If they're carding, just be honest. "We'r'e seventeen but we're not here to drink. We just want the piano bar experience." Of course it's against the law to admit you so if they won't, no hard feelings.
There's little motivation for producers to spend $200K+ to appear on a TV special when your show has virtually gone clean. And not getting a big production number just made people want to see it all the more.
I liked the set, which got us from here to there without fussy scene changes to kill the momentum while keeping the focus firmly on the performances. I always knew exactly where they were at any given moment. I wasn't enamored of Rosenthal's performance but the others were all wonderful, especially Borle.
The Mankiewicz.screenplay is structured like a play, befitting its theatrical setting, and I think is a natural for a stage adaptation. It doesn't require a great deal of embellishment or structural rehab to make it stageworthy. Writing its adaptation is really an editing job, the character development and plot being fine as is. Blanchett seems a good choice to me, so believable in any period, but it's Eve's story. That's the casting
Markypoo, the Chicago production I refer to was at Candlelight Dinner Playhouse. And to call it "rewritten" is probably too far reaching. As I recall the changes mostly had to do with cuts and perhaps the juxtaposition of a couple songs but by no means was it a major rewrite. It was long ago and, having seen every version since, I can't swear to anything. Surely you're better positioned, having the tapes, to comment with more authority than I.
I am among those enthralled by Dexter's original production, the clean simplicity with which that complex, profound story was told being in perfect balance. This is not a play that wants fussy conceptualization imposed upon it, which is why I thought Tamor was a strange choice from the start. And I do believe a poor production can damage the reputation of good material. Unlike many on this board, most theatergoers are not aficionados, able to discern between a bad
"Anyone know what they're trying to do with this? It seems like it must be Broadway bound?"
The authors have been revising this musical non-stop since it previewed in Boston. It has seldom been done twice in the same iteration. There was the rewritten version in Chicago, then the cut down version for The American Jewish Theatre in NYC, with a cast of nine and young David narrating the story. Yet another version was presented at Florida's Coconut Grove Pl
Whether Michele is well liked in the industry has little to do with her prospects of playing Fanny. Streisand wasn't exactly the darling of the day when she did it, locking horns with virtually everyone on the production. But they plowed through because they knew she'd be brilliant in the role and they weren't wrong. Michele is not innately quirky, nor is she a physical comedienne or possessed of an out-sized persona. Unlike Fanny, she's not an original
To those turning their noses up at the casting of Harry Hadden-Patton, you would do well to investigate his acclaimed career in the theater including the West End, National Theatre, Young Vic, Donmar, Battersea, Southwark, Royal Court, etc. His training at LAMDA seems to have served him well. Yes, he has also done film and television but in the UK, that doesn't qualify you as a second class citizen. As for Ambrose, it seems to me that she could easily pass for under 40 onstage
RubyYC, what you say is all well and good and maybe you'll consider writing a musical about it. It is not, however, the musical R&H wrote Surely you're not suggesting that someone come in and rewrite Carousel. btw, does anyone else think the art for the revival makes it look like an adaptation by Euripides?