You are too kind Donald. This show tried way too hard to be funny and wasn't/ It didn't try hard enough to be sexy and wasn't that either. It did seemed to be sanitized a bit, but that's normal for Roger Rocka's. And the Brechtian touch was just stupid. This show is very presentational. The audience is not that stupid. Are they?

A noticeable error in your review, Roxie is on trial for murdering her LOVER, not her HUSBAND.

While I agree with a lot of your review, the slapstick and over exaggerated "comedic" gesturing was out of place in a show that is usually associated with sultry sin and all of its debauched glory. I do have to question any person that bases a review of a stage production solely on one viewing of said show, not to mention when that viewing is on opening night.

Opening night is probably the most daunting for an actor, especially one who may or may not be new to taking on a leading role. It is more prone to sound and technical malfunctions. Especially with a small company such as our local Good Company Players, in which the actors are given less than a week of rehearsal preparation on the actual stage.

I'm not saying your review is wrong or right, what I am saying, is I find it incredibly amateur of someone who is paid as a professional to review modern media, to base said reviews on opening night productions. Opening nights are NEVER an accurate representation of how good or bad a show is.

Might I suggest waiting a couple of days, or seeing the show a couple of times over a couple of days prior to its review? You might not miss certain facts, like which character was murdered...

First, I'm not sure why a simple mistake in a plot point or character name is grounds to say his entire review is invalid. After all, this won't "go to print" until next week and I'm sure now that you've pointed it out, the problem will be corrected. A simple private note to Mr. Munro would have sufficed.

In a perfect world, a show should be ready to go on [i]Opening Night[/i] and would be consistent with what would be seen on [i]Closing Night[/i]. After all, the audience isn't seeing the show at a discounted rate; so why should they see a show that clearly isn't ready? I agree that a reviewer shouldn't review a show that's in previews, but most of the time, they are INVITED to come to Opening Night so the production can take advantage of publicity.

Remember also that most local productions have much shorter runs compared to GCP; sometimes they only play a few nights. Should the reviewer wait until the 3rd or 4th performance of those productions as well? How do you make that call while being "fair" to other productions?

Unfortunately it's the "the show opens tomorrow, but don't come see it until next week so they can work the bugs out" attitude that hurts so many opening night houses. People are almost conditioned to expect an opening night show to be problematic, and truth be told, many local productions are.

However, to say that he needs to give a production ample time to work out its bugs before reviewing it is a major disservice to the people who paid money to see the show on opening night and DESERVE to see a show that's on par with something they see after the 3rd or 4th performance.

Most of the details of what Mr. Munro pointed out were details of characterization, or the general tone of the show and these would not be influenced by "opening night jitters" but by decisions that were made early in the rehearsal process. Things like costumes, concepts and characters are hammered out weeks ahead of time and don't usually fall apart unless they were a flawed concept to begin with.

I have a feeling that if Mr. Munro saw the production a week from now, it may have the added polish and confidence, but the realities of miscasts, poor concepts and poor decisions would remain.

To Francesca: Thanks for pointing out my error.

Dear Francesca;

Donald means his error about Roxie.

Not any error on show review dates.

The Beehive has had this discussion before, about the date a reviewer sees a show. Many times it's Dress Rehearsal, an often gawdawful time to review a show. And I've been subject to a show that was a 6 on a scale from 1-10 on opening night, and then a 9 1/2 just a few days later.

HowEVah. Paid theatre, with a paid audience is supposed to be, nay, EXPECTED to be at high noon on opening night. It's not fair to expect a reviewer to magically show up on the 17th night or the 6th performance or whenever the show is 'up to par.' Heck, on Broadway, opening night decides whether the show will actually run or not.

GCP doesn't have to worry about a show closing based on reviews, but when exactly do you propose the reviewer attend? Show opens, review appears immediately. In the movie biz, reviewers actually get advanced screeners or special press screenings. So that they can serve the public with the publicity and opinion of the show that will not only help us decide what to see, but will also help the performance venue alter and correct their show.

Don't think for a sec that the sexy won't be turned up and the slapstick turned down soon at GCP's show. They read these reviews, and they know Donald's a pretty smart, educated cookie about his job. Donald also knows how to write a review of a show based on dress rehearsal vs opening vs mid-run. Still, he can only write based on what he sees...and the show presented to him (and a paid full house of season ticket holders and other fans) was the one written about here.

I guess what I took tons of words to say is - Opening night DAMN WELL better be an accurate representation of how good or bad a show is...even for shows on a long run. Cuz opening night is the very start of the actual marketing campaign=word of mouth/reviews.

And woe be it to the company that ain't ready on opening night.

Okay, the opening night argument is really just nit-picky. I love seeing a show in its opening weekend, because while there may be some kinks that get ironed out later in the run, there's such a unique energy... both from the cast and its audience. But I digress. Let's talk about the show itself.

