organizations like the Golden Globes, but I would say she could very well find herself making the list this year. Considering the fine lines she has to stomp down, I love how much she embraced this role with complete abandon. In many ways, you could argue how this role progresses leads her into the "hagsplotation" area that was created by Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

Moore is tragic, angry, passionate, fiery, hilarious, and horrific...and I hope that she will get the attention she deserves. Also - she looks absolutely fantastic and it only further proves how asinine the treatment of women is in the Hollywood system.

Then we have Margaret Qualley and much like Moore, she has charisma that simply sparks off the screen and, I have to admit, she looks totally hot in this role. Fargeat clearly filmed a lot of Qualley's scenes as if it were she exploiting her in a "male gaze" manner and it is absolutely affective. You could even argue that her Sue is the film's "villain" but that is where the whole idea of this narrative is fascinating because she is still Elisabeth in the end.

I do think the film does drag a bit and could've used an edit, especially during the final 45 minutes or so, but within that final act, the film pretty much goes HARD.  The practical effects used on Moore and Qualley are magnificent. I can't speak for the upcoming Nosferatu as I have not seen it and the early reviews say the makeup is exceptional in it...but if there is any justice, The Substance will win that category. 

I have battled with a lot of inner thoughts about this film, not certain if I loved it or found it to be too abrasive in the wrong ways. I won't say that I loved it necessarily or say that it is a masterpiece, but I do highly admire what Fargeat achieved here. 

It is gross, it is unnerving, it is campy, it is tragic...and it is also highly vibrant and stylish, and even reminiscent over classic horror films...particularly The Shining and a lot of the Kubrick style cinematography/aesthetics. 

Maybe I would've appreciated a little more digging into the characters, but alas, I think Fargeat deserves to be commended here and I am definitely curious to see what she comes up with next.

THE SUBSTANCE

RATING: 7.5/10

Written from New York, It's My Review of Jason Reitman's SATURDAY NIGHT!

 I have posted content about SNL on my blog over the last few years ranging from discussing my 20 Favorite Sketches (I need to re-edit that post, but feel free to look regardless!) to talking about the troubled history of original cast member Garrett Morris (which will come into play in this review), and my episode-by-episode reviews of the infamous 6th season which is still a work-in-progress.

Needless to say, I do have an interest in SNL but I find my love of it to also be highly tumultuous. This isn't exactly an uncommon opinion from those who have been avid watchers of the long running variety series which, as of this writing, is currently in the midst of its 50th season. 

In my childhood, I really enjoyed watching the old "Best Of" specials ranging from cast members like Eddie Murphy and Gilda Radner or sketch-based specials like SNL Goes Commercial. I began watching SNL first run in the mid-to-late 90s with the cast that included Will Ferrell and Molly Shannon. Since then, I have seen the show truly have some high peaks and low valleys in terms of quality. In fact, around my early years of high school, I sat through two of the worst seasons of the show's history: 29 and 30...and these were so bad that I actually stopped watching consistently ever since, even when the show did have an uptick in quality (which it did shortly thereafter). 

We all have our attachments to certain eras. I still think the best combo of stellar writing and cast members comes from the late 80s/early 90s era that included the likes of Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman, and Jan Hooks.

However, we can't ignore where it all began. The first era of SNL, which aired from 1975-1980 is legendary and truly iconic. While some of these episodes have a roughness to them that feels rather erratic at times, you can't help but marvel at them. This was a new property and considering the limitations that the show's imitable creator Lorne Michaels had to work with, he often turned dross into gold. 

So when I heard that a film was being made about the early days of SNL, I was truly thrilled. I actually would love to see more content like this about the history of SNL, but it should be made clear: I am actually not as enamored with the final product as I would've liked to be. 

Saturday Night is a film that manages to have some truly great qualities, but its concept and approach both strengthen and weaken the results by the time the credits roll. 

How accurate WAS Saturday Night? Honestly, a lot of the stuff that happened in the film did occur, but was either heightened for the moment or didn't happen on the night that was being depicted. This is, however, not the reason I am going to criticize the film because that kind of plotting happens all the time in films about true stories/events.

Saturday Night takes place on the night of the series premiere: October 11th, 1975...and despite the fact the show is going live in less than 2 hours, Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle from The Fabelmans) is trying his best to make sure his show will get on the air smoothly...but he is battling a network, NBC, who gave him a studio with equipment that is 20 years outdated and falling apart and a group of actors and writers whose insecurities or egos or both are adding to the chaos backstage. 

These days, I would argue SNL is the definition of a well-oiled machine...perhaps even too much so. I mentioned how the show in those early years would have a rough quality and a lot of that was due to Lorne Michaels trying to find the formula that would make for a successful variety show. I would argue that he found it in various forms of confidence throughout the first 3 seasons, but from the start, he wasn't sure exactly what the show would be. That uncertainty would prove to be a major hurdle for Michaels, whose smoke and mirrors act of trying to steer away the head honchos of the network nearly costs him going live on air at 11:30. 

The fast-paced nature of the film is what makes the film highly entertaining and watchable...but the unfortunate thing about this is that it lacks intimacy. I am not saying every film has to be a super long epic that will drain every drop of tears from your eyes, but it is hard to stay invested in the well being of these people.

In fact, I actually began to wonder how well this film would play to those who aren't familiar with the show's history. Knowing who, say, Dick Ebersol is (played here by Cooper Hoffman) certainly worked in my favor but I do have to wonder if this film could've played as even more slight to most other people without having knowledge of the deeper history of the show. 

The fact the film is so quickly paced doesn't allow us a chance to grow to care much about the characters, except for Lorne Michaels to an extent...and I think a lot of that is due to how LaBelle's natural boyish "aw shucks" demeanor translates onscreen. 

Although, there is one actor I want to single out in particular and that is Lamorne Morris, who most people would recognize as Winston from New Girl and his recent Emmy winning turn as Trooper Whit Farr on season 5 of Fargo. 

Here, he plays the fascinating man that is Garrett Morris, the show's first cast member of color and someone who was a bit of an outsider within the show. 

*Sidenote: Lamorne Morris has said in interviews that as a kid, he would claim that Garrett Morris was his actual father, a story he has since been able to tell Garrett, who is currently 87 years old as of this writing. Just wanted to add that as I find it utterly adorable.*

When watching Morris play his "father", I was actually very impressed with the absolute care he took to capturing his presence.

G. Morris came from a theatre background having worked with the likes of Harry Belafonte, got training at Julliard, became a published playwright, performed opera throughout the world, and was a key member of the Black Arts Repertory Theater in Harlem. 

