Man of La Mancha
- By Dale Wasserman;
- Music by Mitch Leigh; Lyrics by Joe Darion
- Directed by Mark A. Rhea
- Produced by Keegan Theatre
- By Gary McMillan
Mark Rhea is the man and David Jourdan is his Man. What a duo. Keegan Theatre is in summer reruns (having presented Man of La Mancha in 2001) and DC is the finer for this reprise.
Spiked with delicious humor, Man of La Mancha is nonetheless a classic musical drama, bittersweet and heartbreaking, disturbing and ennobling. The Man is a triumvirate character conceived by Dale Wasserman to tell the tale of two men unbowed by injustice, one of whom struggles with reality in a very cataclysmic way. Miguel de Cervantes, revered as the inventor of the novel as a literary form, is the inspiration for this parable. To support his art, Cervantes undertook a stint as a tax collector, but ran afoul of establishment interests by holding church property holdings accountable. And so he is imprisoned by the Inquisition for this irreligious transgression. Awaiting one kangaroo court, Cervantes faces trial for “crimes against reality” by his fellow prisoners, with his literary manuscript at risk of burning should he be convicted of unwarranted idealism.
He spins the tale of Alonso Quijana in his defense of virtue and heroic idealism. Quijana, in his dotage, fancies himself a knight in quest, Don Quixote de la Mancha. Quijana’s abetting servant, Sancho Panza, consciously bridges the chasm which separates Quijana from Quixote. Most assume that Quixote embodies Cervantes. This is the obvious assumption, but Panza also expresses many of the plainspoken truths of the show from a more “knowing” perspective than his master Quijana/Quixote.
Mark Rhea demonstrates in this reprise mounting that Man of La Mancha resonates deepest in an intimate environment. The dank, rustic set and lighting perfectly establish the scenes. You can sense the slime and grime of the prison and the scenes in the inn may have you scratching for fleas.
I did not see David Jourdan in the 2001 production, so kudos to Keegan for bringing him back. His Quixote is alternately distracted and driven, frail and heroic. There’s a lot of acting wisdom in Jourdan’s performance, delivering “Man of La Mancha,” Dulcinea,” and “Impossible Dream” in fine voice and, more importantly, perfectly in character. He partners well with Michael Innocenti as Sancho Panza, the Don’s squire. The character is essential to the show in providing comic relief for a time that ranges from hardscrabble to brutal (the Inquisition is only funny in Monty Python’s hands). Many actors have played Sancho way over the top in oh so many directions. Innocenti plays neither idiot, nor clown, nor Keystone cop. He seems to have cleverly drawn his inspiration from his song, “I Really Like Him,” imbuing his character with kindness and gentle humor, and the audience warms to him from the beginning.
As the Padre, Harv Lester leaves not a dry eye in the house when he sweetly sings “The Psalm.” Quijana’s niece Antonia (Carolyn Myers) and housekeeper Marie (Jane Petkofsky) join with the Padre in one of my favorite songs from the show, “I’m Only Thinking of Him.” The irony of their self-serving, so-called compassion for Quijana is great fun and perfectly demonstrates that, while not tilting at windmills, Quixote is not the only person suffering from delusions.
In the unglamorous role of Aldonza/Dulcinea is Carolyn Agan. The role has fire and passion amidst a load of abuse, both verbal and physical. It’s a challenge to balance the anger with the underlying sorrow. Agan makes the most of “What Does He Want of Me?” But this Aldonza is mostly an uncontrolled burn blazing a trail like napalm through a jungle of violence, presumably directed to be explosive and shrill.
Kelly Peacock’s costumes fit the bill nicely, especially those for Cervantes, Don Quixote, and Marie, the housekeeper to Alonso Quijana (aka Don Quixote). For the most part, prisoners and other paupers would not seem to tax the imagination for wardrobe. It reminds me of the Forbidden Broadway Les Mis parody “I Dreamed a Show” where the heroine’s lament remembers when…
- Scenery looked so pretty
- I didn’t sing one song then die
- And all my costumes weren’t so gritty
Peacock’s creation of a noble steed and burro for our knight and his squire is completely charming. The choreography by Melissa-Leigh Douglass is earthy and raw. The fights entertain and Aldonza’s rape is staged forcefully.
The production is a mature take on an essentially serious, and seriously intelligent, musical.