Firstly, I'm just going to disagree with you generally, which is fairly odd for us. (I say "us" like we've ever actually met). :) What I enjoyed about this production as a whole entity is that it was unlike any other portrayal of "Chicago" I've ever seen. It doesn't try to be like the original, or even the popular film, so I imagine it WAS difficult for a purist, :) but I enjoyed the new take.

I liked that I never felt any real sympathy for the characters, (except for Hunyak and Amos, of course). In the courtroom scene, for instance, yes, Roxie is on trial for her life, but let's not forget that we know she's lying. And it's not just that I happen to adore Steve Sousa (in fact, he was SO impressive in this production it made me wonder if I've just seen him phone it in in other shows)-- "slapstick" isn't the adjective I would have chosen. What the jury DOES do, however, is remind us that she has no business being found not guilty. And, it's damn funny.

And now let's talk specifics. I LOVED the calls to places at the beginning! (That's just me though-- I can completely see why it might be over the top to some people, but I genuinely wonder what non “theater snobs” like us thought). Velma's musical phrasing at the end of "Can't do it Alone" gave me chills, as did Amos's last note in "Cellophane" (Wow). And I ADORED Razzle Dazzle-- it not only completely worked for me, I thought it was one of the strongest points in the show. (Punked-out Disney, perhaps, but those costumes were fierce).

And as for Michael Willet and his belly button... well, that's just a yummy cookie for the audience, isn't it? ;)

All in all, I had a great night. And I’ll be coming to see it later in the run to see how it evolves with an audience.

I, for one, think that this play works. I believe it is the best GCP play I've seen purely based on talent and direction. To me, the experience is fun, which is something that is all too often missing from musical theater.

Also, MVP of the night goes to the Razzle Dazzle number. It was amazing. I love how creepy it was, like a grown up "It's A Small World" in slow motion. Allwine's Flynn makes it all the better staring intensely at the audience. It works, and I actually whispered "This is awesome" during the show. And I really think it was.

Stephen, I wasn't saying anything negative about his review, aside from the plot error. And my suggestion was for coming to see the show on the second, third, maybe even fourth night. As long as the review is out by opening weekend, I don't see why the review couldn't be based on a viewing other than opening night's. His review of opening night really isn't going to convince the director to change months' worth of rehearsals.

I agree, a show should be ready by opening night, but like I said, with a company like GCP, opening night is basically their first real dress rehearsal. You have to remember, this isn't Broadway. This is a local theatre group that, in my opinion, does an awfully good job a lot of the time.

The opening night is NOT an accurate representation of how the rest of the show is going to run. You cannot even base the actors' performances throughout the duration on opening night. Even on Broadway. Opening night is the guinea pig and, for the most part, any technical errors are usually righted and the actors are that much more confident in their roles because the daunting opening night is now done and over with.

I was not insulting Donald or his review. I was merely suggesting that Donald see the show on the second or third night and then write his review. That way, it is still an opening weekend review. It's not like he would even have to submit his review to an editor prior to its publication in the paper. It's a blog review. Easily posted at any moment. Hell, he could probably post his review from his phone at Roger Rocka's as the actors take their bows.

Opening Night is when the show is supposed to be ready. It has a unique energy that more than outweighs technical difficulties or jitters. On Broadway reviewers nowadays go to previews, sometimes a week before the show opens.

This show was pretty flat. It was like a mule trying to pull a load that was too heavy for it uphill. The actors were trying, but they did not have the talent or direction or something that made it seem like anything more than drudgery. Audiences will like it because Kander and Ebb write great shows, but this is not one of GCP better shows. Maybe if they paid their actors more than peanuts they'd improve.

To Francesca: Your point just isn't strong. He shouldnt review on opening night but it is okay if it's one night later? Besides, hasn't Munro loved other good company shows (such as Annie Get Your Gun) based on opening night?

TheatreDude: I'm not so convinced it was the show he enjoyed moreso than the actors in it, but that's neither here nor there. And as for the opening night argument, it appears that we shall not agree. I believe in cutting a little bit of slack for opening nights, and then being critical the second night (because if the show didn't right its wrongs on its second night, then there truly and really isn't much promise). You won't convince me otherwise. And I am not trying to convince you of anything, I was just making a suggestion to Donald. That's all.

Correct me if I'm wrong Donald, but I thought the director requests when you come see the show... so technically the night you see the show isn't up to you.

Okay, I've worked with GCP for 11 years. Opening night is in no way the first dress rehearsal. The Monday of tech week is.
And any show needs to be ready by opening night. The people in audience paid as much as those on the second, third, fortieth performance did and deserve the same quality show. Period.

Why wouldn't the show be ready on opening night!!
That is when it is ready........please!!!
(Like the performers won't be trying to put out their best for all their friends and family in the audience?! duh!)