Michaels had read a play of Morris' that he quite liked and hired him as a writer, despite the fact he had never written in short-form before. Some of the work he turned in, including a superhero sketch entitled "Colored Man" was received with apathy by the show's mercurial headwriter Michael O'Donoghue (who is played perfectly in the film by Tommy Dewey), but considering he had experience as an actor, Michaels decided to hire him as a cast member in hopes to bring people of color onto the roster of the show. 

Morris has a swagger about him, but the world of SNL clearly brought him a level of insecurity that nearly destroyed him. If you read my post about him, you will learn more but the movie does flirt with the fact that Morris would turn to drugs to cope with the fact that he just didn't seem to mesh with the world of the show as it was developing. Although - the movie does show us he would have the chops as he does get to sing one of the more famous bits that would happen later on in the first season: singing his "Kill All The Whiteys I See" number. 

All of the ensemble truly did a wonderful job at capturing what these people were/are, but Morris did Morris proud here. I sort of wish maybe he had gotten a little more screentime, because I think this performance would be worthy of an Oscar nomination if it had more meat on the bone. 

It was also rather fun to see Nicholas Braun, fresh off his stint as Cousin Greg on Succession, playing both Andy Kaufmann and Jim Henson...or see Matthew Rhys disappear into the brilliant facade of George Carlin. 

So yes, this isn't exactly a deep review, but I am not sure the film requires one. I found it to be highly enjoyable, but it was also a glossy and semi-cartoonish attempt at capturing a true legendary moment in time. The biggest problem is it just makes you wish there was a way they could dig deeper.

SATURDAY NIGHT

RATING: 6.5/10

A New Kind of Brighton Beach Memoir: My Review of Sean Baker’s ANORA

*This review will be free of spoilers until the end, so you will get prompt warning when this will switch over into spoiler mode. I will say that certain themes throughout the review may allude to spoiler-ish elements*

My boyfriend Jesse and I sat down at Nitehawk in Brooklyn and one of the first things to play on the screen was the original trailer for Pretty Woman. It sort of made sense; I knew the themes from that film would play into the one we were about to see.

And that film, Anora, quickly became one of my most anticipated films of the year after it managed to win the prestigious Palme d’or at the Cannes Film Festival back in May. 

At first glance, Anora doesn't seem like the kind of film that would become a major contender during the movie award season...but I think we are beginning to see tides shifting within the kinds of films that can get this significant attention. Sure, there are going to be exceptions that prove me wrong -- for every Parasite and Moonlight, there will be Green Book and Coda right behind them rearing their mediocre heads. 

This isn't to say Anora is exactly that out of the box in terms of accessibility, but it IS a film that flirts with genres and themes that aren't typically considered fodder for prestige pictures.

The film begins at Headquarters, a strip club located near the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan where we meet the titular 23 year old Anora Mikheeva (Mikey Madison), who prefers to go by Ani. She works as a stripper and does sex work on the side to make extra money. She gets by, but she lives in a small apartment in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn...a neighborhood famously known for its prominent Russian population. Despite having shallow and materialistic tendencies, she does have a desire to break out of this life.

Having familiarity with the Russian language, she is asked to be the escort for 21 year old Ivan "Vanya" Zakharov (Mark Eydelshteyn), who we soon discover is the son of a rich Russian oligarch and he is living out of his father's mansion in Mill Basin (which, for a time, was actually owned by a real-life Russian oligarch). 

Even though Ani doesn't want to think of herself as a prostitute, she takes repeated offers from him for sexual encounters to the point where he proposes an even bigger offer: $15,000 for her to stay with him the whole week and pose as his girlfriend...and this leads to an impromptu trip to Las Vegas via a private plane with all of Vanya's entourage. Vanya proclaims that he has fallen in love with Ani and despite some brief skepticism, she says yes and asks for a 3 karat ring. Vanya postures: "Why not 4?"

The two rush to one of those cliche Vegas wedding chapels and have an exuberant night to follow along the strip. Ani moves in with Vanya and quits her job at HQ...but there are signs of something amiss. Word has gotten back to Russia that Vanya married "a prostitute", which sends his powerful and domineering mother Galina and his stoic but aloof father Nikolai into a tailspin and they board a plan for New York with every intention to get this marriage annulled. 

In order to the ensure the process can begin, they have Vanya's godfather, an Orthodox priest named Toros (Karren Karagulian), sends over two goons named Igor and Garnick (Yura Borisov & Vache Tovmasyn) over to the mansion to confront the duo. 

And from there...the film truly takes off. 

I find myself thinking a lot about Anora now that I am a day removed from seeing it. I am still at a point where I am not quite sure if I would go as far as to claim it to be a masterpiece as many are saying on Film Twitter or YouTube channels...besides, the term "masterpiece" gets thrown around way too much these days. Having said that, there is so much to love about Anora.

I will say there were a couple of plot points that I predicted coming from a mile away, but what I will commend Sean Baker on is that he diverted enough from the path that he kept me on my toes and from not being underwhelmed when these moments occurred. 

There are definitely moments I want to discuss when I get to the spoiler section in relation to some of these plot points, but for now, I do want to talk about what makes this film work as a whole.

Sean Baker has been a true king of indie filmmaking several years now with films like Starlet, Tangerine, The Florida Project, and Red Rocket. He always seems eager to tackle topics that deal with people who are struggling or marginalized and wants to give them focus. 

When Baker won the Palme d'or and even in interviews since, he has made it clear that negative stigma towards sex work in society simply needs to vanish. I certainly don't expect one film to be any kind of significant catalyst, but I will say that I appreciated how clearly Baker took care to capture this kind of world with a dignity that was warranted while also showing its darker edges as well.

I think a lot of the power in capturing that world can be given not just to Sean Baker, but to his leading lady.

Mikey Madison is one of those actresses I have seen (and liked) in other projects but personally never found myself catching her name. I had seen her as Max, the bitter daughter of Pamela Adlon's Sam on Better Things (in fact, a scene from the show was shown during the sneak preview portion before the film); she also has the distinction of being burned alive in two films: Scream V and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. In fact, her death in the latter was particularly memorable as she not only dies via Leonardo DiCaprio's flamethrower in the swimming pool, but she is mauled by Brad Pitt's pitbull prior to that. It perhaps felt more satisfying because she was playing Susan Atkins, the Manson Family member who was present for the infamous Tate murders.

