Meet Me In St. Louis

A critic, of any art form, has to address two key questions: first, "How well was the thing done?" And second, "Was the thing worth doing in the first place?"

The Paper Mill Playhouse's revival of Meet Me In St. Louis -- directed by the theater's Acting Artistic Director, Mark S. Hoebee -- is as handsome a production of this musical as you are likely to see. Hoebee has picked an excellent design team. The sets by Rob Bissinger are gorgeous. When the Victorian-era home that Bissinger has designed opens up to reveal the spacious, beautifully detailed interior, the audience bursts into well-deserved applause. (Yes, this is the kind of show where you will applaud the scenery.) The costumes by Thom Heyer are a delight. And the finale in particular, with the large cast all gowned in white, looks terrific. The production values, from the start of the show to the end, are admirable. The large orchestra, conducted by Tom Helm, gets a lush, full sound that is appealing from the first notes. And Hoebee has staged this with style, flair, and a wonderful appreciation for the spirit of the show. We are fortunate to have a theater like Paper Mill that can mount musicals so attractively.

The problem is the stage musical of Meet Me In St. Louis is an essentially flawed property. Even if the show is well done in terms of physical production -- and Paper Mill certainly deserves credit in that score -- it is still a rather slight musical. It is based on the beloved 1944 film, which captured Judy Garland at her luminous best, singing "The Boy Next Door," "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," and "The Trolley Song." Hugh Martin and Ralph Blaine, who wrote those classic songs, subsequently wrote additional songs when they created this stage musical adaptation of Meet Me In St. Louis. But none of the songs they added for the stage musical measured up to their original songs; the added songs simply feel like padding.

And Garland -- one of the all-time greats -- proves an almost impossible act to follow. She gave a definitive performance. Her curious mix of vulnerability, nervous energy, and breathless youthfulness made the film magical. We absolutely cared if she ever won the heart of "the boy next door." Her innocent romance mattered deeply to us.

The performers in this stage production are highly competent professionals, with strong, sure -- but not necessarily distinctive -- singing voices. Brynn O'Malley, who plays Esther (the Judy Garland role) has impressive vocal technique. But she hasn't the needed vulnerability, or the nervous energy, or the air of tender innocence that the role calls out for. We see a strong, skilled performer; she looks like she's had terrific conservatory training. What we do not see is a young girl whose first stirrings of love touch us. Garland gave the film great heart. This production, while highly professional, rarely touched me.

This is a musical I want to love, because I so dearly love the film it is based on. But it tries to follow the film so carefully that it repeatedly invites comparison, and suffers thereby. I watch the stage production, saying things to myself like, "Now they are doing the scene where they turn out the lights," which I loved in the film; only somehow it feels flatter, more conventional here, like they are just going through the paces. I'm not wondering -- or caring -- will they kiss?

There's not much of a plot in this musical. There never was. But in this padded-out stage version (and without the razzle-dazzle of Garland), the paucity of plot is more obvious, and bothersome, than it was in the film. Garland held your attention, no matter what she was saying or singing.

Choreographer Denis Jones brings the night to life, briefly, with a gloriously staged production number, "The Banjo." I loved every minute of that. No, it did not advance the plot. Yes, it is the kind of old-fashioned production-number-that-builds that could be wedged into any older-style musical. But it is carried off with panache, and a lot of fun. The night could stand more "fun," whether integrated into the plot or not,)

The performances are all competent, if not (for the most part) particularly memorable. Well, veteran Patti Mariano, as the maid, scores singing "A Touch of the Irish." She brings lots of showmanship know-how to the production, and I was glad she was there. (For my own tastes, a magical performer means more than lavish sets and costumes, any day.) I wished she had more to do.

Incidentally, the program credits "songs by Hugh Martin & Ralph Blane," as if they were responsible for all of the songs in the show. But that is not quite true. Two of the most appealing, and memorable songs in the score are vintage numbers by other writers: "Meet Me in St. Louis" (words by Andrew B. Sterling, music by Kerry Milla, 1904) and "Under the Bamboo Tree" (words and music by Bob Cole and J. Rosamond Johnson). Those numbers, which also provided high points in the original film, remain great delights. Oddly, the creators of those songs are not credited in the program; they certainly should be. There is no justification for failing to credit them in the program -- especially since the song "Meet Me in St. Louis" opens and closes the show.

I don't wish to be too hard on this production. A lot of audience members will no doubt enjoy this nostalgic valentine to a gentler time. This opulent production looks great. (And with Broadway on strike as I write, we need every musical in the region we can get.) But the stage musical feels, to me, like a pale echo of the original film.

Every time I see a stage production of Meet Me In St. Louis -- and this is the third revival of this show I've reviewed for this publication just in the past year (the other productions were at the Irish Rep and Westchester Broadway) -- it makes me want to see the original film again. And that's not such a bad thing. It's an amazing film. The stage show is nice. And certainly handsome to look at. But amazing? Or moving? Or magical? No.

Chip Deffaa
Cabaret Scenes
November 28, 2007
www.cabaretscenes.org