Thoughts on Show Boat (1994)?- Page 2

[Jay94]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 12:09am

If the show didn't have such high running costs, it could have ran 10 years with sales like that.

[Jay94]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 12:41am

This article explains a bit:

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/32724-Bway-Show-Boat-Closing-Jan-5

Apparently running costs were $600,000 a week. However, I find it strange that Drabinsky says the show grossed 100 million when in actuality it grossed 89 million. Maybe it performed belong expectations, maybe he was rounding generously. It also appeared to be a calculated move to allow Candide to play in the Gershwin which was also produced by Livent. Isn't Candide not well known enough to play in a theatre like the Gershwin?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 1:50am

That is odd--and of course that Candide production was kinda a disaster in terms of any financial success, even for a show like Candide which has trouble having a solid run. I'm impressed that it managed to gross successfully--I wonder if that was keeping in mind the Toronto, Vancouver, etc runs as well, as I know many other shows that seem less expensive and run similarly that are financial flops.

Drabinsky is a pretty despicable man in so many ways, but I admit I do miss many aspects of the Livent era (not the least of which was seeing these major productions so early in their lives in Vancouver--)

I could see some finding it slow, I guess, but I think FrontRow said it well, that Prince found a way to in manyt ways streamline the show, and still be true to it--I don't think anything else could be done to "speed it up" without compromising the show. I admit, I love some of the "filler" stuff on the 3 CD recording like the whole World's Fair scene with In Dahomey (which probably would have caused even more protests of this revival if kept, despite the point of the song), but...

[f13overture]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 2:13am

If the show didn't have such high running costs, it could have ran 10 years with sales like that.

I wish it had run 10 years or more because I wanna see it! I bought the cast album a year ago, and it's a gem.

Did they ever release sheet music with "Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man" in Lonette McKee's Key? I think it sounds better in the lower register.

[wexy]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 9:33am

I really enjoyed it.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 1:52pm

The Hal Prince revival also had 3 U.S. national tours running simultaneously in addition to the Broadway production. I saw the 1st national tour when it stopped at L.A.'s Ahmanson Theatre in 1996 for a lengthy run. Why I only saw it once, I'll never know. But I do remember it very well and it was one of those productions where you could see the money you spent on your ticket on the stage; very lavish and the Cotton Blossom rolling in was quite a sight!

I agree that Hal's version is the most overall satisfying, integrating elements from not only various stage script versions but also from the 1936 film. I see what people mean when they say certain numbers seemed to only lengthen the running time, but I personally found their addition to be very effective. The only number that I recall felt a tad out of place was "I Have the Room Above Her."

I didn't get to see the other two national tours but from what I could see in photographs at the time, none of them appear to have been scaled down. The show was massive. It was comparable to the original Ragtime in how immense it all felt. I miss that feeling, which was very standard at the time. Everything evoked that large scale feel from the sumptuous orchestrations and large orchestra to the ad campaigns that included hour-long television specials on opening night.

Nowadays, all that energy is put into finding ways to save and that feeling is no longer a part of the experience. What I hate is one can never tell for sure if the motive for all this recent penny pinching that has even permanently bastardized beloved shows for good, to be the result of real financial strains due to interest in the art form having taken a dive or just shameless ways to boost profits under the guise of "bad economy." To go so far as to see a return of the ol' non-equity standard become THE standard and even see that infecting Broadway, you have to wonder. As far as I know, theatre is alive and well and people still flock to see old, beloved musicals as well as new crap. Maybe that's what really is wrong--we're churning out nothing but crap these days and the few gems of yesterday are being altered to match the crap of today. Yuck.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 2:35pm

Wasn't this also one of those shows where Garth was taking a little off the top for himself?

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 3:42pm

"To go so far as to see a return of the ol' non-equity standard become THE standard and even see that infecting Broadway, you have to wonder."

What does that mean, My Oh My? I see there are a lot of non-equity bus-and-truck tours these days, but to me that's a new thing and not a "return of the ol' non-equity standard".

[My Oh My]

Posted: 5/20/12 at 6:15pm

In the 90's, even the "bus and truck" tours were Broadway caliber. That term used to carry a bad connotation, signaling a cheaper, less expensive version of the 'definitive' Broadway version.

During the latter part of the 80's and the 90's these tours would often be comparable to their Broadway counterparts in all areas including casts, even orchestra. I'm not just referring to the big Mackintosh shows but I do believe he set that standard and all others followed because they knew audiences were expecting something similar in quality and they had to compete. Seriously, some of the tours I've seen recently are just awful and they have a cheap feel to them, as if someone across the way decided to mount a show with their income tax return, or something.