- When: July 10th- Aug 16th. Thurs, Fri & Sat at 8 pm, Sunday at 2 pm
- Where: Church Street Theatre, 1742 Church St, NW, Washington, DC
- Tickets: $35. Keegan Theatre Box Office
- Info: More information on the Keegan Theatre website.
I went with a friend of mine to see this production on July 13th. We both thoroughly enjoyed the show. I had never been to the Church Street Theatre and really liked it. My friend and I thought most of the performances were very strong, in particular we liked Michael Innocenti as Sancho and Carolyn Agan as Dulcinea. The set was well done and we thought the orchestra was very good. Of course nothing is ever perfect (except maybe the current production of “South Pacific” at Lincoln Center in NYC).
I didn’t attend the show, but I play one who does on the internet. At any rate, I am always delighted when a quality production is a big success. It sounds as though this one was. Congrats to Keegan.
Mr. Spiegle: I like your friends, but holy cow, are you a piece of work. Below is the definition and history of “namby-pamby,” which is a perfectly good and benign word, and offensive only to creative souls looking for grievances and trying to bully others through fanciful word-policing. Thanks to your absurd complaint and the good Reverend’s pompous rants, I have vowed to use “namby-pamby” at least once a day from now on. If you have a problem, take it up with Henry Carey (below.)
NAMBY-PAMBY:
ADJECTIVE: 1. Insipid and sentimental. 2. Lacking vigor or decisiveness; spineless.
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. nam·by-pam·bies
One that is insipid, sentimental, or weak.
ETYMOLOGY: After Namby-Pamby, a satire on the poetry of Ambrose Philips (1674–1749) by Henry Carey (1687?–1743).
WORD HISTORY: We are being very literary when we call someone a namby-pamby, a word derived from the name of Ambrose Philips, a little-known 18th-century poet whose verse incurred the sharp ridicule of his contemporaries Alexander Pope and Henry Carey. Their ridicule, inspired by political differences and literary rivalry, had little to do with the quality of Philips’s poetry. In poking fun at some children’s verse written by Philips, Carey used the nickname Namby Pamby: “So the Nurses get by Heart Namby Pamby’s Little Rhimes.” Pope then used the name in the 1733 edition of his satirical epic The Dunciad. The first part of Carey’s coinage came from Amby, or Ambrose. Pamby repeated the sound and form but added the initial of Philips’s name. Such a process of repetition is called reduplication. After being popularized by Pope, namby-pamby went on to be used generally for people or things that are insipid, sentimental, or weak.
Mr. Robert A. Spielgel, to paraphrase a line from Howard Hawks’ classic “The Thing From Another World, YOU are stuffed absolutely clean full of wild blueberry muffins.
I finally got seats to this solidly sold out Man of La Mancha on the last matinee of the run. (I hope popular demand douses the flames of
any prior negative comments on this site.) I thought David Jourdan as Cervantes who becomes Don Quixote/Alonso Quijana was inspiring.I wept at the end– something I don’t often do. Why has no one mentioned the superb work Carolyn Agan does acting and singing the role of Aldonza/Dulcinea? Agan has a lovely voice but her piercing delivery, unmiked (as were all the actors) was just so pitch perfect with cynical bite, I looked forward to her presence every time she stepped on stage. Then Harv Lester as the Padre offered soft pedaled contrast. Brilliant casting. The horses were delightful. I must mention I had reviewed a superb production of this show in the Pittsburgh area at the renowned Butler Musical Theatre Guild, a performance I saw many times because I sat through several rehearsals to write a feature article about it. I absolutely loved what Mark Rhea has done with the Keegan Company in such a compact space. Placing the orchestra at the back and above the stage was only one clever adaptation. I’m sorry it’s the end of the run. I hope the Keegan keeps this adaptation in their repertoire and revives the errant knight’s dreamworld again.
To Whom It May Concern:
First, I have actually read Cervantes’ Don Quixote for a college course in literature where novel novel was thoroughly critiqued.
Second, I saw Richard Kiley on Broadway perform the role of Quixote.
Third, I saw Brian Stokes Mitchell in DC perform the role of Quixote.
Fourth, I am a Native New Yorker currently resident in Washington DC for more than 25 years. My parents took me to my 1st Broadway show when I was 5 years old; sorry to say I am now more than 50 years.