Tech week is when the bugs are worked out....I know.....

I completely agree that each and every audience deserves the same quality show, no matter what performance they attend. However, in my experience (both on-stage and off) most productions do tend to improve with age.

I've seen many versions of Chicago and this was not a bad version. Razzle Dazzle felt original but besides that everything else felt like I was watching a community theatre production. I enjoyed myself and think audiences will as well. I did see GCP's version about six or seven years ago. That did have better dancing/choreography and overall sharpness. This Chicago is still quite enjoyable despite creative interpretation by the ones in charge.

Wow. I've got to see this production if there are fifteen comments.

It was a GCP show. It wasn't bad, but not the best they could have done. The director made some interesting choices. There seemed to be only one that harmed the show. Anyone who sees the show will know. Razzle Dazzle was kind of cool. It added a dark element to the show that this version lacked. The rest was what you expect of Chicago, black tight clothes. It was hit and miss. I do agree with Donald about sexiness. Not there. If they do a Fosse show, do fosse choreography. Im not sure how I feel about Mary Sunshine. Maybe Ill see it again. It was refreshing to see GCP do some mature flare. Chicago does fit their stage well.

To JW: When you say "I'm not sure how I feel about Mary Sunshine," do you mean the performance, or casting a woman?

I thought the performance itself was strong-- and certainly one of the better voices I've heard in a while. I was concerned about a woman playing the role, but (without revealing anything) I thought the way they tweaked things actually worked.

To Drew:

Yeah. Im just not sure about it. I think its more of my own personal taste then "its written that way" which has integrity of its own. The performer was okay by no means horrible but by no means memorable. I think its just different but doesn't harm the show.

If I may add my two cents to the argument, I am fully on the side of those who believe that you need to be ready on opening night. Another element to add into the mix is that opening night tends to be predominantly friends and family, or people who really support the company. So, the atmosphere is decidely "pro" on that night, while second night audiences are typically much more reserved and aren't really rooting for the show. If you want a reviewer there when the room is charged with electricity and people are fully supportive of the show, then they need to be there opening night. I have an issue with reviews at final dress or any other time during tech week, but as of opening night, that show had better darn well be ready to go. Having said all that, I haven't been to Chicago yet, but I'm interested to see it after all this talk.

All I have to say is that I would love to see Donald or some of these other theater snobs who think they could put on a better show do it. Chicago is a hard show to pull off for many reasons, first of all the style and choreography of the show. Fosse is very unique and hard to pull off if you arent a dancer and I know for a fact that this cast worked their asses off to make this difficult choreography look good. Another thing is that most people are basing their knowledge of Chicago off of the movie which is different in many ways or other professional productions. For a community dinner theater in fresno california to work as hard as they did with limited time and still put on a good show and shine a new unique light is a true treat.

Just as I believe it is in poor taste to back pat a reviewer, publicly, for giving your show a good review ( see Music Man), I find it doubly so to handslap him for giving your show a bad review.
Now, that doesn't go for audience members ( though, let's not handslap him, he needs those). I think it's good to get differen't points of view. It's bad form when the little fan boys, who are either in the show or has a friend in the show, come and make such statements as "Oh thank you, we did so love being in this show", or "well, yeah, let me see you do it better". Such comments should be reserved for private email. Writing such comments a public forum only shows how unprofessional one is. Bad for the person, bad for the show, bad for the company.

However poor Chicago is, based on the actors or the production, you gotta give them credit for doing a racy show there. It is hard for them to get butts in the seats, as it is with any theater company in Fresno, just be thankful it wasnt Annie for the millionth time. It also leads to the hype and excitement of other edgy shows being done this summer such as Sweeney Todd at Children's Musical Theaterworks. Should be interesting. We just have to appreciate companies in the Valley that do edgier shows. Not to say that this show was brilliant, because it wasnt. Just remember.....its not Annie!

Saw it. I want to address Steve Souza. I found him funny and very entertaining. I agreed with Donald about the comic tone compared to sexual tone, but the court room scene seemed appropriate. Steve did a good job executing it; and in that respect, he was one of standouts and for that scene in particular, strengths of the show.

i agree that it's nice to see something other than annie or the other pap that rrockas usually spoons out, but is fresno that pathetic that they get props for just doing chicago? are fresno audiences that conservative, ill informed, or just blame lame? donald works hard to get the word out about shows in nyc or sf. does that do any good? now i disliked this production because it was so forced and canned and fake, but i s this all fresno has? i wonder.

We work in a gray area...Commercial venues like Roger Rockas need to depend on name recognition for $$....Nonprofit, like colleges and community theatres, ARE offering edgier work. It is so presumptious to not recognize the wealth of theatre and arts venues here in the valley. I ALSO DO see shows that are outside the mainstream..Go to Fresno State theatre. They just did URINETOWN, THE MUSICAL this spring, and it was remarkable.
Fresno, Madera, directed THE BAKER'S WIFE, written by Stephen Schwartz (WICKED) this past spring, and it was very successful. Take a look. It's here...Not fake, or canned, or forced.