If I am going to say anything positive about the film, and believe me I will have more positive things to say than what I am about to say, but it would be this:

Mikey Madison. STAR!

This girl is IT. She has such a distinctive quality that is not only beautiful, but also rough around the edges. She can play tough but also incredibly vulnerable with absolute conviction. Considering she is a girl from the San Fernando Valley, it is kind of impressive how much she captures the South Brooklyn dialect that I hear around me all the time. It fits her like a glove so much so that I honestly thought that perhaps she did grow up in Brooklyn. You can tell she put so much effort to nail the accent and to work on learning Russian.

Even beyond just the technical aspects like accent work, Madison is just a force of nature. This isn't to say that she is constantly being brash or bombastic on screen...although we do get to see her do exactly that kind of thing...but her screen presence feels so fresh and, frankly, unlike many actresses I have seen in recent years. 

She feels so real and genuine to the point where when she does have to become more emotional or vulnerable, you truly feel for her. Ani is one tough cookie and she is more than willing to defend herself...but you are ready to join the resistance to protect her at all cost because she manages to win you over that much.

It is still so early to make this call, but regardless of what other performances do come about, Mikey Madison's work here as our lead is worthy to win the Oscar for Best Actress. I would go as far to say I wouldn't be shocked if she does go all the way; if anything, she IS my prediction to win right now. I didn't exactly buy into that hype when I heard others make that claim in reviews, but I am a certainly in that camp now.

This is one of those performances I could see people looking back on as years go by and calling it "iconic". A true career defining performance that truly puts Mikey Madison on the map in an absolutely monumental way and one that makes me super excited to see whatever she does next!

As for the rest of the ensemble, a lot has been circulating online about young Mark Eydelshteyn being the Russian Timothee Chalamet...and yes, that comparison is earned and justified. His Vanya is essentially a teenager trapped in the body of a 21-year-old which has its charms...including sliding around in his socks like some Gen Z version of Tom Cruise in Risky Business to avoid the simple act of walking. I actually would love to see him do more, because there are moments where I could see glimpses of potential darkness that could prove fruitful in bleaker dramatic material.

Karagulian, Borisov, and Tovmasyan as the Three Stooges of sorts...Toros, Igor, and Garnick...are a riot. In many ways, you hate them but you also can't help but love them.

Once they enter the fray, you truly see the film heading into directions you weren't quite expecting...but you also marvel at how much Baker balances their villainous nature with a sense of humanity...even if it comes from a place of supposed class snobbery. 

In fact, Anora as a film is all about balance. 

Tonal shifts can be problematic when it comes to films. A filmmaker like Bong Joon-ho masters that line time and time again, but I would argue Sean Baker proves he can blend genres and shift them around with the best of them.

There are times where the energy of this film feels like a brasher take on that of a 30s screwball comedy, but then at times, where you truly feel truly disheartened or on the edge of your seat as if you are watching some kind of Safdie Brothers action/comedy/thriller a la Uncut Gems.

I also adored the film's setting as we don't often see South Brooklyn neighborhoods featured in films these days aside from Coney Island. They even filmed scenes at the Williams Candy Shop in Coney Island, a place I have gone to multiple times to get candy apples and fudge. I truly loved the aesthetic of the film with such wonderful cinematography by Drew Daniels, who manages to make the film pop with rich colors and I would argue his work deserves an Oscar nod as well.

I am going to be a bit of nitpicker and outlier here as I disagree with a lot of reviews I have read that this film flew by. I would argue that sections of it do, but I do think Sean Baker's script/editing (he does his own editing) could've used a little trimming. The final act does drag a bit and I would also argue the film's first half hour sort of left me feeling like "This is good, but I am worried this might've been overhyped". 

The film's runtime is just shy of 140 minutes, but I do think the final act could've been trimmed by a few minutes to keep it moving at swifter pace. I don't think it would've sacrificed the payoff by any means. 

Beyond that, this is a film that is truly a disarming and easy to engage with. I think Sean Baker was able to mesh so many of his previous themes and styles and ideas into a film that feels so alive and...to use a word I have already said multiple times already...refreshing in today's cinema landscape.

I could see it growing on me more over time, but as it stands now, I think we have a truly lovely effort from Sean Baker with an absolutely star-making performance by Mikey Madison that deserves to be talked about in the years to come.

ANORA - RATING: 9/10

-

And now - THE SPOILERS:

A lot has been said about the ending of Anora and the final act that precedes it.

Earlier in my review, I stopped talking about the plot once it is clear that Vanya's parents want his marriage annulled and they enlist Toros to get involved with Igor and Garnick. 

Two key reasons I stopped talking about this are the tonal shifts deserve to be left with some ambiguity as I frankly wasn't expecting the film to truly be as hilarious as it was. The comedy truly hits slapstick/screwball level but in a way that feels realistic. None of them feel like cartoon characters. 

But the major key moment is Vanya abandoning Ani at the mercy of his three caretakers. It is clear that there is something truly off with Vanya in this moment, but it is still so soon in the process that even if we suspect he is just an immature child who might cave to his parents' demands, we can still understand why Ani may suspect he will be back.

Alas - Vanya is just an immature spoiled brat who is too busy to do anything with his life but live off his father's fortune. He even mentions in passing to Ani that he really wants to obtain a Green Card and become a US Citizen so he won't have to go back to Russia and work for his father. 

The scenes of watching Ani fight off the trio in the mansion and eventually being carted around South Brooklyn to find Vanya are certainly hilarious, but as the film progresses, you truly feel more and more that she is about to lose everything she thought so easily fell into her lap.

And all through that, she is being demeaned for her job/lifestyle. 

By the end, Vanya's parents arrive and it is particularly his mother that is truly vile towards Ani...but I do love that Ani gets her moments to tell off both Vanya and Galina.

It is as if we are seeing behind the curtain after the glorious Pretty Woman happy ending and seeing someone's life crash and burn...but is it really crashing and burning?

In many ways, Ani has saved herself a lot of heartache. She also managed to walk away with $10K from the annulment and, in an admittedly predictable twist, Ani does maintain possession of the 4-karat diamond ring that Vanya gave her. Toros had taken the ring but Igor managed to steal it back to give to Ani.

Igor is presented as the tough oaf who actually begins to feel for Ani despite the fact he is the one who she seems to lash out at most as he tries to hold her down and tie her up when she escapes...but in reality, you sort of wonder if they are going to try to pair these two.

That would be the Hollywood ending to tack on to them feel after what we got prior to the final scene, but Baker takes us down a bleaker path. 