Fifth, for what it is worth, through my father I received Salvador Dali sketches of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza and so forth.
That does not mean what I am about to say below is correct. But I should like to think the above qualifies me as a person who meets Mr. Aiken’s standards for one possessed of an “informed opinion.”
First, in the interest of transparency I must state that both Maestro
Joel Markowitz and Usher Gary McMillan are longtime friends of mine.
Second, a college professor mentor has expressed difficuly in writing
recommendation letters on account of virtually all being laudatory.
Similarly, I agree with “Anonymous” that it is rare to attend either drama or musical which does not receive standing ovation these days.
I do not believe that I am telling tales out of school in reporting both Joel & Gary have frequently attended shows where there were standing ovations that neither thought were deserving of same. But unlike my friend Joel, I do not find fellow DC theater goers to be as sophisticated as theater goers in New York & many other places.
Furthermore, Mr. Rhea, there is ample evidence documenting the
“dumbing down” of America in all facets of life including theater going public — not only in DC but throughout America. If you do not believe me in this, about education just read any social science study (I being social scientist in academic area among many others).
Though I enjoyed the show which ever inspires me as lifelong human rights activist ever tilting at windmills and participated in a standing ovation, that is not to say that David Jourdan’s performance equalled that of either Kiley or Mitchell.
While Jourdan’s performance resonated with me, I do not think totally
out of line is Anonymous’ criticism about weakness of character differentiation in performance by Jourdan.
I agree with my friend Joel that the orchestra was not overly loud. However, I heard other audience members complain about being unable to clearly hear Jourdan — whatever might have been cause therefore.
As New Yorker well acquainted w/avant garde approaches to traditional
theater, I am certainly not wedded — Gay or Straight — to “type casting.”
However, I saw Shakespeare play (can’t remember name) at Shakespeare Theater several years ago. In the spirit of affirmative action — which I have supported — the king had four sons: one White, one Black, one Latino and one Asian. Personally, I did not find these brotherly relationships convincing (sibling rivalry aside).
To put it another way: sometimes type casting works, sometimes casting against type works & sometimes casting against type does not work. In this particular case, I did not find to be a problem what Anonymous observes accurately to be casting Quixote against type.
Whether or not a theater critic is correct in his or her review has nothing to do with stature — literal or figurative — of critic. To say otherwise would accept illogic of “ad hominem” argument.
Similarly, I agree with Christy Evans that one should not confuse criticism of a specific performance by a given actor with a general personal attack directed against that actor (or this director).
With all due respect to producer/director Mark Rhea, it is not often that I hear producers or directors engage in objective critiques of their own productions — even in the unlikely event that they felt honestly such criticism to be warranted. Should you disagree with me on this point, just ask my friend the theater critic Joel M.
As a union shop steward, I am all too familiar with retaliation by employers against dissident employees as well as prejudice toward prospective employees who may be unfairly viewed as trouble makers.
Thus, I can appreciate Anonymous’ concern about “blacklisting.”
Likewise, Mr. Rhea, the fact that you may defend other producers, directors and actors may be attributed to a classic case of people protecting their own as so often is the case. You may do well to study the “Holocaust” in theater translated through “The Visit.” I am most thankful for those “anonymous” Gentiles whose salvation of Jews might have been impossible had they owned up to their conduct.
Regarding Jaydee Hanson’s comparison between Cervantes and Anonymous,
I have been distinguished as person who has always “stood up and spoken out for that in which he believes.” I regret to inform Ms. Hanson that such behavior is more the exception than the rule.
And that Ms. Hanson is real point of Cervantes’ “Don Quixote.”
In tradition of Reverend Brandy, I am youngest person to ever join American Civil LIberties Union. Unlike even the majority of ACLU members, I am a First Amendment absolutist. Thus, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Again the aforesaid is not true of most Americans — including theater producers, directors, actors, audiences, critics — or any other group of people ever inhabitiing any society on the planet.
Rev. Brandy also does well to question employment of the term “namby-pamby” which has been recognized as a homophobic characterization on more than one occasion. As a member of “The Ushers” I would like to think that at least members of theater community are “bigger than that” (stated position assumed by me — a true “non-size queen”).
