Finally! This show hurt my head.

[thebigkrakowski]

Posted: 2/2/04 at 12:29pm

http://www.broadway.com/template_1.asp?CI=33733&CT=38

[Elphie]

Posted: 2/2/04 at 12:37pm

What a shame. I did want to get around to seeing it, hearing great reviews on the choreography. This is harsh winter for Broadway- I think thats playing a huge effect.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 2/2/04 at 12:40pm

Karen Ziemba is a doll though... on to other things.

[Elphie]

Posted: 2/2/04 at 12:41pm

And Noah Racey is a superb dancer.
I think the reason it's failing to stay on is due to the weak singing.

[Phantom2]

Posted: 2/2/04 at 7:34pm

I remember when I was a little lad and saw Karen Ziemba in "Steel Pier". I thought she was sooooooooooo pretty.

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/2/04 at 10:41pm

Yes weak singing. They just needed to replace Nancy with Deidre Goodwin. She can sing and dance.

[Phantom2]

Posted: 2/2/04 at 10:44pm

Those legs on Deidre Goodwin. She's lovely!

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/2/04 at 10:48pm

I am sorry for Karen and Deidre. The stars of the show.
Hope someone casts them in something soon.
Both can sing, dance and act.
But Nancy Nancy Nancy.

[chasing_rainbows43]

Posted: 2/2/04 at 10:53pm

Nancy's understudy, Deborah Leamy, has one hell of a voice. Such a fantastic dancer, too. I would've loved to have seen her on.
~Sarah, not quite a Deidre fan...

[ShineOn]

Posted: 2/3/04 at 12:54pm

I really beg to differ about Nancy.

I went in not expecting much from her and was pleasantly surprised. She can't sing. Period. It's not a SINGING ROLE.

Ginger Rogers wasn't a singer... it's a dance role. I think Nancy really embodied the character of Penny otherwise. She was very period like, feisty, yet vulnerable... cute... and can that woman DANCE.

That's all this show is, folks. A light-hearted, fun, DANCE show. It's good for what its supposed to be... and it's very dated... it's like they took it right out of the period and put it on stage today, which I believe was the intent. You take a show like Millie, which is set in the 20s, yet it's a modernized version of what OUR exaggerated perception of the 1920's was. It's very contemporary and the mainstream of theatre is more likely to relate to that, even though the setting is period. It's more relatable to the general public.

Never Gonna Dance isn't. You either are attracted to the old school musical theatre or it isn't your cup of tea. It certainly isn't most people's cup of tea today, and that's okay. The leads have a very 30s-esque quality to their voice. The timbre and style lends well to the popular style of the time... lets face it, there were no belters back then.

So, that said... I don't think it's fair to put the downfall of the show all on Nancy's shoulders. She did a commendable job. And Deidre as Penny?! Did you SEE the production (or even the movie Swing Time)? Deidre would be SO incredibly miscast, it would be painful.

The downfall of the show is really it's appeal to the general public. The show has gorgeous sets, beautiful costumes, great music, amazing dancing... it's not a bad show. Just... can't keep 'em coming in because it's not everyone's 'thing'.


I'm glad I caught the show. It was worth what I paid because I left the theatre with a big grin on my face. Would I be willing to go back? Probably not... I want to see too many other things and it didn't move me in any great way, but it was still enjoyable.

I suggest everyone who has the opportunity, try catching it before it closes. It's worth it.


--daisy (who ALSO isn't the biggest Deidre fan...)