Once Igor gives Ani the ring, she resorts back to her transactional manner and feels she needs to reward Igor with sex...not to mention this whole ordeal occurred on his birthday, which is one of those plot beats that feels silly but it feels perfect for the story. Igor, actually thinking maybe this is her coming around to giving him a chance, tries to kiss her only for her to start hitting him for even trying.

Once she calms down, she collapses into his arms sobbing profusely.

Everything has finally hit her: the whole ordeal and on top of that, she seems to feel incapable of accepting that someone might truly be willing to see her as a lovely companion on her terms rather than a sex object. Igor almost stares at Ani in awe because it is clear he admires her and cares for her as the film progresses...and even when she starts hitting him in that moment, you get the sense he truly GETS why. 

I would like to think that Ani finds her peace. Maybe Igor would be able to be a source of comfort for her. Maybe the fact he drives his dead grandmother's car that is seemingly decades old will be enough to recoil further if she slinks back into more materialistic ways as she always had. Ani might potentially be willing to accept help. She also has the means to pawn a ring worth tens of thousands of dollars while her "husband" is being forced to go back to Russia under the watchful eye of his parents.

So no - Anora doesn't exactly have a happy ending...it sort of hits you just as much as the abuse Igor takes from Ani...but I would like to think that maybe there is a glimmer of hope for her in this tragic circumstance.

AN SNL REVIEW: Season 6 - Episode 6: Ray Sharkey/Jack Bruce & Friends

 1981 was quite the year for the country and for SNL.

That January, Ronald Reagan was sworn in....cue the horror...

That April, he was nearly killed all thanks to someone being obsessed with Jodie Foster.

But you could make the case that 1981 is one of the most bizarre and erratic years in SNL history. You have the final stretch of the Doumanian episodes followed by the battle of wits between new producer Dick Ebersol and returning headwriter Michael O'Donoghue that autumn. 

But focusing on the season in question, we are coming back from the winter break with two new headwriters: Jeremy Stevens and Tom Moore, who both had been writers on Fernwood 2Nite, the parody talk show that was something of a spin-off of the cult hit Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. 

It seems obvious that not much has changed to the tone of the show, which proves that Doumanian's reign is not helping matters in the slightest. In other eras when new headwriters took over (such as Adam McKay coming in during season 21 following the mass departures of mainstays like Jim Downey and Al Franken in season 20), you could see a noticeable, fresh, and welcomed shift in how the show was looking to evolve. 

The following episode I am about to review doesn't show any real promise, but the capability is there...which we will see in the next episode following this.

______________________________________

COLD OPENING: To Tell The Truth

When it comes to classic game shows, I feel like there is a certain generational divide when it comes to To Tell the Truth. I was, not surprisingly if you've been an avid reader of my blog, a kid who had a fascination with older TV as a kid, particularly game shows.

To Tell the Truth was part of the famed Goodson/Todman Productions which also had a had in classics like What's My Line?, I've Got a Secret, The Price is Right, and Family Feud to name a few.

The main premise is that 3 individuals stand on the stage and they all proclaim to be one person and it is up to the celebrity panel to determine which of the three is the person they say they are.

The premise of this cold open, which was written by Barry Blaustein & David Sheffield, is that of the then topical incident of mobster Jimmy "The Weasel" Fratiano turning into an informant for the FBI and being placed into protection. As expected, the mafia wants him dead.

So here, we are trying to find out who is the real "Weasel".

We get featured player Matthew Laurence doing a relatively straightforward impersonation, Charles Rocket goes for the cliche 20's gangster you've seen a dozen times, and Eddie Murphy gets the biggest laugh of the sketch by simply being himself.

It's a solid enough bit, especially considering how rocky most of the cold opens (and monologues for that matter) are during season 6. I think what really makes this one memorable is this is the first instance Eddie Murphy gets to say "Live From New York".

Although, so much has been said about how some of the people behind the scenes actually complained that Eddie Murphy (still then a "lowly" featured player) got the chance to say the immortal line before a cast member like Ann Risley was given the chance...or even Gail Matthius, who only got to say "It's Saturday Night!" during the horrid Jamie Lee Curtis cold open.

It was reported that Doumanian by this point had finally acknowledged Murphy's ability as a performer and agreed to let him announce it.

It's rather telling that in the next episode, Risley gets to do the honor.

As for Murphy, this is going to turn out to be a big night for him...and it truly signals, as if we needed further probing, that Murphy is the one they need to save this show.

_____________________________________

MONTAGE & MONOLOGUE:

Every now and then, we look back on SNL history and we kind of wonder "Who the hell is this host?!".

Ray Sharkey is a prime example of a host who came in to host at what was arguably the only real 15-minutes of fame he got in his career. Later that month, Sharkey would win the Comedy/Musical Golden Globe for Best Actor in The Idolmaker, a film that is largely forgotten today (and a film that I don't even think I have seen in full). 

Sharkey eventually passed away in the 90s after he had contracted HIV due to extraneous drug use (which he also infected an estimated 100 women as he was in staunch denial he even had HIV)...so yeah, a very problematic figure.

Sharkey's energy in this monologue is both welcomed and appalling. To be frank, his high energy NY style does end up helping the show tonight at many moments...but he also relies too much on saying "fuhgedaboutit" WAY too much during the monologue.

So it isn't great...but I suppose his energy is more of a plus than a con.

____________________________________

COMMERCIAL: Drink BEFORE The Job

In the early years of SNL, it actually wasn't unusual for the fake ads to feature people who weren't cast members...and this is a prime exmaple.

This is a fun premise...and for someone who really doesn't care for their job, I can relate to the idea of how much I wish I could just drink my troubles away and then go into work.

It is fine enough for what it is.

_________________________________________

SKETCH: The Wasp Interpreter

Charles Rocket and Ann Risley play themselves as a stuffy white couple who have trouble expressing their emotions. And they literally named the characters Charles and Ann to drive the point home. 

They choose to hire an interpreter, played by Sharkey, who can translate their actual feelings amidst their banal waspy responses.

I don't think I even have to go any further. Charles or Ann say something very dry and lifeless which turns into Sharkey translating a loud and brash response, such as saying that Charles referred to Ann as a "stupid bitch" and a "cow".

They stick so much to this premise that it gets old incredibly fast...even when they try to liven it up by having Sharkey passionately make out with Risley.

I think there could have been some promise here, but it was just a bare premise that was barely held up by a bombastic Sharkey performance.

_____________________________________

SKETCH: Tommy Torture

I am very torn on this sketch, but for the most part, I consider it to falter.

