Mixed reviews for Bombay Dreams

Arthur J Pais | May 01, 2004 15:59 IST


A few hours after 1,760 invitees gave a prolonged standing ovation to Bombay Dreams, the reviews started coming out, mostly slamming the musical, though Daily News gave it an unhesitant welcome, and Newsday a guarded one.

"Like its sources, Bombay Dreams strives for nothing more than unabashed entertainment," Howard Kissel wrote in Daily News. "It succeeds."

The New York Times, calling the show bland, added: "...None of this is painful to watch. Sometimes it is rather pleasant. But it is never, ever compelling."

The producers of the show had not expected glorious reviews, remembering how the show had received mixed reviews in London, but the savagery of some of the reviews, especially in The Washington Post and USA Today, which gave it one out of four stars, may give them some nightmares. Broadway audiences pay more attention to reviews than moviegoers pay to films. A Broadway musical costs $100 for the orchestra seats (unless you buy the tickets for half price on a given day), ten times the admission price for a film.

Don't Miss!




All about Bombay Dreams



Though many recent shows, including Wicked, have survived bad reviews, and Andrew Lloyd Webber's own shows, the phenomenally popular Cats and The Phantom Of The Opera, were torched by major critics, Broadway insiders say it will be very difficult for Bombay Dreams to surmount the negative reviews given the show's unfamiliar terrain. And explicit warnings by such publications as New York Post and Star Ledger that the show won't appeal to Americans could hurt it.

In London too, reviewers had raved about A R Rahman's score. Despite mixed reviews, the show went on to earn a profit, not spectacular but decent, after a year. The show is being shut in June to be replaced by the American version, which got rid of many of the original show's subplots. But if the Broadway show sinks, the fate of the to-be-retooled show is anyone's guess.

A sample of utterly negative reviews:

'How do you say "mind-numbing bunk" in Hindi?' asked the USA Today reviewer. 'After attending a certain preview performance last weekend, I'd like to propose a new English-language synonym: Bombay Dreams.'

But the principal actors of the show who made their Broadway debut were praised. 'Under the direction of Steven Pimlott, with choreography by Anthony Van Laast and Farah Khan, the ensemble members work earnestly and tirelessly,' Ben Brantley wrote in The New York Times.

'The lean, limber Mr Narayan, the lovely Ms Nagarajan and the seriously sincere Mr Ganesan share the virtue of being peppy without being pushy,' Brantley continued. 'Mr Narayan has a pleasant, slightly strained voice that can't quite do justice to the wavering, melancholy notes of the show's best ballad, The Journey Home.'

Several newspapers praised the performances of Manu Narayan, Anisha Nagarajan and Sriram Ganesan with The New York Times giving a rave for Ayesha Dharker. 'The show's real star, however, is Ms Dharker…' The Times wrote. 'Ms Dharker's Rani exudes the deep superficiality that makes good send-ups of ego-driven stars so satisfying.'

In the influential trade publication Variety, Charles Isherwood wrote: 'In the central role of Akaash, the lean, lively Narayan is a bit slick and ingratiating in the early scenes, but eventually settles down to give an appealing performance.' It also called Nagarajan 'pert and spirited'. It wrote that 'Ganesan gives a spirited, crowd-pleasing turn as the martyred eunuch Sweetie.'

To Newsday, Narayan made 'for an agreeable, fresh-faced hero'. It added that 'Nagarajan brings soft-edged beauty to the role of the young director'. It also found 'Dharker has sexy, strident fun as a heartless diva, while Madhur Jaffrey radiates simple warmth as Akaash's grandmother.'

Sriram Ganesan, who plays a very complex character of the hijra who is still in love with childhood friend Akaash, Newsday said, 'is a brave, predictably expendable hijra without overstepping into easy drag-queen mannerisms.'

While most reviews cribbed about the show's plot, which they found contrived and overblown despite three-time Tony winner Thomas Meehan reworking the London original with writer Meera Syal, A R Rahman's score came for high praise from most critics.

Even Star Ledger, which roasted the show, admitted: 'Creating an effusive fusion score of East-West music, superstar Indian composer A R Rahman provides big, insinuating melodies and hypnotic rhythms, decorated with native instruments and spiced by onstage drummers flanking the stage.'

The lead in Newsday celebrated Rahman's score: 'Whatever else may be said about Bombay Dreams, it can't be denied that its music follows you home.' The review singled out Shakalaka Baby as just a sample from the catchy score.

In Variety, Rahman received some of the best praise for his score. 'The promise of the musical's wordless opening moments, in which soft, shimmering chords gradually build to a stirring climax, is borne out by Rahman's continually enticing score,' the magazine declared. 'The composer provides richly rhythmic, jangling tunes for the splashy dance numbers and can also write honourably in contemporary Western idioms.'

But not everybody seems to be a Rahman fan. New York Post, which gave the show one and a half stars, called the score 'occasionally soupily romantic' and 'often monotonous'. The headline for the review: Dreams is a sari affair.

Photographs: Paresh Gandhi

rediff

I saw this last night here in NYC and I have to say it was an ultimate disappointment. The best element of it was definitely AR Rahman's work, which I felt effectively bridged both Western style melodies within Bwood orchestration. The best example of this is the ballad "The Journey Home." I do however feel that the English lyrics stuck out like a sore thumb. One of the best numbers was "Chaiya Chaiya," done entirely in Hindi. The main actor who plays Akaash was HORRIBLE. He was frankly embarassing in his role as he missed notes periodically and had trouble with the melodic fluctuations. Even when he sang Hindi, it sometimes sounded like he was doing Italian. Farah Khan's choreography was good but during some numbers there were not enough dancers to make it truly a spectacle. Good use of the water fountain though in the "wet sari' sequence. Ultimately as a Bwood fan, it was interesting to see and it could've been worse...like how Miss Saigon really was more a Westernized ideal of the Eastern aesthetic. Here at least, a lot of it felt more realistic. There was one great joke by the Bollywood film producer about how his last 14 films were flops. A detail like that would be missed by someone who didn't know that about the industry. That said, their attempts at doing Bollywood-style plotting failed miserably and felt really dumb. I'd say it might be worth checking out just for curiousity sake.

