Considering it just extended will Tales of The City Transfer to Broadway

[thismyshow]

Posted: 6/2/11 at 9:28pm

Also consider it had the biggest presale in the theaters history and has broken multiple house records and got a really great review from Variety, will it transfer to NYC next season?

Posted: 6/2/11 at 9:44pm

Where's the Variety review? I could see them maybe wanting to try it a city outside of San Fran first--I do think a few changes could benefit it--but it definitely is worthy of trying Broadway.

[thismyshow]

Posted: 6/2/11 at 9:49pm

review:

ACT's track record with musicals has been sparse and uninspired. So it's a particular pleasure to see "Tales of the City" -- an extremely rare venture into a full-blown, potentially Broadway-bound, world-premiere musical -- turn out very nicely indeed. Lesser results would probably still have given the company a home-turf hit given lingering affection for local scribe Armistead Maupin's beloved San Francisco-set books. But as is, prospects for a commercial future are promising, especially if the ingratiating show finds a way to maintain buoyancy through a second act that lays on melodrama and sentimentality a bit thick.
The "Tales of the City" books (the first two tapped here) didn't necessarily seem a natural fit for this form. Originally serialized in local newspapers, they put a witty contemporary spin on cliffhanger soap operatics with a combination of light satirical wit and constant narrative twists that might well have defied musicalization.

But Jeff Whitty's book and the score by clever alt-rock act Scissor Sisters' Jake Shears and John Garden mostly translate the books' playful yet heartfelt flavor with aplomb.

It's the Bicentennial in 1976, and after five days' vacation in S.F., corn-fed Midwesterner Mary Ann Singleton (Betsy Wolfe) calls her parents in Ohio to say she's not coming back. Her wide-eyed enchantment with the City by the Bay at its height of Me Decade hedonism -- though the latter takes some getting used to -- is abetted when she's taken into the home of landlady Anna Madrigal (Judy Kaye), a pot-growing Earth Mother who clucks over her tenants like a hen over chicks.

Mona gets Mary Ann a job at her firm as secretary to cantankerous CEO Edgar Halcyon (Richard Poe), whose family is "like the Kennedys of S.F., except without all that basic common decency stuff."

She's promptly hit on by the boss's son-in-law Beauchamp (Andrew Samonsky), a seduction chronicled in the sharp "Bolero." But that proves only her first disillusionment.

Ninety-minute first act takes a little while to find its feet on Douglas W. Schmidt's set of snaking S.F.-walkup back staircases.

But Whitty's sharp book and the pleasantly diverse if infrequently memorable songs (referencing '70s disco, Top 40 soft rock and "Hair"-like Broadway "rock" as well as mainstream show-tunery) admirably thread a crowded narrative agenda in terms both spoken and sung. Helmer Jason Moore keeps things brisk, fluid and frequently funny, if not particularly stylish (apart from Beaver Bauer's flashback costumes). Larry Keigwin's choreography, not always distinctive enough, excels in celebration of upmarket gay snobbery "Homosexual Convalescent Center."

After intermission, however, progress bogs down a tad as a pileup of less humorous crises (mostly from Maupin's first sequel tome, "More Tales of the City") trigger several more conventional, heavy-handed scenes and songs. It all ends in multiple reunions and hugs, reminding us that a chorus of hugs is never a good way to end a musical.

Nonetheless, "Tales of the City" is always diverting and never worse than merely imperfect. In its casting, ACT reached well beyond its usual bounds toward experienced Broadway (or at least Broadway-aspirant) personnel, with winning results. Wolfe's Mary Ann, especially, is a naif with a heart, a brain and a big voice. A seven-piece pit band sounds larger than life, and amplification for the singers was terrific on press night.

(sorry copied the whole review because variety is a pay site now) and i feel this give them more of a reason to push for a outside of san fran try out, i do believe though the plan was to bring it to broadway but im not totally sure.

[drewmangroup]

Posted: 6/2/11 at 10:34pm

Jake Shears has said it isn't necessarily intended to be a Broadway show, but he might be trying to minimize expectations. Personally, I would love a cast album as I am such a fan of Scissor Sisters' music.

Posted: 6/2/11 at 10:45pm

Thanks for the review--it let me access it once but then I guess I went over my monthly limit with Variety (two views a month or something ridiculous). I agree with most of what they say, though I found the score memorable--but then again I'd heard half of it from the demo, and with most musical scores it takes a few listens to sink in, at least for me.

All of the creative team have repeatedly said there's no intention to bring it to Broadway (though they hope for an afterlife), but I also get the feeling that could be just to diminish expectation. Look at all the times shows have promised a Broadway transfer and it just leaves the creators with egg on their face.