I love how they really go for that early 80s CBGB feel with the set, but the bits with Matthius' Vicki and Dillon's Debbie seem to fall flat.

The whole premise is that they sneak into this seedy club to see a punk rocker by the name of Tommy  Torture, who is played by Sharkey.

Sharkey gets to sing an original song called "Abuse Somebody", which might be a bit on the nose in terms of its lyrics but it is a very catchy and well performed punk song and might even be Sharkey's best moment of the night. He is basically proving that he is a host who will try anything, which is not something we see a lot of during this season.

Although the ending, where Vicki and Debbie agree that the song was "not too cool" (a phrase they've already been using a little bit), just gives the sketch a whimper of an ending after coming off the high of the song performance.

It almost makes me wish they devised this sketch solely around Sharkey and maybe had a different character for Matthius and/or Dillon to play.

______________________________________

PSA: Citizens for a Better America

We finally get a sketch featuring Gottfried...and it feels like we haven't seen him for so long after his last episode only featured him in Yellowface the entire time.

It truly is strange to watch Gottfried in these episodes: very subdued, using his natural voice, and very uneasy on camera.

While this sketch does eventually get some laughs, I have to admit that his energy in this sketch is not something you see on SNL often. He truly seems so green.

It becomes a play on words...where Gottfried talks about the plight of people not wanting to take more menial jobs, or as he refers to the "a humjob".

"My father had a humjob, my grandfather had a humjob..."

And of course, the final line: "Mr. President, give me a humjob!" 

It is silly enough, but mostly just a one joke premise that oddly suffers more due to how little Gottfried puts into it.

________________________________________

SKETCH: Carter at the Bar/January 11th

In what is only the second of three appearances from Piscopo's Carter this season, I have to admit that I do like this impersonation. Here, I'd say he comes closer to nailing it even more than Aykroyd did.

Placing Carter in a bar is certainly fitting, though very unlike the real Carter...but considering how unpopular the man was at that point, I doubt many cared about how accurate his image was.

Sharkey plays a bartender in the sketch and even says to him that all he can do now "is sit on your duff and daydream" now that his "job" is coming to an end.

Carter: "Oh, I've been doing that the last four years".

Sigh...Carter is such a great man, but there is no denying that his presidency was plagued with problems. Perhaps the ultimate example of a lame duck president.

The sketch then takes a bizarre turn where it cuts to a live feed of Charles Rocket standing out in the blistering cold on the corner of 5th Ave/50th St amongst a crowd ready to ring in January 11th.

It seems like an obvious ploy to really energize the audience, but I suppose I give them props for basically...well...providing the audience with props and letting them ring in a New Day not long after they rang in the New Year. 

It was interesting to see them try a strange format such as this, but it doesn't quite land and it feels a little jarring. 

I suppose that is a win...especially since we have had sketches like Commie Hunting Season to contend with from this season.

_______________________________________

WEEKEND UPDATE WITH CHARLES ROCKET & GAIL MATTHIUS????....Does That Mean UPDATE is saved?!?!

Does Weekend Update need two anchors to succeed?

Not necessarily. People like Chevy Chase and Jane Curtin and Dennis Miller and Norm MacDonald were able to handle the job with ease...but that also doesn't mean having a co-anchor to bounce off of is a bad thing.

Curtin worked very well with Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray; Colin Jost and Michael Che have been very consistent as co-anchors for the last several years; and who could forget the pairing of Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon?

Pairing Rocket with Matthius wasn't a bad idea. I can totally understand why they would do it because it is blatantly obvious that Update hasn't been working. In fact, not only has it been so dire in nearly every aspect, they go as far to change the Update set to be nearly identical to the Curtin/Murray set from seasons 4 and 5. 

The unfortunate truth is that the writing is still mostly abysmal...and Matthius, god love her, isn't able to overcome the material given. If anything, being on the Update just shows she probably was better suited sticking

Instead of seeming too calm and lethargic, Rocket starts to veer in another direction for these final episodes of his short tenure. It will become more apparent in the coming episodes.

However, as is to be expected, Update is stolen by Piscopo and then kidnapped from him by Eddie Murphy.

Piscopo is pretty much in his full Sportscaster role at this point, and his simple bit with claiming bowling is the sport of the 80s by utilizing a cheap bowling toy is somewhat fun and charming for what it is...but what I really love about it is that it seems to set up a bit where Piscopo tries to "upstage" Rocket once the bit is over having his toys interfere with Rocket's "jokes". I will comment on the variations of this bit as we continue on with the season.

That bring us to Eddie Murphy.

After getting the chance to say "Live from New York" before Ann Risley and even Gail Matthius (in full) had the opportunity, Murphy gets his next major break in the episode with his latest Update commentary.

With the war draft still a topic of discussion, Murphy was still only 19 years old when this episode aired (his confidence makes him seem like he is at least a few years older). Murphy doesn't want to be drafted which is met with applause from the audience. 

Although - he isn't afraid of being drafted: "I don't mind getting shot at every now and then; it doesn't bother me". HIS issue is that if he is drafted, who will be the Token Black on SNL who can do impressions of people like Bill Cosby and Stevie Wonder?

This leads to him doing Cosby for the first time (which, admittedly, was never one of his better impersonations) and just a visual look for Wonder which in later episodes will lead to one of his better vocal impersonations. The audience eats this bit up, but I do feel the final bit of the editorial where he recommends that they enlist Garrett Morris to join despite his age because "he's got a lot of time on his hands". Considering the kind of horrific treatment he received behind the scenes as a cast member during 1975-1980, I don't think this bit aged very well at all.

Regardless, it is another successful bit from Murphy and another sign that this young guy was worth far more screentime than he was actually getting.

________________________________

MUSICAL PERFORMANCE: 

Jack Bruce & Friends perform "Dancing on Air"

________________________________

SKETCH: Filmed Confession

A solid sketch overall in which Ray Sharkey plays a detective who is trying to get a confession out of a criminal played by Gilbert Gottfried...but the twist is that the interrogator is treating it as if it were a small film he is directing.

While there have been other sketches that have flirted with this kind of idea before and since, I would say their take on it here is not bad. I also think Gottfried comes alive here more than he has been in a couple of episodes, which is nice to see considering his brief tenure is known for being him in a very green and almost catatonic state on camera.

Once again, say what you will about Sharkey, but you can't argue the man was trying to give his all in this episode.

