Mack & Mabel?- Page 2

[eb412]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 6:12pm

couldnt find the video...or any home videos on the un named site

anyhoo...I love the show...never seen it onstage but have read the book and ofcourse have the album. i think it works even though flawed...but i think to bring it back to broadway it would be great if it were slightly revisioned...i dont like how its seen through macks eyes. hes too unlikeable and i think the heart of the show is in mabels struggles to become famous and get love. i would rather have...i forgot his name but the other man in love with mabel tell the story or no narrator at all...but i think he would make a better narrator. i too dislike the ending but do not think its too sad. i cant think of a great ending but two that maybe could work is an ending where you see macks grief or that he has changed...something to show he learned his lesson and is now a better man...hed be more sympathetic (a problem with that character) or one where the narrator says something along the lines as...their love couldnt last or could never be perfect but their relationship will always live on in their movies...and then you could show a video montage of the real mabel movies to show their inpact on the world...i dunno i know the show could work somehow though it really is great

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 6:17pm

Well, the problem eb is that Sennett didn't learn his lesson. He just became nastier as he grew older. And Mabel, while certainly a vivacious spirit was also an exasperating, reckless personality.

I think the actual problem with the book is that MACK AND MABEL tries to sentimentalize two people who probably would do better with the dark comedy treatment of say...SID AND NANCY.
Updated On: 4/10/07 at 06:17 PM

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 6:25pm

I think you are partly right on this one Michael Bennett.

For me the other problem is that after they reach Hollywood only a hodgepodge of events follow.

Mabel wants to make some flick call Millie or something and Mack says no.

Mabel leave artically unsatisfied. Why she has developed such loftly aspirations all of a sudden isn't made clear.

Mack get bathing beauties to replace Mabel.

Mabel takes turns to drugs cause she didn't make Millie

Mack gets around to saying I love you ten seconds before she dies.

All very haphazard.

Updated On: 4/10/07 at 06:25 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 6:34pm

I agree Blonde - the plot tries to simplify a very complicated relationship into cliched Hollywood story telling. Mack and Mabel were like oil and water - he was a controlling ego maniac - she was a self destructive party girl. The musical tries to make their co-dependent relationship into a Disney movie.

Posted: 4/10/07 at 6:40pm

I've never seen the show but looked at the script extensively considering directing it, and one of my issues with it was trying to SHOW Mack making the movies he brags of; The script called for staging a pie fight (I think-- or was it a Cops sequence?) in "Flicker lighting" to make it look like a silent film. Some productions have used actual filmed scenes- any way you look at it, I couldn't see a way to make those scenes work. Not only is it a nightmare from a production side of it, would a modern audience "get" a pie fight, a keystone cops sequence or any scene from a Sennet film actually?

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 6:46pm

Always so on the money aren't you MB? Thats why I love reading your posts!

While I'm not one to ever judge or point blame

*she smiles coyly*

Herman is the main problem and main delight of Mack and Mabel. His after Mame and before La Cage scores were always at odds with the material. Yet, the scores are so pleasurable to listen to that it is seductive to think that that is enough to make a show work. Never did. Never will.

A property like Topper would have suited him more than The Madwoman of Chaillot.

[G_Schlozinski2]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 7:07pm

oddly, it's the kind of show that lends itself to screen adaptation, but without the status of a b'way hit, it's a hard sell in hollywood. i wonder who owns the ancillary rights.

[Julian2]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 7:11pm

^I've thought for a while now that it would make a AMAZING movie.

[AnnieMuzic]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 7:21pm

MrBundles: I saw it in London last year as well and loved it! I live near the Shaw Festival and am going to see it. It will be interesting to compare the 2.

[joshy]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 7:21pm

I also loved the London revival last year. I thought it focused the story well and made it a really intimate beautiful piece. And I thought the John Doyle actor-musician thing worked well, it fit with the whole thing being just a memory of Mack. And the score sounded faaaaaaabulous.

[G_Schlozinski2]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 8:39pm

julian: think of ken russell's 'valentino' w/nureyev & michelle philips.

[eb412]

Posted: 4/10/07 at 10:27pm

i thought it would be a great movie too!

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 12:22am

Funny this should come up now because the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario have chosen MACK AND MABEL as their featured musical this summer. It's in previews now, opens May 12 and plays until October, so those of you hoping to see the show on stage, come up to Niagara this summer.

Shaw has traditionally done a good job with musicals. Their FLOYD COLLINS a few years ago in the smaller Court House theatre was amazing. Last season they did the 1998 Broadwy versiion of HIGH SOCIETY and actually made a smart, entertaining musical out of a piece that was flat and stale on Broadway. They trimmed it down to 2 hours and a bit and it just breezed along.

