Two Michael Bennett Questions (Seesaw and Ballroom)- Page 2

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 12:25am

"(My grandma saw that number and still talks about it...)"
Thanks for making me feel so old Eric.

I saw all the Bennett shows and you knew you were seeing genius at work each time.
I think SEESAW should be done at ENCORES, it lends itself to a new understanding of the score.
BALLROOM had dance moments that still appear in my dreams.
and don't get me started about HENRY SEET HENRY.
Updated On: 4/5/07 at 12:25 AM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 12:27am

Eric, I have seen that clip and love it. If I think Tommy Tune is hot now, when he was young he was just beyond sexy, and everytime I see that clip I'm just impressed at the way he can move his body, it's fascinating.
I wish I could see a clip from SEESAW as well. The balloon number is called "It's Not Where You Start (It's Where You Finish," in which Tune's character (Michele Lee's gay best friend) gets hired to be assistant choreographer for a show, I believe. The law tap number is lots of fun to listen to though (Chapter 4, Number 1909), Tommy Tune's character is helping Jerry (Ken Howard) memorize his legal code for a test, you can tell it must've been brilliantly staged; I particularly love Michele Lee's vocals intertwined with the tap, it's just too good.
Glad that you got the SEESAW cast recording, Michele Lee is too good to be missed.

Posted: 4/5/07 at 2:10am

Yeah I feel foolish that I've spent so many years without it in my collection--especially since I love the pairing of Coleman and Fields (it's amazing how different Coleman can sound, often when he works with a different lyricist)

I did find a clip of Michele singing on the DInah Shore show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLZ4r1axmwU God she was adorable...

I know one of the songs was imported almost all the way from Sweet Chartiy where Fosse had it cut to give Gwen more time to breathe (it was replaced with Brass Band which had shorter notes--this is from the Charity linear notes).

Your descriptions are great--though it does certainly sound that the complaints that a little charming play was *really* opened up for Broadway--not that I'd complain with Bennett dances and Tommy Tune side roles

E

[alterego]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 9:12am

I always remember reading - in the theatre listings - in The New Yorker the description of SEESAW, it said "another sweetly charitable version of New York". This may sum up just what was wrong with the show coming as it did just 6 years after the enormous hit that was SWEET CHARITY.

[ILUVTOMG]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 10:28am

BALLROOM soared when the dancers took over - otherwise it was just drab. Dorothy Loudon was battling some sort of bug for a good part of the run and sometimes cut her opening # A REAL NICE BAND AND A TERRIFIC CROWD. she didn't sing it the day i saw it and it kind of soured the experience for me. the musical ended with Bea being crowned queen and dancing off but the movie ended with her going home after her victory and dying in her sleep. when i was leaving the theatre i overheard an elderly woman say 'it's so sad - now she's going to go home and die' i thought the tv movie was better

Posted: 4/5/07 at 8:04pm

"I always remember reading - in the theatre listings - in The New Yorker the description of SEESAW, it said "another sweetly charitable version of New York". This may sum up just what was wrong with the show coming as it did just 6 years after the enormous hit that was SWEET CHARITY"

I knwo Charity was a hit but it did only last a bit over a year didn't it? 600 performances? It is interestign that it had much fo the same team--Coleman/Fields/Neil Simon but Michael Bennett instead of Fosse

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 8:16pm

I know I'm in the minority here, but I much prefer the score of SEESAW to SWEET CHARITY (and I love SWEET CHARITY, by the way). I just think Cy Coleman and Dorothy Fields wrote such great tuners for the former, though I believe I read in Ken Mandelbaum's book that once Bennett took over they had almost zero participation in the making of the show. Also, Eric, remember Bennett took credit for the book, not Simon.
I find the whole SEESAW experience to be as fascinating as the making of Bennett's big hits (DREAMGIRLS, A CHORUS LINE), just because with this show he pretty much showed that he was both a master of staging but he was a dramaturg without the title. Plus, the end result was quite interesting.

[D2]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 9:04pm

In the 60's 600 performances was considered a hit, and a long, healthy run. A show could earn its money back in and go into the black in about a year. The mega runs that have now become expected didn't really start until the 80's, although of course there were the smash hits like MY FAIR LADY, HELLO, DOLLY!, FIDDLER, etc..., but they were, at first, the exception rather than the rule. You'd be surprised how many classic shows, big hits in their day, ran for under 1,000 performances.

Posted: 4/6/07 at 7:45pm

I though that was already changing by the mid 60s--certainly the papers at the time never seemed to think Company's 700 something run in 1970 was a hit