_____________________________

SHORT FILM: Have a Nice Day

We are in the early stages of the Slasher Movie era with Leatherface and Michael Meyers becoming iconic figures (although Jason Voorhees was not quite on the radar yet).

The idea of a horror movie using Smiley faces throughout in various ways does come off as silly, but not overly funny in the end. 

I do think the image on a Leatherface-type villain with a smiley faced mask and a chainsaw is actually kind of creepy in its own way.

______________________________

SKETCH: White Babies on the Black Market

I have always been kind of mixed on this sketch, primarily because the idea of putting Murphy (even though he is with Sharkey) as someone selling white babies on the Black Market does seem a bit tasteless by today's standards, but as is expected, Murphy's presence makes it a little more bearable.

It also doesn't hurt that some of the more absurdist bits of the sketch actually land, such as how a bowling pin was sold to a couple as a white baby or Denny Dillion having a kid named "Splotchy".

_____________________________

AUDIENCE CAPTION: 

As you can see, SNL decided they wanted to tackle these captions where they would zero in on a random audience member and comment on them in a faux-insulting way. 

Even in those 70s episodes, these weren't exactly amazing bits or highlights, but they often provided a quick chuckle.

The issue with this one is that it is far too wordy and it has that desperate feeling of "Hey look! Isn't it funny that we are saying this man has coleslaw in his underwear?!" 

This season will try to tackle these again, but the results are still lackluster.

____________________________

SKETCH: Surrogate Mothers

The audience does seem to get behind this sketch over all, and I can understand why to an extent. Denny Dillon's penchant for trying to get more money out of Risley's character by threatening to do acts such as taking LSD is humorous thanks to Dillon's performance, but this is yet another sketch that falls under the "shock value" category where it has that "Make it Hipper" stamp from Jean Doumanian. 

Perhaps even more frustrating is that they have Yvonne Hudson in the sketch as the other surrogate, but only use her to basically have her utter the "I don't know nothin' bout birthin' no babies" line from Gone with the Wind". 

Such an insulting waste. 

_____________________________

SHORT FILM: The Man with the Black Hat

Not much to say about this one.

A man walks around with his pants down and eventually meets a woman who is "dressed" the same way.

Honestly, some of the short films that SNL would air during this time...even extending into the Ebersol era...were amazing in their relative pointlessness.

______________________________

COMMERCIAL: Stop-a-Nut

I feel like a lot of people really like this one, and I suppose I can see the humor in certain moments. The concept is that Stop-a-Nut is a personal protection unit that will fight crime.

The best parts of the sketch are Ray Sharkey as an elderly woman trying to fight off the armored suit and the somehow glamorous life one can have while being inside the suit, complete with a fancy house.

There's also Eddie Murphy blasting Rapper's Delight on his boombox, which of course, the Stop-a-Nut takes as "crime" and begins attacking the boombox.

Definitely a wacky concept, and it is done pretty well.

____________________________

SKETCH: The Waiter-Maker

As I mentioned during his monologue, Sharkey was in the midst of his career peak while hosting this episode thanks to his performance in The Idolmaker, a role he would win the Comedy Golden Globe for later that month.

I don't think having knowledge of that movie is necessary here. I haven't even seen the whole thing, but the concept is pretty straightforward, so it is easy to pick up on. Having it be about making someone a great waiter is, I suppose, mildly amusing but it is frankly kind of basic.

Even the best moment of the sketch is done so poorly, which is a series of intertitles to show the comedically long passage of time it took for the waiter (Gilbert Gottfried) to be competent enough for his first dinner service.

However, it is clear this is being done to prep for set and costume changes and the timing of it is so slow that it only further drags the sketch down...so that is a bad sign when arguably the best moment of the sketch is a borderline disaster and frankly not even that funny to begin with.

____________________________

COMMERCIAL: Selling Nothing

Considering what is about to follow this, I have to wonder if this was some kind of last minute desperate attempt to pad out the timing of the episode.

Piscopo is a pitchman who is trying to sell us a seemingly non-existent vague product for $9.99

It is over and done so fast that it leaves you more bewildered than anything else.

I suppose the plus is that Piscopo is at least good at this kind of material.

_________________________________

EXTRA: Eddie Murphy Saves The Day!

The legend behind this bit is pretty well-known in terms of SNL lore. When Eddie Murphy finally snagged an audition for the show, he did a piece for Neil Levy in which he played three guys on a street corner in Harlem. Two are attempting to fight while the other is instigating. 

When the show was running very short, it was Neil Levy who kept saying to Jean Doumanian that having Murphy do his stand-up material would be a great way to pad out the time before the final musical performance.

Doumanian kept resisting until she finally relented. Murphy, seemingly thrilled about the prospect with no hint of anxiety, proceeded to head for home base to do his bit.

While many have stated that his performance here is not exactly his best work, what is still remarkable about it is that he felt confident enough to do the piece on live television with barely any heads up and...perhaps even crazier...cut it down and censored it as he went along so it wouldn't go over the amount of time that was allotted.

If there was any doubt amongst anyone at this point that Eddie Murphy was actually the future of SNL, they were extremely delusional. 

Upon finishing the bit, the audience roars with approval and he introduces the final musical performance.

_______________________________

GOODNIGHTS/FINAL THOUGHTS:

Considering this was the first show back after the winter hiatus along with the fact they had new headwriters, this episode didn't really feel any worse or better than what we've been getting so far. 

In fact, it seems to further prove how much of a negative influence Doumanian was to her staff for not being able to properly guide them. 

As a host, Ray Sharkey was a bit brash and bombastic but there is no denying that his energy helped keep things lively and it is certainly appreciative that he seemed game to do anything.

Eddie Murphy firmly plants himself as what the show will need to actually survive. 

Getting to have the "Live From New York!" intro, a killer Update piece, and his standup right at the end made him feel like the episode's tentpoles.

Strangely enough, despite what was seemingly a bigger growing desire to dispose of Jean Doumanian backstage by NBC, the cast/writers would go into the next week surprisingly emboldened and they would give us an episode that has been considered worthy of classic status.

Stay tuned as I will discuss what might be the season's best episode: Karen Black/Cheap Trick.

IT'S A HIT INDEED: Talking About MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG

I often bounce around between what I consider to be my favorite Sondheim musical...and a lot of that has to do with the simple fact that the man was basically a God who gave us such a stellar and eclectic output.

I am not about to make a claim that his best musical is Merrily We Roll Along, but I will say that there is a certain bouncy buoyancy to it mixed with bittersweetness and snark that make it a truly unique little quirky gem of a piece.