"We work in a gray area...Commercial venues like Roger Rockas need to depend on name recognition for $$"... Ginger

Sad but true. RR has tried to push the boundries with more interesting work and, inspite of the production being spot on, it hasn't sold. Unfortunately, they have a huge overhead and rely on ticket sales to stay afloat. Annie Get Your Gun puts butts in the seats. Maybe not Lothario's... but the season ticket holders and many others. I can't fault them for wanting to pay their employees. I will fault those who complain about seeing the same old show but refuse to go and see something new, when offered.

Since this thread has drifted a lit off of the review topic (which is cool). To provide a different perspective from Ginger and C1, grew up in Fresno, but now live in Davis and am active in community theatre scene (as a pit musician). I also spent two years on the board of Davis Musical Thearte, one of my committees was to chose the next season.

Up here in the Sacramento region, the commercial and collegiate theater's do the ediger work. They have the money to support grant writers and have people to drum up corporate backing. Schools get money as a part of their academic budget to help with the show. They also own and control their venues. That controls the audience size (which is one factor used in pricing the rights to a show) and the square footage is usually smaller, which makes the rent cheaper since commerial rents are usually based on square footage.

Now speaking in general terms, community theaters up here don't have the resources to own their own facility. They have to rent what is available. Community theaters are much more beholden to patrons buying tickets and individual donations than the larger money grants and corporate moneies that the professional theaters get. In other words, they need to get butts in the seats to survive. That means giving the audience what they want, and since the supporters of community theater tend to trend to the more mature side, you end up with older shows being recycled.

The more successful community theaters up here do cycle in some more modern shows. For example, my spring was playing Company and Chorus Line. The trend that I noticed when I was on the board at DMTC (not on board anymore) was that season ticket sales (85% of ticket income is on season tickets) went up with a more balanced season of classic, jazz, and rock/modern shows. Adding some of those shows gets the artisitc community excited and more interested in you and brings better performers to your stage, and it also brings in a younger audience to expose and hopefully expand your audience demographic.

As I said, just offering the perspective of what is happening up here. Just FYI.

SPOT ON....those of us who plan seasons, and depend on the kindness of strangers, realize the risk we take when mounting an unknown show..But bravely, we venture out with THE SKIN OF OUR TEETH, LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL, STILL LIFE WITH IRIS,by Steven Dietz,Arcadia, and a little Lanford Wilson..
But, we must revist GREASE from time to time, or ANNIE GET YOUR GUN, or CHICAGO..to pay the bills, and keep on doin' shows. Three cheers to our new theatre groups in the valley...and more to the schools, both high schools and colleges, who push their kids to put on professional quality shows.
Remember when Fresno State did THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE MASTER RACE?

i understand the importance of community theatres doing commercial fare to stay in biz, but C1 is offbase saying that companies like RR need to pay their employees. I'm not sure what staff makes but actors and techs make $6 a show. that is pretty lame for a company charging $40+ a ticket. also they rarely use live musicians so to hear that davis community theatre has pit musicians just makes me sad. thank god we have the colleges to do edgier stuff, or even stuff written less than 30 yrs ago. folks tout CHICAGO for being a modern show but it's from 1975, not exactly a baby.

To Howard: It's important to remember that the $40-plus ticket you mention includes dinner. You can get a show-only ticket for $25.

I know we've gone way off topic (and I like it) but if I could just bring it back to the show itself just for a minute...

I must admit, I wasn't sure what to expect going into it. It had it's ups and downs, to be sure, but on the whole I really liked it. I actually didn't love the choreography (except for Razzle Dazzle), but the performances were strong.

Anthony Taylor as Amos was my favorite, though-- incredible. Absolutely incredible.

Howard, when you go into an RR show you're paying two prices. One covers the price of the dinner and the dinner portion's overhead, the other pays the price of the show and that overhead. The show overhead consists of rights (HUGE portion), set and costume costs, set designers and builders, light designer, all needed equipment for that performance, programs, etc.
There is a service staff, a box office staff, a business staff, a bartender ( or two), a kitchen staff, and the overhead of the building ( food costs, electricity, lease), not to mention all of those other crazy costs that come with food service.
The large portion of your ticket goes towards the restaurant costs.
Even with show only seating a patron gets a certain amount of service.
Trust me, Howard, I am nowhere near offbase.

I agree that Anthony Taylor was great as Amos. He has such a beautiful voice!

.... I liked the show.... I thought it rocked.
I giggled a little at the "M.C." but they all did a fantastic job, and I was glad to see a bit of humour in this one.