UK has very DIFFERENT taste from US..imho, even DESIS

I saw it towards the end of previews here in NY after seeing it in London back in August and I LOVED it. True, the story is rather trite, but it was a "quasi-parody". Shakalaka Baby was amazing as it was in London (and Ayesha Dharker is absolutely hilarious...I find it amazing that she is so apt at comedy considering The Terrorist and all). Sriram Ganesan (as Sweetie) was probably the standout performance; I felt that he really did connect with the audience's emotions. Love's Never Easy is one of the best songs...I felt the London version was more powerful but here it may just have been due to previews.

As for Manu Narayan, he was decent, but not Broadway-caliber IMHO. My friend said that he had some charm and I guess I agree...his voice, when singing, is good if in English (esp. The Journey Home), but in Hindi I was cringing. I thought Anisha Nagarjun (sp.?) was excellent as well...her speaking voice was a bit quirky but her singing voice was definately Broadway-caliber material.

Sets were excellent and colorful...occasionally gaudy but only when appropriate (if that makes any sense). Music, given A.R.R., is excellent as it was in London (though I was disappointed that they changed Closer Than Ever to Hero...one of my favorite numbers). Choreography is very Bollywood/kitsch Broadway (ala Mamma Mia), and that is a good thing; I especially loved Shakalaka Baby (as everyone does). I would go see the show just for that again (and I'm going again next month). Madhur Jaffrey was also very good; she added some elegance to the show as a whole.

I definately left the theater smiling; other audience members (most were not Indian) were walking down the aisles dancing to Shakalaka Baby and bhangra that was playing. My most favorable impressions were Ayesha Dharker, Sriram Ganesan, Shakalaka Baby, and Anisha Nagarjuna, and of course the music which I have heard many times before. In comparison to other shows I have seen this year (The Boy From Oz, Wicked, Caroline, or Change, and even The Lion King), I had the most fun at Bombay Dreams. If you want something serious or different, then I wouldn't suggest plunking the $100 down for the orchestra seats. However, if you are in the mood for seeing a live 1990s Bollywood movie live, I definately recommend it. I was with 5 friends, only one other Indian, and they all absolutely loved it.

And I agree, Londoners' sensibility is vastly different from New Yorkers...even though it seems impossible given NYC's diversity, NYers are still not as open to culturally-diverse settings as Londoners are...I would place us at least 5-10 years behind.

that is frikkin' sacrilege! i might have to rethink my trip down to broadway now... how was "hero" and the other new song though?

thanks for the excellent review nikhilism72.

"Hero" still had some power because it became a duet with Priya and Sweetie about the real-life hero they both love despite the circumstances. It works because the two singing have very powerful voices, but I still loved "Closer Than Ever" and the way it was portrayed in London with the lighting, etc.

It's still a good song...instrumentally identical almost entirely. Lyrics are rewritten by the guy who wrote the lyrics to The Full Monty I believe...his name escapes me right now.

The bhangra number isn't bad...kinda catchy. It definately has a load of energy when performed and the audience seemed to be loving it. The replacement for "Like an Eagle" is "Bollywood"...horrible lyrics (think Hooray for Hollywood sung with various utensils)...still the music is excellent and I did enjoy the use of utensils (i.e. cups, etc.) as instruments (I can't remember if that was in London as well).

In my opinion, the New York scipt is definately more streamlined and that's why the press is labeling it as bland...it's what they've seen before. And yet, I think they would have panned the London script much more had it come to Broadway sans changes. Thomas Meehan is an excellent writer and his presence is obvious in some scenes (for those who don't know he wrote The Producers, Hairspray, and Annie, all three of which took Best Book at the Tonys in their respective years).

so is "hero" just a slight reworking of "closer than ever"? the music is basically the same? i ask the same question with regards to "bollywood" and "like an eagle".

Music is basically the same for Hero/Closer Than Ever, but Bollywood does not resemble Like an Eagle at all. The music to Like an Eagle was discarded and replaced with "Bollywood," "Lovely, Lovely Ladies," and "Bhangra." The opening "Bombay Dreams" was also partially cut; only part of it remains in the show.

since i just botched submitting my full thoughts on the musical (when i pressed "submit" it took me to the login page ), i'll write my thoughts in installments. first the script/book. ***WATCH OUT FOR SPOILERS!***

there is simply too much going on in the script. there are so many threads to the story that one does not care much for any subplot or any character. there are too many characters in the musical that do little or nothing to contribute to the musical aspect of the show. for instance, the two major roles of priya's fiance and priya's dad (who had a large musical role in the london version judging from the CD), did little for the music aspect of the show. they wasted time that could have been spent developing other characters and relationships. also, meera syal seems to have a goodness gracious me hangover with her inclusions of kitty desouza and "the look". these insignificant characters and inclusions robbed other elements of the show of much needed time for development which means that there is little empathy aroused in the viewers for most of the characters in the musical.

also, the book should have been rewritten from scratch as it is evident that it is a cut and paste job. for instance, when akaash and priya are united in the end, the music from "hero" is played in the background. in the london version, this would have made better sense as "hero" was originally "closer than ever", a romantic duet between akaash and priya in which the two express their longing to be together. however, on broadway, "hero" is a duet between priya and sweetie in which the two express their desire for akaash to be a savior. so why would music representing the desire for akaash to become a hero be played when priya and akaash are united?