Mr. Jack Marshall, you might do well to learn this wise lesson before
“getting off” your “high” butT un-Quixotic horse my dear. Perhaps, to the term tossed salad, persons such as yourself would prefer the term “fruit” salad (N.B. I am not one into political correctness).
Isn’t anybody going to thank me for getting rid of “Reverend Brandy”?
I mean,really: “emotion has been tossed with them like arugula and goat cheese in a fine mix of baby greens”—give me a break! (And what’s the matter with “namby-pamby”?)
I saw the show last night…
I was moved to laughter and I was moved to tears…and I believed.
Bravo and thank you Keegan Theater.
Wow, what a tempest in a teapot.
I guess I can see both sides of this casting issue. Sometimes directors ignore what the playwright requests, and that can be artistically lazy, too.
“I take the position that in the production of any significant and artistic play the director and actors must try to achieve an exact and profound understanding of the spirit and thought of the playwright and not replace them by their own intentions.” –Konstantin Stanislavski
🙂
Anytime I hear anyone say “he/she isn’t the right type” I always want to just grab them, turn them around, and give them a good swift kick in the butt.
Casting by “type” is the act of a lazy person.
Going to see a show and expecting or demanding that a certain “type” be cast in certain roles is the act of a person with an lazy imagination.
And if you think that Mark Rhea wouldn’t cast you because you disagree with him then you don’t know the man.
I have always agreed with what the writer Harlan Ellison said about people and their opinions.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. If you are not informed on the subject, then your opinion counts for nothing.”
I think this applies in Anonymous’s case.
“Namby-pamby?”
I really didn’t think people used that term anymore.
Mr. Marshall, while you may not appreciate my, ahem, “namby-pamby” attitude, I clearly lack the depth of knowledge and insight you possess in theater. My work here is done. I will leave all of you to discuss these pressing matters and move onto the much smaller items to which I attend daily. Oh, I forgot the requisite “namby-pamby” qualifier. Damn.
Good day.
My guests (from Florida and Arizona) and I loved it!
Correction to my previous post…it should read “…criticism of a performance should NOT be taken as an insult.” Bad word to leave out…
I saw quite a fine performance of Man of LaMancha just this past April by the Washington Savoyards over at Atlas. It was wonderful. So also was the version I saw Saturday night at Church Street. While Keegan’s was a darker version — literally with staging and lighting, and heavier on the drama, less on some lighter comical moments — I thoroughly enjoyed it. The performances by the entire cast throughout were fantastic – from the leads to each and every minor character. The music was great – and well-balanced in volume so that vocals were not drowned out. And yes, I was a member of the standing O crowd at the end. And I do have more than plenty of reference points for deciding whether a show merits rising out of my seat — it is not an autoresponse by any means on my part, as I’m far too picky!
The bias that many have regarding classic roles—-every actor must resemble the originator, ebery Pseudolus and Tevvye must be fat and every Henry Higgins must look like Rex Harrison—is just artistically lazy. Sancho need not be short; Don Quixote need not be tall and thin (or even white). Just once, I would like to see a production where Aldonza isn’t a beauty, but a real, down and out, beat up, middle aged whore. It would make more sense, and be truer to the material—it’s easy to see “inner beauty” when there is outer beauty too.
But I digress.
Most musicals today are over-sung, with much bigger voices than are necessary or even adaptable to musical theater. Jose Ferrer starred in “Man of La Mancha” successfully for years: David Jourdan could sing him under the table on the worst day of his life with half his vocal chords tied behind his back. The part requires an actor, not a singer, and David is one of the best and most un-sung (ha ha) actors in the city—he also is a terrific vocalist with a rich,expressive voice. Good for him for having the integrity and courage not to rely on volume.
To the Reverend: that namby-pamby attitude is both Constitutionally wrong and intellectually warped. Just because one has the legal right to make ill-informed and unfair statements and, as Doug rightly points out, say them in a cowardly way without taking personal responsibility for them, doesn’t mean one also has the right to avoid being criticized for them. All opinions were not created equal, and some are especially wrong-headed. Calling them so leads to enlightenment. And spare me the “there are more important things” dodge, which is used to stifle debate rather than enhance it. Theater is important to those who visit this site: if you don’t think it’s worth caring about, Rev, hang out at the Brookings site or the New York Times.
