Maybe somebody can clarify their other "screw you" to patrons. I had heard that they had two types of subscribers and that one set of subscribers would get screwed out of seat selections due to the Public having to make seats available for NYCID holders. Maybe someone can explain that.
What's up with the Public Theatre that they sell tickets to shows and then figure out the actors can't handle the physical demands of the show? I mean, they've only been doing Shakespeare for 50 years. And scores of theaters do Hamlet. What's so difficult about this one?
The nice thing about the original Broadway cast was that it was all Broadway actors. (People knew Rene Auberjonois from tv, but he had a long list of Broadway credits).
They did do a bit of stunt casting after the originals left, Richard Kline, Tom Wopat, but it wasn't anything obnoxious where you were going to see a major star in a musical, whether they fit the role or not.
And, yes, the scenery gimmicks did sell the show a bit, but it's got a nice score to go alo
"Wasn't the original broadway production a transfer of a Steppenwolf production and not the original London?"
I just looked that up and yes, you are correct. It was a Steppenwolf transfer. That explains why they didn't bring in Horrocks. I remember thinking it wasn't a very good production and was wondering what all the excitement over in London was about.
I would have liked to have seen Alison Steadman play the mother about ten years ago.
WOW!! 25 Years? That makes me feel old. I saw the show twice. Once in early previews and once in previews two nights before it opened. During that time they wrote a completely new song for Christine Baranski.
There were two problems with the show: the script and the music!
It was an excellent idea to musicalize. And they assembled a top notch cast. The main problem was Arthur Laurents. The script was dreadful. I
I saw the original on Broadway and it's not that great of a show. It was basically written around Jane Horrocks' ability to do impressions. There's no real compelling story there.
I don't know what the brouhaha was that Horrocks couldn't repeat her performance on Broadway. Probably an Equity issue of "she's not a star" magnitude. It's one of those shows that I think should have played off-Broadway.
It's on my list of shows I want to see revived. However, I'm a bit scared that it may not be as good as the original was. I'm afraid that they will star cast it and it won't be as good. Plus, the show needs really good singers because it's very tight jazz harmony.
I saw my first Broadway show, Shenandoah, in the Hellinger.
I went back a few times for church services. What's really nice is to sit upstairs where you can see the crown flanked by angels hanging over the proscenium. You can see some of it in the second to last picture.
eta: I'm not sure if they do, but it would be so nice if the church opened it up for tours. I'd love to go onstage and even see the backstage. I'd pay to take a
Passion. I saw the original Broadway cast and didn't like it. I listened to the cast recording several times after that and just couldn't get to like it. But it's *Sondheim* so I guess everyone has to love it.
"While technically in accordance with the opening night show, I'm skeptical that the committee would grant such a request, and even more skeptical that Tony voters would go for Nixon in supporting."
The Tony committee does whatever the producers tell them to. For example, Emily Skinner and Alice Ripley being nominated for one spot in Side Show, even though they were playing two separate characters. The committee makes a lot of eye rolling decisions.
The producers would be stupid not to put Nixon into the Featured catgory. The idea is to maximize Tony wins and having an actress in each category increases the chances of both winning an award, not competing against each other.
I think that was one of the problems in 1996 with A Delicate Balance. Both Rosemary Harris and Elaine Stritch were put into Best Actress category. If Stritch had been dropped to Featured, she might have won.
The casting of this is obscene. I like Sally Field, but she's not Amanda. Sally can't do "a force to be reckoned with" and that's what Amanda needs to be. Joe Mantello as Tom? We don't need a whiny, neurotic Tom.