Maybe there are some real great tours out there. I am not generalizing but speaking from my experience and perspective. In short, keeping that in mind, I'm not against tours. Like I said, I've been spoiled with some of the best tours to criss cross the country. But today, the gratuitous downsizing and amateur standard, not to mention that stuff sneaking into Broadway productions, just has me really put off and missing those days.

A 'revival' back then was like a celebration of an older musical. Nowadays, a revival is an excuse to cheapen a great show to boost profits. They cut musicians and permanently alter orchs to enforce their will. They do the tired old projections thing and claim that's modern and innovative. Oh please, it's cheap and not creative! Costumes and makeup don't look fake as in that wonderful theatrical/stagey manner we all love, they just look cheap. Like made from yarn, or something. Lighting today is boring. I suspect that's due to fewer options due to a cut in lighting instruments a designer has to work with. And sound...good Lord.

Don't. I repeat DO NOT get me started on pit orchestras!

=(

Posted: 5/21/12 at 12:03am

I saw it in Los Angeles. Amazing show. Loved every minute of it.

David

[Gothampc]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 9:28am

"A 'revival' back then was like a celebration of an older musical. Nowadays, a revival is an excuse to cheapen a great show to boost profits."

My Oh My you are so right. I remember thinking this about Grease in 1994. That revival was just an embarrassment and they kept running it and running it with stunt casting. It was an awful version of a really great show.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 9:31am

I hate to disagree, but I don't think GREASE was ever a "great" show. "Enjoyable" Yes. A "crowd pleaser" Definitely. But not "great"

[Fosse76]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 10:08am

"The Hal Prince revival also had 3 U.S. national tours running simultaneously in addition to the Broadway production."

Actually, it didn't. There were initially three companies: Broadway, Chicago (with Dorothy Loudon as Parthy), and the national tour (which launched a few months after the show began performances in Chicago). When both Chicago and Broadway companies closed, they also toured, allowing for the three tours.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 12:30pm

In the 90's, even the "bus and truck" tours were Broadway caliber.

You must not have seen many of these tours that I did (Hair, Evita, Once on This Island, City of Angels, etc). They were nowhere near the quality of the official tours that preceded them (except Hair, which was advertised as the 25th anniversary tour). Not even as good as regional productions I had seen.

I saw the tour of Show Boat and it was about as perfect a production as we'll ever see of this show. It was a revival that did not attempt to "reinvent", but rather pay tribute to, an American classic and it succeeded. Unlike other revivals, which focus on the familiarity of the score to carry the production, this revival focused on the story and allowed the score to speak for itself and enhance the story, making it seem fresh and compelling.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 12:42pm

I have not forgotten this production either. It remains among the favorite shows I have seen. The Cotton Blossom and the Chicago sets were among the most beautiful I have witnessed. And I don't even think of lighting when I look back at shows I've seen but the way the Cotton Blossom was lit at the end of the show remains etched in my mind.

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 12:59pm

I attended the show and loved it!
Even happier that I recorded the entire PBS version and have it at home on VHS. Haven't put my hand on it for a while but certain I know where it is! Yes, the entire show was broadcast from beginning to end on Great Performances.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 1:13pm

Wasn't it the '89 Show Boat that was on Great Performances?

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 1:17pm

What '89 SHOWBOAT? I don't remember that.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 1:31pm

It was the Paper Mill Playhouse production filmed for PBS

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 2:11pm

I think you can find the entire Papermill Showboat on Youtube.

Personally, I was a mesmerized by that production...and watching it on TV no less.

I find myself agreeing with Goth...I was ultimately bored. Some of the singing was thrilling. The set was...large. And Stro's choreography was great.

As for performances, I, too, so some of the later cast. Gretha Boston was truly spectacular as Queenie and Carole Shelley's Parthy was an absolute master class.

[zamedy]

Posted: 5/21/12 at 10:13pm

I saw the show in Toronto when I was 14 and loved it. For a young teenager, some of it dragged and was over my head, but I remember falling in love with the music (I have worn out the CD), the beautiful sets and many of the actors (Lonette McKee was divine). Old Man River is just one of the finest songs to appear in a musical ever. And the closing bars of the show -- as the whole cast is singing "But OLD MAN RIVERRRR... He just keeps ROL-LING.. A.......LOOOOOOOOONG!" -- it gets me every time. Chills. Wow. Stunning.