Will Mack and Mabel EVER work on stage?- Page 2

[jv92]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 8:19pm

They did change the gender, right? Lonnie instead of Lottie? Maybe not.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 8:26pm

Yes, "Lottie" became "Lonnie". Mr. Tune also sings a mean "Tap Your Troubles Away" on the 1988 London concert recording, which also features George Hearn, Debbie (Shapiro) Gravitte and Georgia Brown, among others.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 8:26pm

According to Jerry Herman himself, the original ending is darker than what actually happened. Mabel Normand got over her addictions, left show business, and met and married another man after Mack. The show makes it seem as though she just dwindled away and died, and I think this confuses audiences--it seems as if the show suddenly tries to become a tragedy without earning real tragic feeling.

Personally, I think the book needs major rewriting (it's been rewritten several times already, though!). It could work if it went for a tone like "Gypsy"--essentially comic, but with a dark side waiting in the wings. It would also probably work much better on film, of course, but it takes long enough to film hit musicals like "Rent"--no producer would take the chance. Unless he got really popular stars...

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 8:27pm

Is the score pretty tough to sing or no? My college is looking for a little show to do next year, but we don't have many strong singers. thanks.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 8:32pm

You need two great lead singers that basically carry the score. Mack is a tenor role and Mabel a mezzo-soprano.
Updated On: 12/23/05 at 08:32 PM

[roquat]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 8:32pm

Not really. It's more a "sell it" kind of show (like early movie musicals were.) You need some women who can really belt, though.

[Joe Mike2]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 9:22pm

The book is NOT bad. I saw the original production with Bernadette Peters and Robert Preston during its out-of-town tryout in LA. It was fabulous and I was sure it was going to be a hit. You've got to remember that at the time it first played, a musical with a sad ending was quite unusual and some critics panned it for that reason. (I know KING & I and CAROUSEL had sad endings but really they were the rare exceptions at that time)

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 10:56am

Here's what the critics actually said:
"...(MACK AND MABEL) has book trouble so bad that it is practically library trouble. The story was in any case meant...to be a homage to the silent comedy...it seems to have been forgotten that it is impossible to re-create, or even to affectionately suggest, those silent comedies on the stage...(CLIVE BARNES)

"...The show just isn't musical...the show's feel is noise passing for enthusiasm...the show's look is expense without point...the show's quality is professionalism without identity..." (MARTIN GOTTFRIED)

"...I have rarely seen so much talent so dispirited as the creative souls peering through the gloom at the Majestic...MACK AND MABEL hasn't got a story to begin with...Michael Stewart has chosen to lean on the myth of Mack and Mabel, let the mysteries stand. invented no emotional line of his own, and simply asked Herman to intercept things whenever anyone got near a possible scene..." (WALTER KERR)

"...The truth probably is that Sennett and Miss Normand were not especially interesting people in themselves and the emerging movie business had, as we all know,a great deal more to offer than a pie in the face..." (DOUGLAS WATT)

"...loaded with all the zip of a dead flounder..." (DICK COE/THE WASHINGTON POST)

Natasha Rostov
Moscow, St. Petersburg

[Joe Mike2]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 11:27pm

Enchanted Hunter: How sad that you rely so heavily on what the critics say. I have seen many shows that critics praised that were pieces of garbage and others that critics panned that were wonderful. If you always depend on other people's opinions to form your own, you will miss out on some wonderful theatre. Don't forget that most theatre critics are frustrated actors, directors or playwrights who weren't good enough to make it. Their opinions are no more valuable than anyone elses. In many cases, less so.
Updated On: 12/24/05 at 11:27 PM

[roquat]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 12:04am

As I said (or was trying to say) it isn't so much the fact that the musical ends sadly--it also ends abruptly and a little bewilderingly. The whole show has problems of tone--it starts as a big, brash musical comedy, then spirals down into tragedy without any preparation. Also, the mixture of actual biographical details and blatant musical-comedy inventions is choppy. In order for the show to succeed fully, someone needs to decide whether it should be more hardboiled, cynical, and true-to-life (GYPSY, PAL JOEY) or a piece of sentimental fluff with a very vague basis in reality (BARNUM, WILL ROGERS FOLLIES).

As far as critics are concerned--John Simon, generally believed to be the hardest critic in the world to please, loves this show.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 12:54am

"Enchanted Hunter: How sad that you rely so heavily on what the critics say..."

Oh, Joe Mike2, honey lamb, you only need to read my initial post to see what I think about M&M (as a matter of fact, I'm castigated regularly on this site for my singular opinions on any given show). I saw the show and came to my own conclusions thirty years ago, way before I read any of the reviews, which are handily anthologized in an invaluable book new to my collection called OPENING NIGHTS ON BROADWAY by Steve Suskin (in two volumes). But the reviews were posted to counter YOUR blanket statement that the critics panned the unhappy ending when in truth they had problems with the entire show from start to finish. And whether you agree with them or not, they are a matter of record, period. Guess there's just no accounting for taste, including yours, darlin'.