Yeah, I’ll agree that Mark’s reply was a little testy; criticism of a performance should be taken as an insult. But Mark directed the show, David is his good friend, and he also happens to be right: Jourdan is perhaps the most decent human being in the theater community and perhaps the city. I know where Mark’s coming from, beacuse I’ve been there too.
Gentlemen, Ladies, well-wishers:
As a long-time member of the Washington theatre community, I felt impelled to put down a few lines on this subject, one with which I am well acquainted: character assassination.
Although I am with the majority of the posters in spirit, I am also convinced that a certain degree of anonymity would have been very useful in my own theatrical career, especially in my final performance, aiding me in evading the ‘slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune.’ It would be wrong of me to castigate any supernumerary or fellow actor for their well wishes, delivered by way of that refrain oft heard in the the theatre: ‘break a leg.’ It is simply the sad truth that one must take great care when wearing spurs on the stage.
At any event, dragging a gentleman’s name through the Mudd is to be disparaged; however, making hateful remarks is not made more permissible by identifying oneself.
I bid you all a good night.
Sic semper tyrannis.
J.W. Booth
I agree with the Reverend that we should have opinions and you have the right to express them. I also agree that there are too many things in this world to worry about.
I offer this final email on my end to try and explain that my response to Anonymous isn’t about the right to have an opinion, but more the matter in which he went about expressing them.
Calling a reviewer “delusional” because he gave a show a positive review that this anonymous person disagreed with is a little more than “expressing an opinion.” Mr. Anonymous also insulted the entire audience (and other audiences across DC) for giving a standing ovation – that is unbelievable! It also insults the work across this city (basically saying that most work in this town doesn’t deserve the audience’s appreciation that it receives). Anonymous believes that he has the three reasons why audience members give standing ovations these days. “1) Audiences have no reference points, so anything looks good, 2) audiences think that actors WANT (perhaps undeserved) standing ovations, or 3) people want to say they went to a show that got a standing ovation, so a few people start, and the rest follow. I guess we need to have a standing, spinning, somersaulting ovation to reward truly outstanding excellence”.
1) So he is saying that most audience members are basically unintelligent regarding theater in this town – what reference points does this gentleman have? What are his credentials compared to the rest of the audience members in DC? 2) So the audience actually prefers not to stand but they feel that they should just to please actors? Really? And 3) I am not sure I even understand this one. Maybe I need some reference points on the reference points.
I am sorry, but when you sit in your home and behind the mask of “anonymous” express negative criticism (to which I also find myself wondering why? What is the possible reason for doing that? But that’s another story), you can essentially say whatever you want without taking any responsibility for it. I personally think it’s cowardly at best (I am not saying everyone has to think that way, but I sure do and I have a right to express that as much as he has a right to write his opinions anonymously. I have a record of defending many other theaters in this town outside of Keegan, so this issue isn’t just because I run this particular theater or work with this particular actor. I can certainly respect criticism (I have no problem listening to Christy’s and will take that to heart and check on that this coming weekend. I think that was constructive criticism) — just not comments clearly made in an insulting way without having any responsibility for those words. Anonymous wrote: “If this is the performance he gave 7 years ago, I fail to understand why anyone would want to see him reprise it”. That’s not just “expressing an opinion” — that’s being deliberately snide. I think a simple “I didn’t see the first time Mr. Jourdan portrayed the role, but this time it didn’t work very well for me”. Or something. Sure this gentleman has a right to his opinion (And anyone reading his response to me can certainly infer any number of reasons why he wrote what he wrote, in the manner he wrote it), but to call out a reviewer and basically say that Mr. McMillan was delusional because he didn’t see what this guy saw, and then to hide behind it, is just ridiculous to me. The main issue here isn’t so much that the gentleman wrote criticism in a manner that was, in my opinion, uncalled for, but that because he chooses anonymity, he is free to write at will without concern of his actions or with any responsibility.
Again I agree with the Reverend, way too many things to worry about in this world. So, this will be the last time I respond on this site about this subject. My email address is already listed above, if anyone wants to email me further. I need to get back to doing theater and focus on the positive and life in general. We already have too much negative in the world. So write away and express your feelings freely in whatever manner you wish. I have expressed mine openly.
