Riedel: PORGY AND BESS canceling Broadway run?

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/1/11 at 11:28pm

Yikes. FUNNY GIRL might take the Rodgers.

http://tinyurl.com/3kgob45 Updated On: 9/1/11 at 11:28 PM

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 9/1/11 at 11:35pm

I guess they should've waited to see how the Boston run went before announcing a move to Broadway. If this is true, it'd be a shame if the Rodgers were dark until Funny Girl in the spring.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/1/11 at 11:35pm

But me wants to see Audra.

[sweetTb'way]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 12:32am

Well that's a little awkward......the Porgy and Bess marquee has been up for a while now. Oops

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 1:04am

Sorry, but I have to blame Sondheim. He put the stink on this production that won't go away, and even with the best reviews, it will always be the "controversial" production, and every review will (and already has) mention Sondheim's comments.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 1:22am

Sondheim brought a lot of attention to the production,
but the stink was there or not.

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 1:24am

I think that Sondheim's "commentary" would have sold even more tickets, to be honest.

[lull89]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 1:33am

Yeah, they could definitely play this smart and turn up the controversy so everyone would want to see it to have an opinion.

I say make more random and reckless changes! Have Norm and Audra switch roles occasionally! Replace the orchestra with a kazoo! Invite Sondheim to give a lecture after each performance about how what the audience just saw was all wrong!

There won't be an empty seat.

Sad news if this is true.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 1:35am

Brantley's review wasn't awful though. It basically said everyone should see Audra's performance.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 1:40am

"Yeah, they could definitely play this smart and turn up the controversy so everyone would want to see it to have an opinion."

That's exactly the way Paulus's PT Barnum mind works. It may not be the way investors' minds work though.

But seriously, would these gals try to pull one over on you?

Updated On: 9/2/11 at 01:40 AM

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 1:46am

That picture isn't going to allow me to pull one off for quite some time!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 1:53am

"Diane, could you give us more of that possessed gargoyle look, you know the one that says you're now, today, hot and happening?"

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 2:02am

Reidel hit the nail on the head with FUNNY GIRL- if it gets trashed out of town, it's not coming to New York. I don't see any theater owners here wanting to give those producers a theater until they see the reviews from L.A. Lauren Ambrose isn't anywhere near name enough to sell the show outside of any critical acclaim.

I found the Times review to be very carefully worded by Brantley. While he obviously found a lot of major faults in the production, he was excessive enough about Audra McDonald's performance that it would still make most readers want to see the show on the strength of her merits. It certainly wasn't the type of review that would lead me to believe any producer would hastily cancel a Broadway engagement (especially one for which tickets have been on sale for quite some time.)

I'll believe it's not coming to New York anymore when they say so, but I'm much more inclined to think they'll just continue to re-tool the show as they've done all throughout previews in Boston. That's why they went out of town first- to do the work they're already doing.

Updated On: 9/2/11 at 02:02 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 2:04am

If only it were that simple with Diane.

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 2:30am

I find it a little unfair to say Audra doesn't sell tickets. No one starts out a star, and her concerts do quite well. She's also never been attached to a show this popular.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 3:25am

Audra also has four Tonys ... all for supporting performances. She's not known for carrying a show beyond a limited run. She has played some leads before, but I agree, she's not known for selling tickets. It's a fair comment. The only way this Porgy & Bess was going to ring up sales was with positive advance buzz about the production as a whole, not just one of its players.

I was surprised the Times reviewed the show out of town. It wasn't a good move. It's the equivalent of reviewing a preview performance, especially if the show has been announced for Broadway, as it had in this case. I guess they're trying to keep up with the message boards and theatre blogs now. Damn those Interwebs! They're messing with the process!

Updated On: 9/2/11 at 03:25 AM

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 4:48am

I would actually give more weight to a performer who wins for supporting. People act like it's less valid than a lead, but it means that in the face of those leads you let your minimal time on stage count for a standout performance.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 5:55am

I am not surprised that Brantley reviewed the Cambridge tryout of The Gershwins' PORGY AND BESS, even if it seems somewhat unfair. Sondheim's letter focused on the production and whetted the appetite for theatregoers to know how things were going. It IS a work loved by a very large number of people who consider it sacred.