Vivian Darkbloom
Ramsdale, New England




Updated On: 12/25/05 at 12:54 AM

Posted: 12/25/05 at 11:31pm

Earlier in this thread Jimmie Rae I believe said Jon Cryer played Mack in a tour in the seventies. I think he means Jon's gifted Dad David Cryer. Jon Cryer was probably around eleven when that show was being performed. I saw the original with Preston and Peters. They were wonderful and I adored the show in spite of its flaws. My favorite problematic musical. I would have loved to have seen Lucie Arnaz as Mabel. I think she's terrific.

[Joe Mike2]

Posted: 12/28/05 at 4:34pm

Agree with you. I think Lucie would be fabulous. She is one of the most underrated performers around today. She is a magnificent actress and singer and I wish she would get another starring role in a B'way show. How about WITCHES OF EASTWICK?

Posted: 12/28/05 at 11:30pm

It's about time Lucie Arnaz were starring on Broadway again. She was so wonderful in THEY'RE PLAYING OUR SONG. I think she'd make a great Mame. It would probably be a box office hit for the historical aspect alone! With all due respect to her genius mother Lucy was not an ideal choice in the movie version. She had some terrific moments but her very talented daughter would be far superior. Needless to say Lucie would sing it beautifully - even before she sounded like a fog horn, Miss Ball was never much of a singer.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 2:20pm

I just got the superb London Cast recording, and have fallen in love with this score even more! Wow. I really think that it CAN work on stage. I actually love the bouncy songs, set next to the tragic story. SOme director has to be able to grasp this, and be even out the comedy and tragedy.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 3:02pm

Love the show, would love to see it done again on Broadway.

Love your letter/signature format, Enchanted Hunter. Where do you get your names? *rhetorical*

[roquat]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 5:18pm

Didn't Howard McGillin star in the London version (and didn't it play FOREVER)?

[jv92]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 6:10pm

Wait, wasn't Robert Preston a bass? Why is everyone saying Mack's a tennor?

[morosco]

Posted: 12/30/05 at 10:51pm

I'd bet Tommy Tune could make it work. (And if he couldn't make it work I'm sure his attempt at making it work would be magnificent!)

[justme2]

Posted: 12/31/05 at 12:25am

Yes, it's a tragic story (one that I know very well, as the silent movie era is my specialty).

This is NO EXCUSE for it not working as a musical, however. There are many tragic stories turned into musicals (two that come to mind are Titanic and Carousal). The book needs to be thrown out and another attempt should be made to look at the core of the story - Mack and Mabel, two wildly successful silent movie personalities, have too many personal demons to overcome in order to achieve happiness. The substory of the drama of the silent movie era works fine.

The score is, indeed, beautiful, and I spend many hours listening to it, imagining ways of making this story work on stage. I envision so many silent movie possibilities...all with the same beautiful score.

[fiatlux]

Posted: 12/31/05 at 12:37am

I saw the John Doyle version at the Watermill in the summer and I thought it was very good. The book is not it's strongest point - but the performances really drove the evening and you could discount the failings in the script. Jerry Herman told John Doyle to just keep "Keep the heart!" - he certainly did that and it worked because of that.
Watermill Reviews

[jimmirae]

Posted: 12/31/05 at 1:10am

Thank You Rose, It was DAVID Cryer, Indeed. Yes, I believe Tommy Tune COULD make it work being as how he was a great part of the success of this 1976 version. Tune is THE man to go to on this!
I went backstage one day (of many) to greet Lucie and I remember seeing Tommy walking down the long hall to his dressing room taking off a white dress shirt and in his BVD's, It was a sight to behold, Tommy Tune has more legs than a bucket of chicken! (And he is a sweet, wonderful and kind man too! A theater God!)

[grizzabella]

Posted: 12/31/05 at 12:15pm

Since there is a current interest in things "retro", let's hope this discussion goes from this Board to the "Theatre Gods'" ears. It seems from everyone who'se seen it that it's well worth retooling, and Jerry Herman's score is fabulous. I'd love to see it happen.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/31/05 at 2:07pm

Yes, but it seems that every time they revive the show, someone rewrites the book, and it never works. That's what heartbreaking about this show--one of the best flop scores ever, mated to a compelling story about two charismatic people which no one seems to know how to tell.

If it is ever to be rewritten successfully, I think the ending would actually have to be softened as it was in life (i.e., Mabel and Mack separating instead of her "dying" out of the blue). And it needs a more daring "cinematic" concept (like CITY OF ANGELS). No, it just needs to be done ON FILM!! (sorry, just a screech from my subconscious.)