The Producers - Yes, it does matter who plays Max & Leo!

[Alvin and My Sheepdog Rex]

Posted: 7/17/03 at 2:31am

In my opinion, YES, it does matter who plays Max & Leo in The Producers. While the show itself has the foundation to stand alone, clearly it seems there something much more special about seeing the show with performers in the Lead roles who the audience knows and relates such as Lane/Broderick or Alexander/Short, as opposed to Standlen/Stephenson.

In an article from the New York Times titled, "Producers: To Ape or Ignore You-Know-Who?", Bruce Weber tackles an analysis of The Producers original Broadway stars Lane/Broderick, current Broadway stars Standlen/Stephenson, and Los Angeles stars Alexander/Short.

July 15, 2003

"In Betrayed, the 11 o'clock number in The Producers, that rapscallion Max Bialystock sits in a jail cell. Abandoned by his partner, the accountant and erstwhile shrinking violet Leo Bloom, an embittered Max recapitulates the entire play. In fast-forward mode, he caricatures the voices and gestures of the characters and recounts most of the plot. It's a star turn for the actor playing Max, and the Broadway original, Nathan Lane, turned it into a dazzling tour de force, oddly poignant and exhaustingly funny.

One of the number's irrestible if obvious gags - this is Mel Brook's show, after all - is that it rewinds the plot includes the intermission, a few seconds when the music suddenly stops and Max sits down and waits impatiently before he jumps to hid feet and takes up where he left off.

In the much anticipated production of the show at the Pantages Theatre in Los Angeles, Jason Alexander is Max, and in "Betrayed" he adds a wrinkle. During the intermission silence he mimics audience members whispering among themselves.
"Yeah, yeah, he's good, he's good," Mr. Alexander says, "But he's no Nathan Lane."

It's a fine moment for Mr. Alexander who delivers the line with a measure of modesty and a measure of understandable irritation. He gets a big laugh, an appreciative laugh, winning the sympathy he's already earned with his hard-working performance, not to mention big points from a Left Coast audience. (Though he's a Broadway veteran, Mr. Alexander has, after all, become much better known for his work on television.)

But none of this erases that he is right. It is apparent that Mr. Lane's template for Max is the one element of the show that has not been effectively reproduced or replaced by any of the actors who have subsequently played the role. And this is especially pertinent because for the show to return to MEGAHIT STATUS on Broadway - last week it was just the fourth highest-grossing show, with Variety reporting that only 83.2% of the seats at the St. James Theatre were filled - it is likely that name-brand stars will have to take over. It's no secret that the producers of The Producers would like Alexander/Short to be the next Bialystock & Bloom in New York.

As half of the starry tandem above the title in Los Angeles - Mr. Short is the other half - Mr Alexander sings and dances with elan, and he attacks the antic vulgarity of Brooksian comedy with all the lack of subtlety it deserves. But he's outgunned by Mr. Short. And is you've seen Mr. Lane as Max, Mr. Alexander seems like a tag-along younger brother in comparison, puffing out his chest for artificial stature and working too hard to keep up. you miss Mr. Lane's naturally huge plaintiveness, his cartoon-beagle sad eyes, the woe is me warble in his voice, the outsize of self-pity he can so hilariously affect.

Mr. Alexander who excels at understated verbal comedy, may simply be miscast, he has all the moves and they're polished. But aswim in the overinflated slapstick that is Mr. Brook's gleeful preference, there's something askew in his performance.
Maybe it's that The Pantages Theatre is in California and not right across the street from where "The Producers" takes place; maybe it's that the Los Angeles audience doesn't get the references to Off Broadway, or that when an exhausted Max suggests a sexless role-play game to one of his randy little old ladies - "How about the Jewish princess and her husband?" - the jokes barely registers with the L.A. audience. In any case Mr. Alexander doesn't come across as either Jewish enough or New York-ish enough for bialystock, which is especially odd given that he was born Jay Scott Greenspan in Newark, and that Mr. Lane, who seemed, in the part, the quintessential Jew, is Irish Catholic.