Cheers
Mark
Color me tickled that I happened to stumble by this bit of excitement tonight. I have to say for the record that while I’m not an actor, nor a director, I am a writer of many things. Words are a bit of a passion of mine, so to see them so desperately misunderstood because emotion has been tossed with them like arugula and goat cheese in a fine mix of baby greens – well, I have to say – kids, can’t we all just get along?
From my vantage point (quite far from theater), Anonymous offered his opinion which so happened to be a critical opinion. Last time I checked, we are all still entitled to have one. Unless I missed the memo about America actually becoming Utopia, I’m pretty sure it’s still within bounds to disagree or dislike something and actually still express it.
Rock on with your divergent opinions in a respectful manner, theater-lovers. Stop hating all over one another for having different viewpoints. There are at least 47 other more important things to be doing with your time and energy than having diaper rash over this.
What I meant to say Anonymous was that I don’t know why short actors who aren’t thin can’t play Don Quiote. Frankly, I never noticed if Michael was taller or shorter than David. I was just focusing on their wonderful performances.
I had never seen the play before and was quite moved by the play. It is rare that I end up crying at a play, but I did last night. As for Anonymous, it seems that one of the points of the play was that Cervantes was willing to defend his words regardless of the consequences. Sadly, ANONYMOUS misses that point. In a town where all too many things are done in secret, this is an important point.
I just saw the show and for the most part really enjoyed it, but I think I have to agree with one of Anonymous’s criticisms: I thought Mr. Jourdan’s voice *was* sometimes a little hard to understand over the music. At least in the back row, where I was.
As for : “The fact that a person so small and petty is able to anonymously hurl insults at a man as talented, honorable, and kind as David Jourdan is one of the truly sickening aspects to me of the internet.” I can only say “Huh??” The guy was only expressing his opinion of a performance, not impugning anyone’s character…unlike you, Mr. Rhea.
I’ve got to agree with Mark Rhea on this one. As Jack Marshall, who directed both myself and David Jourdan in The American Century Theater production of “The Andersonville Trial,” has made clear on his website EthicsScoreboard, posting vitriolic attacks on the internet anonymously is despicable and cowardly. As for Dave’s performance, I think he does a wonderful job, and that goes for the rest of the cast of “Man of La Mancha” as well.
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I didn’t mean to be snide, only descriptive. I admit that I was harsher than I could have been. I apologize to anyone whom I offended.
You’re right, I am an actor who’s always wanted to play the role. But I saw Brian Stokes Mitchell play it and I didn’t bash him.
And you’re right that I didn’t have anything else to do at 3:04 am. And your point is… if I were a real actor I would be carousing somewhere?
I don’t know David Jourdan; I’m sure he’s a great guy (and let’s remember that I didn’t call him a baby-killer). I don’t know about your ticket sales. I don’t know about the previous production. All I know is what I saw. Do you really want me to judge the play based on anything else?
Why would I possibly want to e-mail you? What would you want to say to me that you can’t say here? You’ve already called me gutless, a coward, small and petty, and a wannabe actor, all because I didn’t like one performance. What would my name give you, other than a target for further ire?
I posted anonymously (and will remain so) because I knew that should someone go against the grain and give an opinion different from the prevailing one, that person would be excoriated. The Internet also allows people to gang up on so-called cowards who are merely stating an opinion.
Also, because I may audition for you someday, Mr. Rhea, I wouldn’t want the fact that I have an opinion to detract from what you see in my audition, because, really, I’m not a bad guy either. And I would hope that you wouldn’t require every person who wanted to work with your company to have loved every show it has ever produced. If you knew my name and saw it on a resume, could you truly say that you would not be biased?