There is a song in the show called "It's a Hit!" where our leading characters Frankin Shepard and Charley Kringas both realize their new show Musical Husbands is a smash after a rapturous opening night. 

As any musical theatre fan can tell you, that certainly wasn't the case for Merrily We Roll Along.

Just a quick history:

The musical was actually inspired by a 1934 Kaufmann & Hart play of the same name which explored a playwright named Richard Niles with a reverse chronological storytelling method that began in the 30s and ended with his college graduation in 1916. 

Spanning 20 years of time in a theatrical production is not necessarily unheard of...although the revere chronology may be a little more so.

One big question one might have if you are on a production team for such a show is how to go about casting it: do you want to keep the cast young or older or somewhere in the middle?

When Stephen Sondheim, Book writer George Furth, and director Hal Prince began devising the piece, the decision was made that this would be a showcase for young talent. Prince eventually said in an interview that he was "charmed as hell" by the "beginnings of the cast's artistry, the roughness of their craft, their inexperience".

On top of this, it was decided that the show would not have an out-of-town tryout due to budgetary reasons and it would open sometime in November of 1981 in the midst of what was considered one of the worst Broadway seasons in recent memory when it came to original musicals.

*Sidenote: this is the season Dreamgirls would open to truly orgasmic reviews that December only for another musical, Nine, to come in late in the game in May 1982 to win the Tony mainly due to politics and recency bias while also not having an out-of-town tryout.*

The preview period for Merrily is legendary for how disastrous it actually was. The first performance had mass walkouts and many bemoaned how incoherent the story/characters were. It seems like a joke now, but one of the big decisions made for a period was for the cast members to wear various colored sweatshirts that had their characters' names emblazoned on their chest. 

After 44 previews (which may not seem like a lot in today's Broadway climate) and the firing of young James Weissenbach as Franklin at the expense of Jim Walton, the show finally opened on November 16, 1981...and closed two weeks later after only 16 official performances.

Despite the colossal failure, they were able to record the score for posterity which is certainly a major reason why the show didn't just fade into obscurity. 

That cast recording truly is the saving grace because it captured the best things about the production: the score and the Jonathan Tunick orchestrations. 

 Considering musicals are what they are, a great score can often help a show coast along even if it has just an adequate text to buoy it up. A lot of what made Merrily problematic was Furth's book and Prince's desire to focus on the cast being young adults. However, it is clear when looking at the material that while it was far from being great, the themes involving the dissolution a friendship told backwards gave the show a surprising emotional trajectory.

It is that old trope of letting an audience in on something that the actors don't know. By the end of the show when we see the trio of Franklin, Charley, and Mary sitting on the roof of their Upper West Side apartment having spotted Sputnik in the sky, we can't help but feel a sense of warmth for them along with a sense of sadness as we know this budding friendship is not going to last. 

After years of many revisions and edits to the plot and score, Merrily built up a bigger reputation and managed to become a truly beloved cult favorite. This culminated in a 2012 production that was staged by Maria Friedman at London's Menier Chocolate Factory. It was THAT production that got many buzzing to that point that such hyperbolic sayings like "This is the definitive Merrily" were being proclaimed with great fervor. 

After a decade (and a pandemic), it was announced that the Friedman staging would be coming to Broadway starring very popular Broadway vets Jonathan Groff as Franklin; Daniel Radcliffe as Charley; and Lindsay Mendez as Mary. This seemed like a no-brainer after it had been staged with great success at the NY Theatre Workshop.

And here it was, over 40 years after the musical bombed, it was now time for it to have its official coronation on Broadway...and it was indeed a coronation that gave the show Tonys for Best Musical Revival, Best Leading Actor for Groff, Best Featured Actor for Radcliffe, and Orchestrations for Tunick, who revamped his work for a smaller (but fantastic) orchestra.

For a quick synopsis of the show, we begin in 1976. We are in the Bel Air home of Franklin Shepard (Jonathan Groff), who is now working as a successful Hollywood film producer, and we quickly learn that he has had a falling out with his two friends: Mary Flynn (Lindsay Mendez), a journalist turned novelist turned critic and his writing partner Charley Kringas (Daniel Radcliffe), who is now a highly acclaimed playwright with a Pulitzer Prize to his name. 

We proceed back throughout the 20 years that led to this moment; all of the triumphs and heartbreaks and discoveries and betrayals.

I already that I called the musical a "quirky little piece", but beyond that...how exactly do I feel about it?

Like I also said, I by no means consider this to be Sondheim's best musical but I used to always consider it his most underrated...and that mainly comes from his score rather than the rest of the show itself.

Sondheim's style is usually pretty noticeable as he loves to experiment and not cater to the norms, but one thing that is truly remarkable about him is that his catalog is quite eclectic...and it is that quality that can make it hard to choose a favorite musical of his...or at least a favorite score.

Merrily is a jazzier score that almost feels surprisingly traditional at times, but the real truth is that this score is deceptively brilliant. It ties in so many key musical motifs throughout the show that vary depending on the era they came from. We may hear a snippet of a song that would normally be a reprise (Old Friends) and then hear the full song later on...but he also experiments with song styles.

We get a patter-like nervous breakdown with "Franklin Shepard Inc.", bitter love ballads that originally started as proclamations of young love such as "Not a Day Goes By", and a silly cutesy off-Broadway revue song about the Kennedy family tree that feels like it could've come out of an Irish revamping of Jacques Brel is Alive & Well & Living in Paris. 

While maybe not as grand as the score he wrote right before it (Sweeney Todd), there is a certain whimsy and flash to Merrily that makes it feel like his take on a truly classic Broadway musical. 

Even with the show flopping, Sondheim still managed to get a Best Score nomination, which he lost to Maury Yeston for Nine. That is one of those scores where I marvel more at Yeston's musicality than his lyrics...something he would improve upon years later with his work on projects like Titanic and December Songs. 

At any rate...I shouldn't go down a tangent about Nine. I should save that for another time. 

Back to Merrily!!

I think when the show works well, it works remarkably well. Considering the timeline and the structure of the scenes and the characters weaving in and out, it can be hard to keep track at times of who is who and their exact role...however, there is certainly more distinct work done with the characterizations that make it easier to follow without having to resort to branded sweatshirts.

This is clearly a show that needs strong acting and direction to pull it through, and I would say that Maria Friedman achieved that here. Considering the limitations of the Furth text at times, it is up to the actors/director to dig as deep into the material to find the emotional core. 