This is not to ignore Mr. Lane's partner in crime, Matthew Broderick, whose performance as Bloom provided an equally daunting standard for his successors. Nor is it to assert that "The Producers" - whose Broadway original has been meticulously copied in large part by Mr. Brooks and the director and choreographer Susan Stroman for its Los Angeles incarnation -can't work witout Mr. Lane.

From the start the producers of The Producers plan has been to establish the show itself as a brand name, the primary draw, so that it wouldn't necessarily matter who the stars were. And if back-to-back visits to the current Broadway version and this new one prove anything, it's that The Producers does have an indestructible foundation.

Without the distracting sparks created by Lane/Broderick, this essential footprint is clearly discernible. But it also clear that is was enhanced by the original stars and that their absence has become a creative problem.

This is most evident in the show's opening scenes, which include two weak songs with especially thin melodies and which are rife with dreadful, ba-dum-bum jokes that pass for dialogue in the Mel Brooks universe. By sheer force of charisma and chemistry, Mr. Lane and Mr. Broderick carried the show through this rocky beginning, something that neither current pair accomplishes. But how to generate an equivalent combustion? Is it preferable to try and copy the Max and Leo of Lane/Broderick? Or to create them anew?

In New York on Broadway right now Lewis Standlen and Don Stephenson are embarked on copying Lane/Broderick and the result is that the show feels a bit bleached out. Mr. Standlen an old hand at musical comedy is an estimable clown, with a Groucho-like manner and mien. He seems to be purposely channeling Mr. Lane here and doing a pretty good job of it, but a copycat performance can't help being a fainter one.

Mr. Stephenson is also aping his predecessor, but his version of Mr. Broderick's Leo Bloom is entriely free of any realistically human qualities. In Mr. Stephensons hands, Bloom makes some of the same noises Mr. Broderick made and strikes some of the same poses, but he cranks up Bloom's hysteria and Bloom's painful shyness and insecurity to the level of an especially childish Saturday morning cartoon.

In Los Angeles, Alexander/Short are rather bravely forging their own paths. Watching the two of them, I found myself often reminded of the 1967 film "The Producers" and its stars, Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder.

Of this duo, Mr. Short is far more persuasive. A gifted slapstick comic, he gives Bloom all the physical elasticity he has brought to umpteen other roles on television and in the movies, and he has an idiosycratic vocal range in which to make the line deliveries his own. He also sings more powerfully than Mr. Broderick.

But most importantly, his Leo is genuinely grounded. It's a far-fetched reality, but his personality is unmistakably attached to the world as we know it, his neurotic pathology recognizable as human. And this is especially crucial because in the show's narrative, Leo is the one who has an arc of change, from mouse to amn. Max may have the climatic solo number, but he was, is and will be a lovable scalwag. Leo's is the fuller story, and Mr. Short brings that to the fore, which give the Los Angeles show a slight tilt, but enough to give it its own original skew.

The difference in the current Los Angeles and Broadway productions comes down to the two stars. It's also the difference between the current productions and the original. For the producers of The Producers that's an interesting and vexing problem"

Updated On: 7/17/03 at 02:31 AM

[PJ]

Posted: 7/17/03 at 2:39am

I read that article as well. I agree w/ you.

[Standing O]

Posted: 7/17/03 at 11:04am

I also agree with the premise that the actors that play Bialystock & Bloom are the key to experiencing The Producers as a great musical comedy as opposed to just a good musical comedy. While I concur with most of Bruce Weber's analysis, I believe the gap between the current Los Angeles and Broadway productions is wider than he expressed in favor of L.A. My experience of seeing The Producers with Jason Alexander and Martin Short was wonderful,memorable and they have great chemistry, while seeing the current Broadway tandum of Lewis Standlen and Don Stephenson is OK but definitely not memorable (I saw them on the Tour).

Another point made in this article, if the folks in L.A. don't get much of Mel Brook's New York Jewish humor (which I agree they kind of don't), I wonder how well it will play in Toronto, London, and Melbourne?