I don’t usually respond to comments from viewers (as a matter of fact, I am pretty sure I have never done so). I usually feel that as a producer and artistic director, I should allow audience members and critics to have their say. Today is a different day for me. I find it quite gutless that someone would go on this site and basically tear into an actor in this show without acknowledging who they are. It seems to me that if you feel so strongly about how you felt seeing this show, then why not stand up and let everyone know who you are, even if you are in the extreme minority when it comes to Dave Jourdan reprising his role as Cervantes/Quijana/Quixote as well as the production overall. There is so much about this “Anonymous” email that is just laughable. The fact that this person can’t see that Cervantes is setting up the story of Quijana/Quixote and that allows him to be any size, is just ridiculous and this person should be embarrassed that they have such a limited imagination. As far as why I chose to remount this production? (By the way, “I” would be Mark A. Rhea, Producing Artistic Director of The Keegan Theatre) The reason would be Dave Jourdan and his portrayal of the man. In fact, I would not have remounted the show without him and the audiences agree (we are selling like gangbusters, largely by word-of-mouth from mostly sold out houses with standing ovations). If I were to guess, I would guess that “Anonymous” is an actor (or a wannabe actor) that has always wanted to play this role and that is the true delusion, I am sure. I suppose at 3:04 am, when you decided to write your snide comments, you didn’t have much else you could be doing. For that I feel really sorry for you. The fact that a person so small and petty is able to anonymously hurl insults at a man as talented, honorable, and kind as David Jourdan is one of the truly sickening aspects to me of the internet. Sometimes, the internet empowers cowards to be even bigger cowards.
My email is [email protected] and I’d love to hear from “Anonymous.”
To Joel and the rest of you guys, I am so glad you enjoyed the show. I could not be more proud of it and the hard and inspiring work being done by all of the actors and musicians I’ve had the honor to work with on this production.
One other thing, Joel: when you say “I also don’t agree with your criticism that Mr. Jourdan wasn’t much taller than Michael Innocenti”, do you really mean that you think Jourdan was a lot taller than Innocenti, or do you mean that you think that height doesn’t matter….?
Well, I am glad that some people enjoyed it. Having only ever seen John Cullum and then Brian Stokes Mitchell in the role, perhaps I am making unfair comparisons. However, if that was the best local performance you’ve seen, I say we need better local performances. For me, because Quixote did not grab me, the show was just OK.
And yes, I saw the standing ovation. I didn’t stand, mainly because there’s a standing ovation every time I go to the theatre these days, and so it really doesn’t mean anything anymore. You can’t tell me that every show I see now is that much better than shows I saw 20 years ago. I think that one of three things causes this: 1) Audiences have no reference points, so anything looks good, 2) audiences think that actors WANT (perhaps undeserved) standing ovations, or 3) people want to say they went to a show that got a standing ovation, so a few people start, and the rest follow. I guess we need to have a standing, spinning, somersaulting ovation to reward truly outstanding excellence.
I also saw it last night (Sat) this being one musical I had never seen before. I didn’t know what I was missing! It was a fantastic show in all but a few minor respects. Mr Jourdan’s moving performance made up for any other defects. In general, the voices soared. This show is well worth seeing. (Am I mistaken, or was one of the Studio Theatre “History Boys” also in this production? He seems like he can do everything)
I saw the show last night and it was the best local production of Man of La Mancha that I have ever seen. 25 members of The Ushers who came with me loved it. What brilliant staging! The cast was fantastic and Mr. Jourdan gave a very human performance. In fact, the audience gave the cast a well deserved standing ovation. I could hear every word every cast member sang, so I don’t know agree with you. The orchestra never once drowned out the performers. I have seen tall and thin and bony faced men play the role of Cervantes who were just dreadful in the role. I also don’t agree with your criticism that Mr. Jourdan wasn’t much taller than Michael Innocenti, who plays Sancho (and what a great performance he gives). This short person takes offense. I have seen tall people, thin people, fat people play Cervantes. I highly recommend to all of you reading this to buy tickets and see this extraordinary production of Man Of La Mancha.
You must have seen a different show than I did. It’s one thing to be encouraging and another to be delusional. While the show is not horrible, Jourdan’s Quixote is among the weakest of the performances in it, and his voice is just OK–when you can hear it, that is. His tone is placed so far in the back of his throat that he is often drowned out by the six-piece orchestra, and there is almost no differentiation among the the three separate characters he plays (Cervantes, Quijana, Quixote). Jourdan, barely taller than Sancho (who’s no giant), is also physically wrong for Quixote, whom the script describes as “tall and thin,” and who is, in Cervantes words in the script, “bony and hollow-faced.” If this is the performance he gave 7 years ago, I fail to understand why anyone would want to see him reprise it.
Hi – I’m the costume designer for Man of La Mancha and wanted to place credit where it’s due: while the horse/burros are wonderfully done, they unfortunately weren’t done by me. George Lucas, Keegan’s set designer extraordinaire, designed them for the 2001 production and reprised them (with a few tweaks) for this show.
Great job, George!!