I'm getting sick of playing the demo--especially since a good 1/3 is completely different, so would kill for a recording, but I assume we won't see that until/unless at least one more production of the show takes place. Although they could always try to profit on the Scissor Sisters name (and by that I don't mean an album of the group performing the songs...)

Updated On: 6/2/11 at 10:45 PM

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 6/2/11 at 11:32pm

If not Broadway, then I'm sure somewhere like NYTW must be chomping at the bit for it. It would have a giant built-in audience in New York. At least for the few months you would need to fill a subscription run.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/2/11 at 11:51pm

Dunno about any of the rest of you, but this looks to me like next year's blockbuster hit.

http://youtu.be/bgReoTDyyd4

Remember: It is not JUST a gay-male saga. It's also a woman's story: It's Mary Ann's story and Mrs. Madrigal's story and Mona's story.

Updated On: 6/3/11 at 11:51 PM

[tourboi]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 1:44am

I wouldn't judge it's presale as whether it'll transfer or not. This is a story that celebrates SF, and if there's one thing that can be said about people in SF, its that they love anything that praises their city. (as a former resident of SF, I found that particular trait both endearing and annoying at times haha)

I've not seen it, but have heard mixed things. Most have told me that they thought it still needed work, and that a LOT of the humor was very "local." Not sure that would play well in other cities.

[tourboi]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 1:45am

That said, it's no secret that the show is being shepherded by Broadway producers (McCollum/Seller?) and has been since its inception.

Posted: 6/3/11 at 4:06am

Having seen the third preview (as everyone knows in my endless posts in the other thread) I think it still needs a *bit* of work, but certainly I think much better of it than I did when I saw the Seattle production of Catch Me If You Can a year and a half back (then again I find this material--story and score--much more compelling anyway). As for the local humour--I live on Vancouver Island in Canada--that was my first time in San Francisco, there were a FEW laughs that me and my buddy just kinda turned to each other and shrugged while the majority of the audience got it, but to say a LOT of the humour is local is extreme hyperbole (and certainlly is less true than of the original books and even maybe the miniseries, which had no trouble playing outside of the city).

If anything, a few people (like the Guardian critic) have complained that it's not "San Francisco" enough--from reading the interviews in the souvenir program the creative team made some effort not to make it as much about the city and time as past versions have been, and more just about the characters and stories. Obviously some people think this was a bad decision--though I don't. There's still San Francisco stuff there, but certainly probably not even as much as say Rent mentions that area of New York.

Like I said, it needs work, and I don't wanna sound like I'm merely out to pimp the show--but I don't think Pal Joey's off the mark. It has appeal toa broad audience--I'd add open minded straight men (which most straight male theatre goers are) to the list as well (I assume here that Pal Joey meant to write this ISN'T just a gay story, not is...)

The audience was extremely mixed in every demographic (although to be fair San Francisco is a liberal city)--and everyone seemed to connect to at least one of the stories. I spoke at intermission to an elderly lady beside me who was from Seattle who was floored by it, a bit to my surprise.

I think it has much more Broadway potential than any of the other major productions in the pipeline I can think of. Certainly if I were a producer looking for at least a modest hit, I'd want to bring over this over, say, Bonnie and Clyde (not to pick on B&C fans).
Updated On: 6/3/11 at 04:06 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 9:00am

Yes, I meant to say it's NOT just a gay story--it's also a woman's story.

And the more I see the clips the more I like the Mouse. And I like the Mary Ann--I just don't like her wig.

[newintown]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 10:27am

Rule #1 - Never believe anything from an interview or press release (or at least try to read between the lines).

The boys definitely want Tales on Broadway. Witty is also involved in the Bring It On project, which was originally announced as a tour only, with no Broadway aspirations, a story that turned around completely after the show got good reviews in Atlanta.

However, I'm sure they're aware that the show needs more development (as well as some commercial producers, which it now totally lacks after being dropped by Jeffrey Seller and Kevin McCollum) before it can come close to NYC.

[Brick]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 12:08pm

There may be hopes of a Bway production - and how can't there be - but there is no producer attached.

There's no enhancement money in the show. The production's entire $2.5 million budget was raised by donors to ACT, not investors. In fact, Kevin McCullum was attached at the O"Neill center, but he and the production parted ways.

So, while it may find a producer and go to New York, this prod isn't a try-out and there are no imminent plans to take this or another production to New York.

Posted: 6/3/11 at 9:17pm

PJ, glad I got you right. The whole cast was near note perfect--I've heard some grumblings that Mouse should be more "built" although I don't think the books specify this, but he was def a standout (I can't even imagine him in Rock of Ages or Addams Family now...)

Brick, that makes sense. I'm pretty sure its success will lead to *something*, but I guess that's why they've been so clear about it not being a pre-Broadway run. (I heard it cost a bit over $3 mill, but doesn't make a big diff...)