The reason a lot of productions suffered...especially ones I had either seen or been involved with...were due to the fact that it was hard to be that invested in many of the side characters like Gussie, Beth, and Joe.

Gussie starts off the show as being Frank's wife. She is a successful actress and had been in the Shepard/Kringas Broadway debut Musical Husbands...and at that time, she had been married to the musical's producer Joe. Frank's affair with Gussie led to the dissolution of his marriage to Beth, who proceeded to take their young son back to Houston after a bitter court battle. Beth had gotten her start by being cast in a small revue put up by Frank and Charley down in 1960 Greenwich Village. 

These three characters prove to be where the issues can lie. Gussie can come off strictly as a narcissistic diva; Joe is just an irascible stereotypical New Yorker; and Beth is the ingenue turned scorned wife.

This production cast Krystal Joy Brown, Reg Rogers, and Katie Rose Clarke in these respective roles, but if I had to pick who really stood out, it was Clarke...which is totally a shocker.

Beth has always been something of a thankless role, which managed to get a boost when Sondheim famously revised the song "Not a Day Goes By" to be sung by her in Act 1 instead of Frank. Beth becomes more a fixture once we hit Act 2 as she plays a bigger role in the earlier years of Frank's growing career. It is during these scenes where you see such a perky warm personality coming off of Clarke that makes looking back at her courtroom scene in Act 1 all the more brutal. 

I have always found Clarke to be an undervalued stage actress who is often the best thing about weaker material. Look no further than her turn as Hannah in the truly abysmal 2015 musical Allegiance in which she was a true highlight...aside from a horrifically staged moment in which her character (spoiler alert) gets shot. 

Over the last several months, we have been seeing Groff, Radcliffe, and Mendez in tandem. So much so that Lindsay Mendez got married on the usual Monday off and had both Groff and Radcliffe involved in the ceremony.

Groff referred to them now being "soulmates" during his Tony acceptance speech, and you can feel that love amongst them...and it was especially apparent onstage. Even in the heated moments, you could tell that this was a trio of actors who trusted each other wholeheartedly. A lot of the power of this production undoubtedly rests on their shoulders and they truly carry the day.

I have never been the biggest fan of Lindsay Mendez if I am truly being honest, but she absolutely nailed the snide cynicism of Mary. She is always the third wheel; the Eponine to Beth or Gussie's Cosette. She's always there with a quip that is dripping with copious amounts of sarcasm, but there is such unfulfilled sadness underneath considering that she has an unrequited love for Frank that leads to her becoming an alcoholic.

This was a true star turn for Mendez, easily her best work as you could see every layer of pain under her snarky bravado.

Then we come to Radcliffe as Charley Kringas, a role that I always considered one of my favorites in the Sondheim canon...and one that I was lucky to be able to play at one point and it was still one of my proudest achievements.

Charley is the meeker and more awkward of the two. He wants to write, he wants to engage people in deeper topics when coming to the theatre...and yet, he has to deal with a best friend/writing partner who is really loving the money and the success. There could be a certain danger to having Charley come off as a wet blanket/kill joy, but I would argue he is mainly just the smartest guy in the room who needs to speak up more. 

Radcliffe gives Charley such a sweetness that you almost want to run up onstage and tussle his hair and tell him everything will be okay. Considering that he is attached to a role that will undoubtedly follow him to his grave and beyond, you really have to commend a lot of the roles that Radcliffe has taken on in the last nearly 15 years as the Harry Potter franchise finally came to a close. When Deathly Hallows Part II was released in theaters in the summer of 2011, he wasn't off shooting some new hip movie that he could start promoting. Instead, he came to Broadway start in a revival of How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying...which was his second Broadway outing after making a big splash with Equus in 2008. 

Radcliffe was given a chance to prove himself as an actor thanks to Broadway. This performance felt like the perfect time to give him due credit for being more than just a kid wizard...and he also approached the role as he should have: an actor. His singing is definitely good, but he is still not the kind of singer that Groff is...and Charley is not supposed to be a singer. After years of more polished Charley types played by the likes of Lin Manuel Miranda, Wayne Brady, and Raul Esparza, it was nice to see Radcliffe take on the scruffier aesthetic that seemed more in line with the originator of the role: Lonny Price.

And that brings me to Jonathan Groff, quite possibly one of the most beloved and charming figures to come out of the Broadway theatre scene in years. 

There's a certain stroke of genius to casting someone so fun and charming in a role where they also need to be something of a cad. Think of Steve Carell's casting on The Morning Show: a truly impeachable and beloved figure that is outed as a sexual predator...and yet, you still can't help but love watching him because the actor involved brings such humanity to the part.

Groff's Franklin is no less a cad, but he makes the most of a character that is quite easily the most boring of the trio. A prime example of a trope where the more supporting players are interesting than the lead...but this is where Groff's charisma can truly push through that barrier. 

There is a moment during the "It's a Hit!" song I mentioned earlier where Beth sings to Frank that he is on track to win a Tony. In this moment, the audience erupted in an ovation that lasted for well over a minute considering Groff's Tony win just occurred 6 days ago. It stopped the show cold, and you could see Mendez and Radcliffe breaking character to enjoy the moment with Groff. Normally these kinds of moments can get old, but it honestly felt wonderful to witness as Groff has been such a down-to-earth and loving champion of Broadway and its community of fans. 

Oh! And I got to see a big splash of Groff Sauce (his spit for those who aren't aware) during "Old Friends" so that was also fun...lol...

MY FINAL THOUGHTS:

I originally sat down and planned for this to be a review of the production, but then I felt compelled to throw in some of the history to go along with it. The truth is that it is hard to talk about Merrily We Roll Along without commenting on its truly bizarre history as a legendary flop that basically destroyed the royal-like partnership of Sondheim & Prince that dominated the 70s Broadway scene.

I also find myself sort of in a rambling mood a little bit. I have never really seen this show be done to the potential that I saw it done today, and I feel that has me at a loss for words.

I think, perhaps, we could still mine a little more characterization out of the supporting players...but I do agree that the text there will always be a bit of a limitation.

Even with that limitation, there was always an emotionally charged show here. It is prime example of how you truly need the right people to be able to see the potential and bring it out with great care.

I wish there was a way it could live on past the July 7th closing date so more people could see it, but it was announced that it is being filmed for posterity and I suppose it is likely we will either see it air on Great Performances or in cinemas across the country.

If you get the chance, please watch it.

So yes, Sondheim, your show is finally a hit...a very palpable hit.

And yes, that sound you hear is the audience losing its mind.