I hope it still comes to Broadway so that I can see it and decide for myself the merits of the production. Many years ago, the Times reviewed a musical theatre piece that was in workshop out of town, somewhere in the suburbs. The whole reason for the out of town workshop was so that creative artists could work on a show wihout interference from the Times theatre critic. The Times put such a damper on the whole process that the project, which was going to involve several workshops over a span of time, was abandoned. May PORGY AND BESS not be "abandoned" in a like fashion. I want to see Audra McDonald!

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 6:20am

"I would actually give more weight to a performer who wins for supporting. People act like it's less valid than a lead, but it means that in the face of those leads you let your minimal time on stage count for a standout performance."


But what does this have to do with whether or not they can sell tickets to general audiences?

I'm not comparing her to Julia Roberts, but she doesn't yet have the box office track record of even Donna Murphy or Marin Mazzie as a leading lady. Marin doesn't have any Tonys, but she's opened hit shows as a lead (Kiss Me, Kate), and she's kept shows running as a lead replacement (Next to Normal). Producers need to have proof like that. It's no different in Hollywood with stars. They have to be able to "open" a movie as a leading player. That's what puts them in the "special club."

Audra probably has more respect than any Broadway actress of her generation. But, as Reidel points out, that doesn't guarantee ticket sales. I personally think Audra's name recognition as a headlining lead could sell out the first few months of a show. After that, who knows? She hasn't done it yet.

Updated On: 9/2/11 at 06:20 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 7:19am

I'm sorry but I blame Sondheim

Nah.

Put the blame on Mame, boys,

http://youtu.be/rVI0A4DTVgg

Or blame it on the bossa nova

http://youtu.be/MYQBd9ordbE

Or blame Canada. But don't blame Sondheim. He just responded to their pretentious public statements--statements they made in their efforts to market the production.

The truth is that pretentious theater is rarely good theater. With that cast, think of what a Porgy and Bess for 2012 could have been in the hands of a well-chosen artistic staff.

I blame Paulus and Parks. And I especially blame the Gershwin Estate. There's the scandal. That's where heads should roll.

[Q]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 7:44am

I take it that Brantley's benediction excuses Audra from being lumped in with the egregious ones . . .

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 8:20am

I had heard a while back that there was some belief McDonald felt she would need a matinee alternate to sustain this role for an extended Broadway run. Its certainly a role demanding enough to warrant that sentiment, but if the production were dependent on the strength of her performance to sell tickets (and Brantley's review would only make that sentiment stronger), the weekly nut could be drastically reduced right along with her reduced performance schedule. Could possibly be another factor being weighed in regards to a New York transfer.

[justoldbill]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 8:23am

What I've been wondering all this time is- Where did ACT get the funding to even consider a move to Broadway? Who's been underwriting this? It's been too much to believe from the start. If the company has been taking all the financial risk, it's been sounding like corporate suicide from the start. If the Gershwin estate has wasted some if its money in this aborted attempt, it might have done better to underwrite a restoration and release of the 1959 film, something some people out there DO want. I think the Gershwin estate could use someone like Ted Chapin making these decisions for them.

As for Ms. McDonald, her performance may well deserve much of the attention Ben Brantley is heaping on it. Personally, I seldom trust his gushing. I do not think, however, that an overwhelming and overriding Bess is a particularly compelling reason to mount a Broadway revival of PORGY AND BESS. The role is not a Star Turn. Many posters have commented here and elsewhere how she overpowers Norm Lewis during their duets, a situation that seemingly hasn't been corrected. Can't anyone rein her in? It seems that she's determined to willingly thrust herself forward at the cost of her co-players. Even the best singers are willing to make their duets sound like, well, duets. And I think producers and directors will take note. She may well not yet be ready to command the dramatic stage in a leading capacity as well as she can the concert stage. PORGY AND BESS is not a solo piece.

Updated On: 9/2/11 at 08:23 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 8:44am

No news is bad news, re: the Sondheim business. All that did was up the buzz. Who doesn't want to see it after that, reach their own opinion (or be spoonfed one) and take sudes? If there's a problem there's a real problem, no?

[raker]

Posted: 9/2/11 at 8:52am

I bought a ticket after the controversy sparked an interest. I've never seen Porgy and Bess. I'm seeing it this week.

And Sondheim did not "attack the production" as Riedel puts it, he responded to an article in the Times and the unfortunate statements made by the people associated with this show.