In the case of "Senator Joe" it was the only show in my memory to have its plastics up on two marquees at once -- right across the street from each other -- the Virginia (now the Wilson) and the Simon. The producer, Adela Holzer, couldn't post a bond to Jujamcyn, which owned the Wilson, and so made a deal for the Simon with the Nederlanders and moved across the street. By April of the following year she was incarcerated at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for
I agree with everything you're saying. I think it's bold and throws down some big and really interesting questions in a very theatrical gesture. I just think the play that emerges is pretty bad and undisciplined. Doesn't mean he won't write better ones.
I wonder if there are folks who have seen it and disliked it as much as I did who just don't want to say so. I found it almost intolerably dull, confused and self-indulgent. A very young writer's attempt to do something big and scary but with very little to really offer that's genuinely insightful and a great deal of patience for saying variations on the same thing over and over again. I realize it's virtual heresy to say so, but this isn't a good play -- and is
It al depends on you setting a time frame for your question. In 1927-28, the year SHOW BOAT opened, there were over 200 Broadway openings and I assume many more shows were running simultaneously than we have now. But for the last 5 years, you might be right.
Some interesting posts on the TB board from folks who loved it at NYTW and hated it at the National. I saw it in London last week -- my first-ever encounter with it -- and was mystified by all the enthusiasm on this board. What I saw was interminable, ugly, obvious, miscast and unbelievably pretentious. If this is what's coming, I'd temper my enthusiasm at least until you get a look at it. And while I don't like to predict awards, it's hard for me to picture Brooks Ashman
Just_John said: "I saw it this afternoon and I loved it. I had seen the broadway revival over ten times and don’t think it was as strong as that, but with more rehearsal it could have been. It ran two hours and twenty minutes. It’s suppsoed to be one hour and 40 minutes."
I've seen a lot of productions, including the original, the revival, and his one, and a few around the country. None of them was an hour and 40 minutes. The show has, in my expe
wonkit said: "I am reading the play before seeing it. Is it as clunky in performance as on the page? There are a lot of "clever" paraphrases of Shakespeare, for example, but that could either work or fail miserably. Is there music? It seems like a speakeasy atmosphere and the text does suggest there may be background tunes. I guess I am trying to imagine how the production gets the audience involved, and whether any of the humor is being conveyed."
what’s the “godspell” inspired number? i’m genuinely curious.
Part of the plot revolves around the "Broadway Stars" hitching a ride to Indiana on a bus with the cast of a non-Equity tour of Godspell, which results in...well, you can imagine. One thing no one seems to mention in these posts is that the show's score contains quite a number of pastiche numbers in tribute to
The producers and the creative staff and the cast. All of whom have done admirable work in the past, but their names don't sell tickets. At least not in any quantity.
Bwayfan292 said: "The show may not be “flop material” but it’snot selling well, so it could most definitely be a flop."
This feels like a non-sequitur to me. The show is not selling because, frankly, until it gets in front of an audience, it has nothing to sell -- no stars, no famous (Sondheim/Lloyd Webber) collaborators, no spectacular spectacle (King Kong) no famous title or beloved piece of underlying material (Pretty Woman) -- th
Rags for sure, and, if you're into older shows, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, which sounds gorgeous on CD and is a show that just doesn't work in any way. And I would go out on a limb and say Sweet Charity -- another show that never quite works in the theater for me, but has a terrific score.
behindthescenes2 said: "What does need to be pointed out is that the costume designer is untalented and unskilled at adapting styles to fit every body type and adapt the look them to compliment the performer and keep the general look that has been agreed upon. For a performer, any criticism about or surrounding their performance or appearanceis taken immediately to heart whether it is a direct comment on their talent or not - that's the performer "Id". Meanwhile, what i
LightsOut90 said: "yes it ran as long as it did but in the inbetween weve had Motown, Beautiful, Baby Its You, Trip of Love and half a dozen other shows that mined these songs and similar ones from the era,this will be lucky to still be running by the end of the year let alone 1000 performances, it was 75% full on a saturday matinee, and thats with them HEAVILY papering"
Not sure Trip of Love was much competition I imagine the success of this revival will depend on w
ColorTheHours048 said: "How is it masturbatory? If you’ve ever seen a production by Amanda Dehnert, you know how thrilling it is. In particular, her Fantasticks and Edwin Drood (both at Trinity) are very, very strong highlights of my theatregoing. She loves a high concept, yes, but she deploys it expertly."
Peter Brook's Midsummer Night's Dream was high concept. Amanda Dehnert's Annie was just silly and insulting. Brook understood the skeleton of th
Yes, as I said, the musical has its own integrity, which is quite different than the comic strip that it was based on. But the musical is a new work, not a production of the comic strip itself. Dehnert's production was not a new work, it was the actual musical-- same words, same music. So no adaptation had been done, merely a tearing apart of the show while doing the show -- which was insulting to the show and its creators, and a nonsensical 2+ hours for the audience.
