A slightly imperfect production of the perfect musical

Guys and Dolls is the show that got me into theater. I mean, yes, I did also grow up listening to a compilation of Andrew Lloyd Webber shows, so the groundwork had been laid. I just remember attending an assembly in elementary school where the high schoolers came in and performed a bit from Guys and Dolls. Someone explained how choreography was done in counts of 8, using "The Crapshooters' Dance" to illustrate. I was hooked. So I am always delighted to see it performed, and the current production at Shakespeare more than does it justice. 

Guys and Dolls is frequently called a perfect (or almost perfect) musical. It's set in the...1950s? I guess? (it premiered on Broadway in 1950, but is based on stories written by Damon Runyon in the 1920s and 30s) and is mostly about gamblers and one particular do-gooder who's trying to reform them. When Nathan Detroit (Rob Colletti), who runs a craps game, bets Sky Masterson (Jacob Dickey) that he can't take Sarah Brown (who works for the local mission) to Havana, hijinks involving wonderful singing and dancing ensue.

I do have some quibbles with this production. It was directed by Washington National Opera Artistic Director Francesca Zambello, who made some choices. The primary set is the Save-A-Soul Mission, and the show starts with it as a modern-day thrift shop. The other actors come in wearing modern attire and change into their flashier character attire, but Sarah (Julie Benko) starts and remains in costume. In the program notes, Zambello notes that "by introducing Sarah in a recognizable contemporary setting, we hoped to give her character a bit more gravitas" and that the idea of "haves and have nots" remains resonant and how she wants to "acknowledge . . . the reality of the wealth gap." I appreciate that Zambello doesn't want Sarah and the others at the mission to appear to be "cartoony do-gooders," but I think the show does that well enough on its own. The show isn't about the wealth gap or haves and have nots; the whole premise came off to me a bit awkwardly. (I will say that it came together nicely at the end.)

Particularly, honestly, because Benko does an amazing job with Sarah. Her voice, of course, is lovely, and I could see why people enjoyed her in Funny Girl--her comedic chops are on point. Actresses playing Sarah have to walk a fine line to avoid being that cartoony do-gooder Zambello mentions; she can't be too uptight, the audience needs to sympathize with her and her frustration at her own inability to connect with people. Sarah goes on a journey--moreso than any other characters--but the role itself isn't showy. Benko knocks it out of the park.

Hayley Podschun and Julie Benko in Guys and Dolls at Shakespeare Theatre Company. Photo by Teresa Castracane Photography.

Hayley Podschun's Miss Adelaide, engaged for 14 years to Nathan Detroit and working as a showgirl, is another standout. Unlike Sarah Brown, Miss Adelaide is always going to be a fun role whom the audience loves and "Adelaide's Lament" is always a highlight of the show. Even so, Podschun shines, finding both the brashness and vulnerability in the role.

The other real standouts for me are Calvin McCullough and Kyle Taylor Parker as Benny Southstreet and Nicely-Nicely Johnson, Nathan's sidekicks. I was always delighted to find them on the stage; "Sit Down, You're Rocking the Boat" is, again, always guaranteed to bring down the house (this show is FULL of bangers, folks; you're missing out if you don't know it), but the two of them together are an absolute delight.

Dickey makes a perfectly fine Sky Masterson--charming, suave, great vocals. Unfortunately, I was a bit let down by Colletti's Nathan Detroit. I mean, he's fine, but doesn't quite project the likeability necessary for the role. This is a guy who's been engaged for 14 years with no plans for marriage, who runs an illegal craps game, who lies to his fiancée about said craps game, but you still enjoy him. Colletti comes across as just a touch too unsympathetically. I'm still rooting for Nathan, of course, but not as much as I do in other productions. 

My other quibble with the show is that it doesn't lean into the particular Runyonese of the show. There's a cadence to the dialogue, due in part to the fact that Damon Runyon does not use contractions in his writing. There's a flow to how the book actually sounds that I felt was lacking. Similar to the way I wind up thinking like Bridget Jones after reading or watching Bridget Jones's Diary, my brain shifts slightly after seeing Guys and Dolls into that voice.

This review is coming across as more negative than it should, I think. This production is still absolutely worth attending; I have plans to usher for it a couple more times and I am absolutely delighted at the prospect. Even with some minor complaints, it's hard to do Guys and Dolls wrong. I'm thrilled to see a major production of it staged.