What happened with that Promises Promises revival?

[LipstickLola]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 11:52am

Oh my god. Why did they not use the original choreography to the turkey lurkey number?  Those kids from the camp movie sure showed those Broadway actors up. And why did Kristin not perform at the Tonys? It was like they were just trying to focus on Sean Hayes (who was only playing Jack anyway). It's like how Ricky Martin performed at the tonys for Evita and the Evita just walked around the stage and did nothing. So dumb.

[Fantod]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 11:57am

Do you mean Chuck? And he is the main character in the show and narrates the piece.

[LipstickLola]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 12:02pm

No i mean Sean Hayes was just playing Jack Mcfarland from will and grace

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 12:06pm

Ok.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 12:09pm

it was terrible. next question.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 12:13pm

The Tonys try to attract viewers to raise their value on tv so they won't have their timeslot cut or cancelled.

Sean Hayes and Ricky Martin were more well known than Kristin Chenoweth and the Argentinian actress.

[LarryD2]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 12:19pm

Wasn't Sean Hayes the host of the Tonys the year of PROMISES PROMISES?

[OKBroadwayFan]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 12:38pm

Yes, he was the host that year.

[_IrisTInkerbell]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 1:08pm

Kristin performed as part of the Opening Number on the Tonys.

Also, Sean was nominated that year, and Kristin was not, so it wouldn't have made a lot of sense for her to perform, and not Sean.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 4:11pm

"No i mean Sean Hayes was just playing Jack Mcfarland from will and grace"

I don't think Sean played "Jack" at all when I saw Promises, Promises. (During his Tony hosting gig, sure...) For lack of a better work, I thought he played it straight, but if you mean bringing some of his charm and personality to the role, well sure. I mean, it's not like Chenoweth disappears into her roles!

[promisespromises2]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 4:55pm

I'm utterly in love with the cast recording and am actually really upset that I didn't get to see it even though I haven't heard a single good thing about it!

[n2nbaby]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 5:15pm

You know, I honestly didn't hate it. Was it great theater? No, not exactly but I left entertained. I would never see it again (though I've watched Katie's scenes numerous times for obvious reasons) but I enjoyed myself. Sean Hayes was very good and Katie was excellent and deserved her Tony. She was hysterical. Kristen... Meh. Incredibly miscast.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 5:19pm

I thought there were several things to recommend the revival.  Hayes was a terrific Chuck, sexually insecure, as he should be, endearingly optomistic and he was in great voice.  Chenowith was arguably miscast as the mousy, depressive wallflower although perhaps a more actor oriented director could have coaxed that character out of her.  Finneran brought home her couple of scenes full-steam-ahead and the execs at Chuck's company amounted to Who's Who? of delightful character actors.  No, Ashford's choreography for "Turkey Lurkey" didn't live up to Bennett's original but what could?  All in all, I don't think it was nearly the train wreck some have made it out to be.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 5:23pm

"Oh my god. Why did they not use the original choreography to the turkey lurkey number? "

I kinda wonder about this too.  I am no big fan of Rob Ashford's choreography, but I admit it seems like a thankless job to have to do a new version of such a now iconic dance (even more so in the post-youtube days.)  I felt similarly about Wayne Cilento when he had to create his own Rich Man's Frug for Sweet Charity.  (For that matter, I would always use Michael Bennett's Who's That Woman in Follies as well--the choreography has been saved, and it was used for both the 1987 London Follies and the Papermill version, and again, I don't envy anyone trying to create a new version.)

The Bacharach interpolations also annoyed me...  I don't think they made sense for the character (though I guess they showed off Cheno,) and, while the score only has a handful of songs that I guess would be known from their pop versions (Never Gonna Fall In Love Again is one of the big Bacharach/David standards, Promises Promises less so,) it's not like the score needed to be goosed with bigger hits.  I guess at least they didn't use the dreary song Bacharach wrote for a 90s version.

I am a huge fan of the show, but I think it might be one that seems deceptively easy and is hard for revivals to get the tone right. 

[Jamie Pierce]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 5:28pm

I loved this revival and saw it multiple times. I thought Sean Hayes was very effective and that Kristin's voice suited Bacharach very well. And of course, Katie Finneran's brilliance.

However, I do agree that they really dropped the ball on Turkey Lurkey. There was no build, overall very flat despite some good choreography elsewhere in the show. Very strange. I do love the Camp version and am grateful the original staging survives on video! 

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 5:41pm

Eric, I've always thought that part of the problem with this musical is structural.  Chuck has the first five songs in the show (two are duets) but before we're halfway through the first act, you're already tiring of him.  After those first five numbers, there's not a lot of emotional life that we haven't already seen him play.  I agree that the interpolations for the revival were unnecessary.