[mamarose]

Posted: 7/17/03 at 8:42pm

Lane & Broderick were like spaghetti & meatballs, they just went together perfectly. Everyone else is blah...

[luluhed]

Posted: 7/17/03 at 8:48pm

I'm a big Martin Short fan. Has anyone seen his tv show "Glick?" I laugh out loud. Anyway, my point is I wish I could see him in the Producers! Not flying west for it, though~

[Alvin and My Sheepdog Rex]

Posted: 7/17/03 at 9:32pm

luluhed,

I have seen Martin Short as Leo 3 times now and he seems to be getting better and better in the role. There is a saying, "You're either funny or you're not." Well Martin is just funny, even without doing anything, you just want to laugh as he stands there before does his schtick!
And even more impressive is that beyond his comedy, his voice is strong and dominating!

Martin is making a name for himself at The Pantages Theatre and the name is Leo Bloom.

He'd make Ned Nederlander proud!!

Updated On: 7/20/03 at 09:32 PM

[luluhed]

Posted: 7/17/03 at 10:09pm

Thanks Alvin! I've liked Martin Short since the first time I laid eyes on him. There's something very charismatic about him, and I may be wacky, but I think he's attractive and sexy, too. Talent, of course, helps. He's funny, and can sing and dance (no, I am not a relative). Anyway, a guy that quirky is right up my alley~

What was the name of that weird guy he played on SNL?

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 7/17/03 at 10:34pm

This post needs to be cut down to a paragraph for reference or two and then a link posted to the rest of the story.

Copyrights, people, copyrights!

[Eleven]

Posted: 7/17/03 at 11:03pm

While I do believe that Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick are the "Gold Standard" for Bialystock's and Bloom's, I do believe that consideration should be given to the team that was on Broadway until May. Namely, Brad Oscar and Roger Bart while not marquee names they were excellent as Max and Leo, and their acting skills complimented each other very well. I believe the Broadway show was doing very well under their watch.

[PennyWise]

Posted: 7/17/03 at 11:17pm

I totally agree with Eleven. I was lucky enough to see Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in the roles when the show previewed in Chicago - Of course, I loved them!

While in NYC this past Christmas, I saw a performance with Brad Oscar and Roger Bart. I'll admit to feeling some trepidation as to whether or not I would enjoy the show as much (though I was really looking forward to seeing the fabulous Gary Beach - LOVE him) - anyway, I was surprised at how well Mr. Oscar and Mr. Bart performed - they really held their own against a very powerful standard!

However, when in NYC a few weeks ago with a group of my students, I saw the current cast, lead by Mr. Standlen and Mr. Stephenson.... While they did OK and I didn't hate the production, it was definitely a let down.

At any rate, I guess I'm just trying to say that I think it's unfair to disregard Brad Oscar and Roger Bart, just because they're not "famous" -- in my opinion, they're incredible and have big futures ahead of them.

Thanks for listening! :)

[sheekala]

Posted: 7/18/03 at 8:54am

It actually didn't do as well as hoped with Brad&Roger, sometimes only around 75% capacity. But they were and are wonderful, I'm the press is starting to pick up on the problems with this show. The producers and Mel Brooks have to understand this show is not Les Miz, it's a star event, and while we have many actors who can do the role who are not widely known, for the show to WORK, it needs star power. And the proof is in the box office which is tanking right now....for the record I like Don, but Lewis while talented is no Max. Here's my dream cast, John Goodman as Max and David Hyde Pierce as Leo, bring in Michael Crawford as Roger Debris and call it a "hit"...

[sabrelady]

Posted: 7/18/03 at 11:45am

I'm not worried about Toronto. N.Y./East coast humour translates without difficulty here. Also I kinda know who's playing the roles & Sean Cullens audition as Bialystok so blew them away they knew they'd found what they were looking for. So let u know in Nov when it opens!!

[BrdwyThtr]

Posted: 7/18/03 at 3:23pm

I saw The Producers with Brad Oscar and Steven Weber. I was not at all disappointed. They were very good.

[Alvin and My Sheepdog Rex]

Posted: 7/19/03 at 3:40pm

For some reason it now seems to be raining comparative articles on the virtues of various Max & Leo duos in The Producers.

The link below will take you to an article called "Bialy-Hoos of 2003" by Ken Mandelbaum who seems to be saying we are expecting to much to think anyone will ever match the chemistry and success of Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. And that the producers of The Producers might have been better off to stick with Henry Goodman and let him develop into the role.








Bialy-Hoos of 2003

Posted: 7/19/03 at 8:39pm

In every role it matters who plays it. Whether amatuer productions or original Broadway casts. Poor casting is poor casting and nothing can overcome it. Each of us have our own examples. Great casting can infuse a mediocore show with something bigger than life. Each of us have our own examples, too. Next topic, please.

Yours for a better Broadway!

[Alvin and My Sheepdog Rex]

Posted: 7/19/03 at 10:01pm

luluhed,

Regarding Martin Short and Saturday Night Live he was on SNL during the 1984-1985 season, and the character he developed become known for at that time was ED GRIMLEY, one of the strangest characters in SNL history.

Check out the following link to check out Ed Grimley web site. If you click on Ed's face around New York, you'll be able to tour the northeast with Ed:

The Ed Grimley web site

[Standing O]

Posted: 7/19/03 at 11:42pm

If we're singing the praises of Martin Short, I must mention my favorite all-time Martin Short role; and that was as Franck Eggelhoffer the wedding coordinator in Father of the Bride with Steve Martin. Can you imagine what he could do with the role of Carmen Ghia?

From Franck Eggelhoffer to Leopold Bloom that's quite a comedic career!

[PJ]

Posted: 7/19/03 at 11:46pm

I forgot he was in those movies! He was hilarious.

[cabarethed]

Posted: 7/20/03 at 12:42am

Yeah, I can see him being Carmen Ghia just considering the role of Franck! Hilarious.
These are one of the rare moments that I crave living in LA, as I would absolutely love to see those two as Max and Leo. I really enjoyed Brad Oscar, especially by the winter. The first time I saw him (May 02), he was still a bit of a carbon copy of Nathan. By the 3rd time (Dec 02), I thought he was putting his own spin on it nicely. I'm upset that more wasn't said about Roger Bart as Leo, I thought he was brilliant, and that's not just my prejudice towards him.

[MagicRoy]

Posted: 7/20/03 at 1:38am

I totally disagree with those who enjoyed Brad Oscar's performance. Brad Oscar's verbal comedic timing was totally off. When I retold the joke to myself in my head, it was funnier. That's not good. Nathan Lane and Lewis J. Stadlen are two actors who's verbal comedic timing is just about as good as it can get (also Alfred Molina, who will hopefully play Max at one point or another...maybe London). They both have that natural internal comedic clock inside of them (that every good comedic actor needs), something that Brad Oscar clearly lacked. Now, his songs were good because he is a good singer (better singer than Lane...but that's no big accomplishment). I have not yet seen Stadlen in the role, but plan to soon because he is one of my favorite stage actors (saw him in Funny...Forum and Man who Came to Dinner...both excellent performances). Lewis Stadlen has tackled big roles like this one before (Candide, he played Voltaire, Dr. Pangloss, etc....and was tony-nominated for it). I'm sure he does this one very well too. Brad Oscar was great as Franz, a role that requires a singer to sing two of the biggest showstoppers in the show, and great physical comedy (like that dance in "Haben Sie Gehort...")...but less verbal comedy. Physical comedy, as we know, also requires great timing, but it is easier to accomplish than verbal comedic timing. A verbal joke isn't always funny. Someone falling on the floor (in the right situation) is always funny. Usually, those with good verbal timing also have good physical timing, but it doesn't always work the other way around. I don't understand why all The Producers fans were raving about Brad Oscar (by the way, Lewis J. Stadlen was the first actor to be offered the role of Franz Liebkind, but turned it down). Updated On: 7/20/03 at 01:38 AM