Naturally, I am looking forward to seeing what they do with M&M.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 12:32am

Jerry Herman says he thinks it'd make a great movie. I actually think it should've been a movie musical instead of a stage show.
The one problem I find with the actual score is that Jerry Herman sometimes tries to be too Jerry Herman, songs like "Hit 'Em on the Head" seem so trivial and "Tap Your Troubles Away," right after Mabel's painful "Time Heals Everything" just doesn't work, IMO. Also, I think it's a big problem that Mabel and Mack don't have a duet apart from the silly "Mack & Mabel." And I personally think "I Promise You A Happy Ending" is one of the most disappointing endings of any show.
I only wish I had been able to see both Jane Krakowski and Bernadette Peters live in their respective productions of the show.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 12:43am

Actually "Tap Your Troubles Away" works VERY well because of the action that is taking place on stage (the shooting of Mabel's lover) in pantomime as Lottie and the girls do their tap routine. That scene is brilliant! Talk about a study in contrasts.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 12:44am

Well, Jerry Herman simply doesn't know how to write "bitter irony" -- and that is what the lives of Mack Sennett and Mabel Normand were. Despite a great stand alone score - he was kind of the wrong choice to make a musical about these people.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 12:49am

Frontrowcenter, I trust your opinion because you've clearly seen the show live. I've just read the original script and listened to the LA Reprise! soundboard and the OBCR, so I'm sure in terms of the choreography the way you explain it it might've worked. I just really find it awkward to listen to some of the lyrics and the spirit of the song right after we've seen Mabel wasting her life away. Perhaps it does make sense when you see it staged.
MB, I definitely agree with you. Jerry Herman was the wrong person to musicalize their story...but then again, did their story need to be musicalized at all? I can't see how it could work as a musical.

[MrBundles]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 2:50am

AnnieMuzic-

I am so glad you also enjoyed it. It fit so well into the dollhouse-like Criterion Theatre. The usage of the curtain for the video instead of having a large ensemble really worked in the show's favor, as did moving the overture to the second act. I wish I could see that production again!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 2:52am

What about Cocaine?

[Urban]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 9:12am

I can't say anything that hasn't already been said above.

It has always occured to me it was a weird era for Jerry Herman. I see some of the same flaws in MACK & MABEL as I do in DEAR WORLD (which I realy do truly adore). Though of course the big difference is I do think DEAR WORLD is workable on Broadway while MACK & MABEL isn't.

Put it this way - I think we'd sooner see the second coming of Christ then MACK & MABEL have a successful run on the great white way. Pity, shame et al, but thats the way...

[G_Schlozinski2]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 9:18am

re: "Tap Your Troubles Away," right after Mabel's painful "Time Heals Everything" just doesn't work, IMO.

this could be an incredibly ironic and haunting number on screen if there's a counterpoint montage that extends 'time heals everything' into the number.

[Kevinoes]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 9:45am

In the revised version at Shaw Festival, Mack ends up visiting Mabel who is drunk and stoned in a one room flat. She's been acquitted of murder charges against her lover. Mack ends up offers her the part in Molly-O. After a quarrel, they reconcile and it's a happy ending...

The Shaw productions is still in previews but it's in great shape. Like many here, I can't say I love the story. A bit too "Mack and Mabel are together and then break up" about six times...a bit much for me. Glynnis Ranney, however, is a breath of fresh air as Mabel. She has such a powerful voice and is, I think, one of the more versatile actors in Canada right now. You can't help but be charmed by Ben Campbell's Mack, and if you've seen him before, you'll be pleasantly surprised by his singing voice. A neat thing in this production is that the filming sequences actually happen on stage. There is a black and white wash across the stage and all the costumes are in black and white as well. It looks pretty cool.

Baayork Lee is actually choreographing this show too. Act Two is the most impressive dance showcase, especially for Gabreille Jones as Lottie and her tap dance. Physical stuff and there are some great dancers in this show.

As for the overture, it seems a bit long at Shaw. It clocks in at eight minutes and patrons seem to be noticing it.

Can't say I love the story, but if anyone can make it to see this production, I'd highly recommend it!!

[AnnieMuzic]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 2:54pm

MrBundles: That was my first time seeing a show on the West End and my first time in London. I was very familiar w/ David Soul (from my youth) but not with the actress that played Mabel. I dont know about you but I noticed that he was having a problem w/ his arm....it distracted me for a minute or two.
I loved the theatre...definitely catered to the show. And nothing like a time step after playing the clarinet!
Ill let you know how the Shaw version compares.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 3:02pm

I adore the score, but I actually never knew about Mabel's drug use. Interesting.

And to answer the Overture question, Gower Champion hated overtures, and rarely used them. HELLO, DOLLY! has an overture on the CD, but it was actually used as the Entre'Acte in the actual musical.

That's why the 42ND STREET overture is so brief...it's necessary, but he kept it brief.

[MisterRussell]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 3:35pm

Of course, I'm familiar with the fact that Herman is rekuctant of late to work on new projects (MRS. SANTA CLAUS and MISS SPECTACULAR notwithstanding), but I find it endlessly fascinating when I hear of the projects he turns down. I am aware that he was offered BULLETS OVER BROADWAY by Woody Allen and THE PRODUCERS by Mel Brooks, and turned both of them down. Anybody know of any others?

MACK & MABEL is a delightful score. I had the opportunity to direct THE GRAND TOUR in 1999, and while I adore that score as well, the book is a mess.