[_IrisTInkerbell]

Posted: 5/11/15 at 10:18pm

I always feel like people hated Kristin in this part because it's not the kind of role they wanted her to do. There is this expectation of what she should do, and Promises didn't fit the bill. I did not know Kristin when I saw the show, and I knew nothing about the show either. So I didn't have expectation going in. I left a fan of Kristin's and I loved the show.

So no, I don't think she was miscast and she certainly sang these songs beautifully. She had a great chemistry with Sean, and the whole show was in my opinion a joy from start to finish.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 5/12/15 at 12:32am

I think "hated" is too strong a word for those who didn't think Chenowith was especially right for the role.  If you're not familiar with the source material or the musical then it's difficult to discern who the character is meant to be and, therefore, whether she may have been miscast.  I certainly didn't hate her, enjoying her performance as I always do, but she did not embody the character imagined by the original screenwriter or the book writer of the musical ( I.A.L. Diamond and Neil Simon).  That probably played into her lack of a Tony nomination.

 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 5/12/15 at 1:53am

 

At intermission the audience was almost in a stupor as they contemplated this musical seemingly built around Kristin Chenoweth singing some Bacharach/David/Dionne Warwick hits. Some headed for the doors.

 

But the second act with Sean Hayes, Katie Finneran, and Dick Latessa was nonstop hilarity, at least until they got to the "dramatic" scenes with Sean and Kristin.

 

I watch the second act now and then and it's still hilarious.

[_IrisTInkerbell]

Posted: 5/12/15 at 10:08am

If you're not familiar with the source material or the musical then it's difficult to discern who the character is meant to be and, therefore, whether she may have been miscast.  I certainly didn't hate her, enjoying her performance as I always do, but she did not embody the character imagined by the original screenwriter or the book writer of the musical ( I.A.L. Diamond and Neil Simon).  That probably played into her lack of a Tony nomination. "

I know a bit more about the source material now than I did then I can see your point and would agree to some degree. Kristin's Fran was a different one. But all of the creative team was still alive in 2010 and I'm not sure if all were involved with the revival but I remember something about Hal David visiting during rehearsals and I would assume that they all had a bit of a say in this production, and didn't seem to mind Kristin being cast. That being said, not knowing what her character was supposed to be in the original, the story still worked for me. It didn't seem odd to me that Fran wasn't particularly mousy. After all, she's the love interest of the show. I'm not sure if we Fran we saw was just a result of Kristin playing her the way she did, or because of the vision the creative team had, which resulted in casting Kristin. I feel like they tried to make her be mousy or whatever, not even in terms of costumes, hair ect. And I'm quite confident Kristin could have portrayed that more, had it been the intention. At the end of the day, the show worked for me, everything felt natural and believable. Maybe it wasn't a replica of the original, maybe it took a different take on it. That doesn't necessarily mean Kristin was miscast.

I know a lot of people, including all the critics and award voters, disagree with me, and that's okay. But I feel like it's at least in part because people had a certain expectation of what the show was supposed to be and what kind of roles Kristin should play. This wasn't met and most people weren't willing to look at the product with a more open mind maybe and just look at the show they saw on that stage without all these expectations and comparisons. And they were a little more harsh than might have be justified.

And I'll shut up now

[behindthescenes2]

Posted: 5/12/15 at 10:31am

It was the director/choreographer.  It was his decision and the failure of the show being a critical success (financially it was okay because of the leads) lays at his feet.  He doesn't know how to direct actors at all.  He can move traffic and manage steps, but concept of show, scenic design and costumes, etc. - he doesn't have a clue and the proof was in the show.  He didn't understand the show, which is obvious in the choices he made for the actors and costumes, etc.

Most unimaginative but rather industrial choreography.   Had anyone else done the show it might have had a great run. 

[ACL2006]

Posted: 5/12/15 at 1:13pm

Ashford's choreography is always hit or miss. His choreography for this was some of his worst. yet he managed well with How to Succeed, Millie, Cry Baby & the Chicago movie.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 5/12/15 at 2:26pm

"Ashford's choreography is always hit or miss. His choreography for this was some of his worst. yet he managed well with How to Succeed, Millie, Cry Baby & the Chicago movie."

Rob Marshall directed AND choreographed the CHICAGO film, not Ashford. Rob Ashford's work on PROMISES PROMISES was workman like and boring, to the point where not even the actors could make it any better. And please don't get me started on how he screwed up "Turkey Lurkey Time", that number was a mess on so many levels that I think Michael Bennett was spinning in his grave.

[JayG 2]

Posted: 5/12/15 at 2:40pm

It was horribly miscast and directed by Ashford. Enough said.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 5/12/15 at 2:43pm

I agree that Ashford is hit or miss, as are most, but he certainly seems to have hit with Carousel in Chicago.