I forgot Witty was involved with Bring It On as well...

[Brick]

Posted: 6/3/11 at 9:57pm

Don't get wrong, I'm sure they'd like to end up there and since there is no producer attached they are saying they're just happy with this one production, to lower expectations. And I'm sure NY producers will come out, but that hasn't happened yet.

Plus, the development process at ACT has been without any commercial producers. I would guess a commercial producer would have some opinions on the material and probably ask for rewrites of their own, critics notwithstanding.

I guess I'm saying this in the way others correct people for using "Soundtrack" in place of "cast recording." At this time, the production is a regional theatre production with a very popular source material. Whatever their hopes, it isn't a "tryout".

Posted: 6/4/11 at 12:12am

Sure--but people speak the same way about shows that are at Goodman or La Jolla--and this HAS (whether the San Fran location played a part) gotten better overall reaction than a number of those that have made it Broadway. But actually I get the impression that those involved liked working without the pressure (even if it's still there to an extent) that a more commercial production would have given them. But you're right, for all intents and purposes it's a regional production, and not a try out.

I am a little surprised Variety reviewed it--I was searching their database and they didn't review Bring it On and a number of other shows (they reviewed Catch Me if You Can in Seattle, but neithe rversion of Bonnie and Clyde). And the fact the UK Guardian reviewed it, though that has more to do with its source material (and maybe how popular the Scissor Sisters are in the UK where they're a household name, unlike on this continent).

[jovie27]

Posted: 6/4/11 at 6:17pm

"I've heard some grumblings that Mouse should be more "built" although I don't think the books specify this, but he was def a standout"

Who are those that say this...all the gay men that just want to see a "hot" guy on stage so they can have a wet dream about him later...come on....I think Mouse (Wes Taylor) is built just fine and does his job very well.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/5/11 at 1:31am

Gay men were not "built" then.

Gay men did not start working out until after the AIDS crisis began.

[newintown]

Posted: 6/6/11 at 9:54am

Working out may not have been as prevalent as it is today, but Joey, I think there are a lot of photos in pre-1981 issues of After Dark that would prove you wrong...

Posted: 6/6/11 at 4:51pm

I thought he was terrific--so don't shoot the messenger--and very adorable. I think maybe it's cuz in the miniseries he is more built? Not sure where the preconception comes from.

[Brick]

Posted: 6/6/11 at 6:03pm

Oh, he's charming in the part. I sometimes recoil when (usually) gay men feel the need to comment on bodies, nudity, and attractiveness when it's pretty irrelevant. But if we must, he's quite cute.

[NikkiFourEyes]

Posted: 6/6/11 at 6:45pm

From The Guardian on 5 June, Tales of the City: Scissors, sex and sideburns:

“If the show goes well, the plan is to bring it, not to New York, but to London…”

“Whitty and Moore remember how audiences in London took to Avenue Q, and there's a big Scissor Sisters fanbase there. Maupin, too, feels "the books were really discovered in England"…”

[hpeabody930]

Posted: 6/7/11 at 2:21am

If it does transfer, it's going to need a LOT of work. There is much trimming and focusing that needs to happen if it has a prayer outside of sf. As someone who is not familiar with the books (as I would assume most of the NYC audience would not be wither), I didn't get it. It all seemed rather pointless to me. There were some nice songs but overall I was let down. Everything was just so formulaic, they really need to futz with the structure and try to vary up each scene because i just got so predictable and completely cheesy.

The storylines that they introduced in the second act I felt could have been brought to the surface a little bit earlier. The Norman storyline was just ridiculous. I thought that whole thing was laughably absurd. Maybe if he was more incorporated into the story in the first act it would have made more sense but it just did not work for me at all.

I know that this has been said but some of the bay area "inside jokes" about marin etc. just won't play in another city. I simply don't see how that would translate.

I know that a lot of people are really digging this show right now, but if it has a prayer outside of SF it's going to nee quite a bit of work IMO.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 6/7/11 at 9:53am

Neither Marcus D'Amico or Paul Hopkins were that built in the miniseries' particularly Hopkins who played Mouse in the second and third series...and Wesley would be considered built in those days.
Of course there were very built guys around, but the gym and looking "healthy" were a direct result of the AIDS crisis and the growing empowerment of gay men in society.

Posted: 6/7/11 at 8:12pm

For sure--and I'm with Brick, I hate how people seem to always have to comment on personal appearance, but if we're going to he was charming and cute.

hpeabody930 I'm surprised you found it so routine. But I do agree with the Norman story and some of the others for Act II. I don't think it needs a *lot* of work, but I do think it needs some. Certainly, to me, it seems in a much more healthy place than a lot of shows in its stage.

It makes sense to bring it to London--Scissor Sisters are a much much much bigger name in the UK, and it prob would play well.