Erica,
I haven't seen the show at Rodger's, but it sounds like the Deseret News needs to get a new theater writer. To say that kids in a backwards town wouldn't know how to dance that way? Let's forget that they break into rock songs, or that when prom comes in the movie (which is not a MUSICAL) all of the kids broke into stunning years-of-dance-training moves.
Welcome to what a broadway show is. I hope that the choreography is stunning, for Footloose is a dance/ rock show.

Let's examine the larger issues that "Footloose", however well performed, is dumber than a bag of hammers. Just a stupid, stupid play.

"Footloose" is actually a powerful allegory about the inalienable right to dance, and the power of one idiot to make a difference in the life of many rednecks.

Actually, my friend is a brilliant choreographer and the best in the business believe that dancing needs to come from who the characters are and be what the characters would do - if that makes sense. I've heard him gripe about this very thing. Sounds like you'd be better off to back off.

In West Side Story there are many dance moves which would never be seen by a teenage hoodlum from New York City, but nevertheless Jerome Robbins, the choreographer was able to realize that dancing is to add emotion not necessarily be realistic. I believe that that is also the case with Holland's choreography in Footloose, to add emotion to the piece. And as for the lifts that are spoken of, having seen the show I do not recall any lifts except for the opening of the second act, which actually doesn't occur in Bomont. In occurs at a barbeque dance palace. I thought it was a great show with great dancing. I also thought that Randall Eames who played Willard was fantastic!

I can't believe we're having an argument about whether the dancing in Footloose ought to be amazing or not. I haven't seen the show (yet) either, but I'm with John--if you don't have amazing choreography in Footloose, you're going to lose the whole story line AND the audience. Perhaps that's why Susan Holland, who is a very talented choreographer, is also the director. RMT obviously "gets it".

Ms. Hansen and her defender, RE: JOHN, don't have a leg to stand on (no, not even a "broken" one). People in real life don't break into song every 15 minutes either. That, and the fact that most of the characters portrayed on the musical theater stage wouldn't have professional dancing moves hasn't killed the genre. The only time it DOES make any sense is in the sub-genre of "show within a show" where the characters ARE theater professionals (42nd Street, Drowsy Chaperone, The Producers, etc.).

So gimme a break! Let's stop the silly arguing and go watch the show!

I went to the show, and it's not worth it. Save your money for another theater that's of high quality.

Wow! Open your eyes people. First of all, having seen the show, Ms. Hansen is EXTREMELY generous in her reviews of Rodger's. She's very, very, very nice. You should all be vary happy that she's - most likely - biting her tongue to spare your feelings.
Second, if any of you knew anything about storytelling, you'd get the point she's making. I don't find it worth my time to further explain.
As a side note, there were pseudo lifts when Ren and the gang when off to dance at the neighboring town. I say pseduo lifts becuase most of the kids couldn't do them.
One more thing - go watch the movie. Ren didn't do any ballet moves. Great choregoraphy yes. Technical dancing wizardry? no.

So, Get over it!, you imply that Footloose isn't the only show you've seen at Rodgers and that none were up to your standard. Hmmm...why would you keep going?

Then you persist in looking down your nose at the other posters with your storytelling remark, categorizing this discussion not worth your time. Perhaps not, so why bother at all? What's wrong with this picture? What is your real agenda?

You're certainly no fan of musical theater, or you wouldn't support the notion that a dance show shouldn't have dazzling dance moves (not talking about ballet here, but rhythm, flexibility, presence, energy, athleticism, precision, synchronization--you know, the elements that when they come together bring that WOW factor). As Incredible! points out above, if directors limited themselves strictly to plausible character motivations, the whole musical theater genre would disappear, since everyday people don't spontaneously burst into song and dance routines throughout their day. And if they did, it wouldn't be pleasant to watch or listen to, and wouldn't be in unison with all their family, friends and co-workers!! I mean get real!

So I come back to my earlier question: what's wrong with this picture? What's your real beef with Rodgers?

I am not the previous poster who doesn't like Rodgers. I have been to several productions because my wife knows people in the shows.

I agree that most of the shows there aren't very good. They call themselves a 'semi-professional' theater yet I don't know of any performers other than Alex Boye who have been paid. From the quality of shows they are community theater all the way.

I don't know why they even get a mention in the paper since you can find productions of equal entertainment value with every other community arts council that don't get a review.

I have noticed a very aggressive mentality from people involved with Rodgers in the comment sections on this web site. I think the review was probably sugar-coated to not make very young and inexperienced performers feel bad. So you guys whine if you don't get reviewed then you whine about the review.

I have been to see the show, and although I am a fan of Rodgers Memorial Theater, I agree with the review. The points that Erica makes about performance not being consistent and that there were some redeeming performances is spot on. The problem with the dancing wasn't that the dancing didn't fit, and I certainly didn't see any complicated dance lifts, but the show was over-choreographed for the abilities of the dancers in the show. Erica was right with her comment about the age and experience level of the performers, "the large cast of kids danced and sang their way through all of the songs"
The underlying problem with this article and most articles that Erica puts in this paper is that she is not interesting to read and is a poor writer. Despite her obvious lack of experience to be giving accurate reviews of musical theater, her writing is disconnected and not interesting. Her juvenile comments and lack of supporting explanations are "pretty" weak and "seem" to lack in confidence and decisiveness. She'll get better over the years; Ivan did, I think.

I think you all have valuable points...especially when you don't get defensive. I have not seen this particular version of the show, although I am familiar with Ms. Holland's work as a choreographer. Many times I leave her shows thinking to myself that the choreography seemed more designed for a competition dance/drill team performance than a musical theatre performance (yes there is and should be a difference). So although I haven't seen the show, I think I understand what the reviewer is saying. I also see what the 'defenders' are saying, because I thought that of all shows, 'Footloose' would go well with Ms. Holland's choreographic style, due to its dance heavy material and admittedly weak story-telling. I guess not everyone thought so. But that's OK. Ms. Holland will always have her followers and her nay-sayers...like every other artist.

Someone made a comment about the theatre being "semi-professional" but disagreed with that title. The theatre doesn't classify itself as such...they are reviewed and given a status by theatre organizations. So if they say they are semi professional, they are.

I think the production is excellent; fabulous sets and talent. Please get your tickets asap