Review: "Sister Act" at the Murat

March 1, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The stage musical adaptation of the hit Whoopi Goldberg film “Sister Act’ was never my first choice to see when it played on Broadway. It was never my second or third choice either on theater-intensive trips there.

When given a choice, I tend to dodge such adapted-from-the-movies musicals that seem built from title recognition rather than the passion of a creative team.

I’m happy to report, though, that, in a solidly entertaining Equity touring production, “Sister Act” (through March 3 at the Murat) exceeded my expectations.

The makers of “Sister Act” know that audiences aren’t coming to it to see the formula tweaked. They’re looking for a feel-good film brought to life on stage with something to compensate for the lack of stars and familiar songs. They get that and more not because of a terribly original story (Think “Some Like It Hot” meets “Nunsense”) or a memorable star turn.

Instead, “Sister Act” succeeds through a combination of energetic-but-not-frantic pacing, some fun lyrics, dynamic music (in the Disney musical vein—thanks to composer Alan Menken) and a professional, well-cast supporting that never made it feel like we’re just another stop on a whirlwind tour.

The spiritual head of the charming supporting cast is Chicago mainstay Hollis Resnik as the Mother Superior, offering an object lesson in how a barely sketched character can come to life when given to the right actress. Her presence helps balance a show, giving important weight (well, lightweight) to the subplot about the growing respect and friendship that develops between her and in-hiding party gal Deloris Von Cartier (Ta’rea Campbell).

While it might not stand out critically when “The Book of Mormon” is down the block on Broadway, this “Sister Act” went a long way to converting this non-believer to its charms.

Your thoughts?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT