Profile for madophelia

Both Ravinia and Writers' Theatre are easily accessible by train from downtown. Extra nonschedule trains are put on to pick up Ravinia guests at the station in the park, but I've had to wait for two hours after smaller performances in the Martin Theatre. Be prepared. The Drury Lane in Oakbrook would require a car or a cab from a train station. Same with the Marriott in Lincolnshire. Both Steppenwolf and the Victory Garden Theatres are easily accessible from downtown via public transportation ...

Another fairly decent review from James Herbert of the San Diego Union-Tribune. BTW I disgree about the reason the JB is so successful. It's the music, just like Mamma Mia. People adore it and can't get enough of it. The JB book IMO is only slightly more aubstantial than MM's frothy storyline.

Found this one by Welton Jones. Sounds like the leads need to be replaced, which would probably be a good thing if they plan to transfer the show.

Mr Roxy - Looks like almost all of the music from the movie is gone New article from the LA Times linked below. On page 2, there's a paragraph addressing your observation, but I'm sure they wanted to use more well-known songs to draw audiences. Besides, once they dropped the movie's storyline, those songs may not have fit. I'm hoping the reviews on Friday are great and that this one has legs that will carry it to Broadway!

Benny said no to that part. It was in the news last month. Check the Telegraph article linked below.

Well what about TMZ? If this was a bootleg couldn't they be viewed as purchasing stolen property? Did the NYT go to jail for publishing the Pentagon Papers? I realize that is an extreme example, but when it comes to freedom of speech and news organizations, the issue is not whether the news entity is an accessory to the crime but is the publication of the material for the public good? Is it newsworthy?

Let's just say I'm the bootlegger (which I am not). Wouldn't the hammer fall on me pretty hard if I sold the video to TMZ? I don't hold any rights to the content. No. TMZ cannot be compelled to give up the identity of a "source" as a journalistic--and I use that term loosely--entity.

Got my tix from Goldstar. Lower fees. I'll be seeing it this weekend. A couple of articles from the main Chicago papers about the show's evolution at the link belows. An excerpt from the Tribune:Their agent put them in touch with director PJ Paparelli, who was then running the Perseverance Theatre in Juneau, Alaska. And "Yeast Nation" had its first out-of-town tryout. Way out of town. "No one came," says Kotis, discovering that Broadway types don't do Alaska. "Even our agent didn't come," say...

They, like ITH, print one slip of paper announcing the complete cast for that evening. In order to see who the understudies are you have to either look at the call board in the lobby, or cross reference the list of that evening's company against the list in the playbill. So, they are essentially trying to hide it, by making it difficult for an audience member (most of whom need to pull out their bifocals to read the program) to figure out who's who and who's replacing whom.

Being disappointed not to see a specific actor is one thing; being disappointed that person B is on instead of person A when you hadn't previously heard of either, seems a bit silly. Then call me silly. But I am capable of recognizing person A as being the star of a show, selected because he/she was considered the best by the director and producers, and person B, who is only an understudy. Can you imagine the dull roar and loud murmuring if this had been the case when there were PA announceme...

Most of the tourists attending WSS have no idea who Matt and Josephia are....There are no names in this show so I really doubt the patrons are "screaming". But they are confronted with the tangible (paper) evidence that they're not seeing the first string. Nobody likes to open their program and find that they're not seeing the regular cast.

So very true. CATCH ME IF YOU CAN's review was by a woman, while THE FIRST WIVES CLUB's was by a man, who have been fairly universal in dissing the subject matter. In other words they've been dragged into this show against their will, against their reason, and against their character (to paraphrase Elizabeth Bennet). That being said, one cannot necessarily rely on a woman to give a positive review to female-oriented material, as often they feel the need to act like they are men and not subjec...

Well, of course, they've read all the press. Why wouldn't they? I found Sam's vlog quite interesting and reasonable. He admitted to agreeing with a number of the cricisms and said others in the show did as well. He brought up how a critic left out any mention of audience reaction and spoke quite eloquently about the many and varied reasons people seek out such entertainment.

Are there quotas for number of messengers killed per day? Theatermania's review by Rob Stevens appears to be mixed, with surprisingly (or shockingly probably) good things to say about Zambello's direction.

There was a bad Sand Diego.com review The review itself wasn't all that bad. From the opening paragraphs on, my take is that the reviewer isn't fond of that kind of material. It doesn't appeal to him, which doesn't surprise me. He has kind and/or positive things to say about many aspects of the production. However, I can only surmise that he has never seen the original movie, as he wrote, "But they?ve added a lesbian daughter and a gay pal." *shaking head*

According to the lastest tweets, Hugh and Richard Marx are on stage at Joe's Bar on Weed Street now.

Not obscure, but not as popular or as well known to younger people. I saw it when it played in the theaters, way back when, and have never had a desire to watch it again. I don't believe it plays on TV as frequently as FWC (and I am in a major market). If you search Twitter, every day you'll find numerous tweets of people watching that movie and how much they love it. I just searched Twitter for 9 to 5 and got nada! As I've said before here, I might be considered the target market for both of...

I'm 23, and more of my friends knew 9 to 5 than First Wives Club. OK, husk-charmer, I'm biting. How? How do they know about 9 to 5? Or do you mean they have some familiarity with Parton's song.

One more thing, ABB2347, I don't agree that the film's storyline is "direct and to the point - its simplicity is a huge asset." I've seen the movie numerous times. The women initially embark on a course of simple revenge against their husbands/exes, and they muddle along with little success, disagreements, and the near complete demolition of their resurrected friendship. It isn't until they redirect their energies toward achieving a more noble objective (yeah sistas!) that you get the real sa...

But case in point: 9 TO 5 announced its closing today, with an estimated $14 million loss and less than 200 regular performances. Certainly the older female audience didn't turn out for a show that was targeted straight at them, despite the built-in appeal of Dolly Parton, Allison Janney, and a recognizable title. I know I posted in another thread that I didn't believe the theme of 9 to 5 would play as well as FWC's. It is so stuck in the 1970s and '80s, without the kitch factor of a Saturday...