By David NouNou
As the year 2011 is winding down, in the Broadway community, Bonnie & Clyde has brought the year to a screeching halt. In this instance, it is of no fault to Frank Wildhorn, because I actually liked the music here, the show's only redeeming feature. In this same community, Mr Wildhorn has the dubious distinction of having his name plastered on two disasters in 2011. His first, Wonderland, fell in the "train wreck" category that is fun to talk about in years to come. However, Bonnie & Clyde does not even fit in the latter category; it just falls under deadly boring.
Why write an ill-conceived notion of a musical based on the 1967 movie classic, Bonnie and Clyde, and use the same name, only to run the risk of being compared to a brilliant film that starred two gorgeous people and generated heat and passion that still sizzles today? If you are going to write a mediocre, lackluster, and boring musical about gangsters who rob banks and kill people and use an equally nondescript cast, why not just call it Mollie and Ike? This way, no one would dream of comparing it to anything but the usual dreary musicals that Mr. Wildhorn cranks out like this year's earlier venture, the horrific Wonderland, and yesteryear's equally miserable Dracula, the Musical, The Civil War, and The Scarlet Pimpernel.
The major problem is that the material does not lend itself to the musical genre, no matter how much of a hybrid the creators try. Injecting humor is a futile effort, because of its serious nature, and with so many songs that do not propel the action, but instead bring it to a halt. Anytime songs are added to the dramatic high-chase genre, it automatically slows things down, no matter how melodic the music is, and in this case, the music is simply grand. However, lest we forget what we are watching, the book by Ivan Menchell and lyrics by Don Black, constantly remind us through words, songs and back-screen writings, that the central characters are Bonnie and Clyde.
I think the reason why we are constantly being reminded of the names of the central characters is that, unfortunately, the leads themselves lack any chemistry and are so forgettable. Laura Osnes, who was the lovely and delightful ingénue earlier this year in Anything Goes, lacks the drive and sex appeal of Bonnie Parker. Although she is in fine voice, she lacks the spark to seduce Clyde Barrow as well as the audience.
As Clyde Barrow, Jeremy Jordan has a big voice but not the affability and magnetism to have Bonnie or the audience fall under his spell. In some parts, he just comes off as a whiny kid with a chip on his shoulder. Hard times, lack of money and dreary circumstances lead them to a life of crime, and in order for the audience to root for them, the two have to be bigger than life and have us see them as heroes instead of the two-bit gangsters they actually were.
As for the sets, costumes, and supporting cast, the word drab is most applicable. Of course it is set in the Dust Bowl of Texas and the Midwest in the 1930s Great Depression; another reason not to convert this kind of material in to a musical. However, they do not convey so much as shabby and drab, but more like shoddy and cheap. A lot of corners were cut to bring Bonnie & Clyde to fruition and, unfortunately, they can all be seen on the stage. From casting to staging and production, everything has been short-changed.
Bonnie & Clyde might have worked better as an opera. The sparseness on stage is there, and it already has the melodious music; all it needs now is the grandness and the talent to convert it into an operatic piece.
Edited by Scott Harrah
Published December 8, 2011
Reviewed at press performance on December 7, 2011
|
