Woman In White 77% attendance Christmas week- Page 3

[VinnieTheIceman]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 5:12pm

The chances of WIW getting a Tony nom for best musical is zero. Jersey Boys and Color Purple are locks and Tarzan is highly likely. Lestat and Wedding Singer would have to be complete disasters (possible), but Ring of Fire is supposedly decent and will get the nod over WIW. Let's hope they don't try and use Maria's illness as the excuse to close the show.

[CDuffy5062]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 5:54pm

Vinnie, what do you think about the individual perfomers getting any nominations? I happen to have really enjoyed WIW as a show, but I also think it has a very strong cast, some of whom deserve nominations -- e.g. Michael Ball and Maria Friedman -- even if, as you believe, the show itself won't garner any.

[Broadway_Bound_Star]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 6:05pm

Well, I woudnt expect it to sell, I dont think enough people know what it is.

[jo]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 6:38pm

GreekMusicalFan,

Sorry if my post came out to you that way - but that was not the intention. What I am saying is that there could be an audience niche for this type of musical ( with those qualities) but it doesn't necessarily mean it will cater to all even if those qualities are in there. It is not meant for those looking simply for an evening of pure entertainment and who could be bored ( understandably)with a serious drama set to music. Just like books - we may have different tastes and do not necessarily like to read the same kind of fare. It is a matter of preferences.

Jo

[grizzabella]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 7:01pm

I've thought for some time that WIW's marketing effort has been insufficient, to say the least. Driving home from work this evening, I heard the first commercial spot for WIW that I have ever heard. Are the producers finally catching on that the show can't simply hang on to Phantom's coattails?

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 7:12pm

i havent seen this show, but my sister got it as a christmas gift, and I havent listened to the whole thing yet, but the few songs I have heard are not too thrilling, and are typical ALW sort of songs, and sound a lot alike. and just from hearing those few songs, it is definitely not on the top of my list of shows to see. something like jersey boys or the color purple seem to have much to them, and both look great
thats just my opinion, though

[NYLG]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 7:33pm

I saw the London production (MB not MC) and was not at all impressed. I'm not even sure that PR would help at this point...a solid production should be able to speak for itself. I am not necessarily saying that I am a fan of POTO, but I remember when it opened in NY...EVERYBODY was talking about it, and recommending it to their friends and family. THE PRODUCERS, WICKED, SPAMALOT...must see shows whose popularity has been generated, in part, by favorable buzz. It is somewhat dismaying that most of the raves on this thread are from known MB fans (you know who you are)...most of whom have traveled to NY specifically to see MB in WIW. I think that says it all. Unfortunately, most of MB's devoted fans have a problem with objectivity when it comes to reviewing anything with which MB is involved. I suppose that is understandable to a degree, but I would love a truly objective opinion from an ordinary Joe/Josephine on this board...someone who frequents the theatre. So...if there is a non-MB person on this board who has seen the show, and has genuinely liked it...please post with your reasons.

Thanks!

Also, MC has a tour planned for Australia and NZ beginning in February...so MC as Fosco is a non-issue.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 7:37pm

well, it isnt much, but my drama teacher (who used to work and be on broadway) said basically that it was "a musical" in the way that that was how a musical should be and be done and all that stuff
so that is a little bit
(but he said the color purple was incredible, further more making me want to see this badly!!!!)

[YayJudyYayJudy]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 7:49pm

NYLG- I can admit that I hadn't even heard of Michael Ball before this show. I knew of ALW's WIW being in London, and saw the Marquis in Times Sqaure, and that was pretty much my knowledge of the production before it opened. It wasn't on my "must" list and the only reason I saw it was because of a particular performer in the cast (not Michael or Maria). And after I walked out of the theater that first time, I was hooked. And to be perfectly honest, I don't know why. I do know that I'm not in the target demographic that they're trying to bring in, and I'm in the "very young" audience category on any given day in that theater, but for some reason it did it for me.
I think it's because it was a valid and impressive production- and it really was nothing like anything I had seen before. The closest ofcourse being some of ALW's other works- POTO included. I can compeltely understand why some people don't like this show- and I'm not holding anything against them, everyone has their own opinions.

But to finally answer your on my reasoning... I think I love this show so much because of its beautiful score (yes, some people might argue that it sounds too much like everyhting else that he has done, but it's still goergeous none-the-less), its incredibly impressive cast (honestly, you can catch every understudy and you won't know the difference), the sets, and the story (it was a nice change to see a story, first and foremost, only being highlighted by music, not vice-versa).


and agreeing bwayondabrain- exactly, this is how real theater is done, and should be done more often...

Updated On: 1/4/06 at 07:49 PM

[rusmic]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:05pm

I liked the show prior to Michael Ball even being in it. So while I can't say I'm not a MB fan, I am, I am not one that travels all over to see him (I've seen him twice and have liked him for over 10 years) so I'd think I'm fairly objective. I tend to like ALW shows, and I suppose that has something to do with it too. I do wish it would do well, but I know that it isn't a blockbuster. I don't think it's quite the disaster it is being billed as either. I think the ALW backlash has something to do with it as well, despite what others believe. I know it's not another POTO but that doesn't make it not worth seeing. The fact that it is not selling doesn't always mean it's terrible either.


Updated On: 1/4/06 at 08:05 PM

[jo]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:22pm

Liking a particular performer doesn't necessarily reduce someone to completely losing one's objectivity. I am a theatre fan ( I saw DRS, Spamalot, Wicked, La Cage Aux Folles,Glass Menagerie, Julius Caesar, Chitty, Sweet Charity, The Odd Couple, Mamma Mia, and Mary Poppins in addition to The Woman in White in 2005 - I would have seen a lot more if I didn't live halfway across the world) - some I enjoyed more than the others, others were a little disappointing after all the hype, and there were even some pleasant surprises for me ( La Cage and Christina's appealing stage presence). I am also a fan of Michael Ball, especially in his work in musical theatre. And I am likewise an admirer of Andrew Lloyd Webber's works. I can discern which shows I admire more than the others even if I tend to like most of ALW's musicals.

But THE WOMAN IN WHITE has many ingredients that has left me very pleased with my theatre experience with it. I agree that not all will find it to their taste, but in my case, all the show elements seemed to have left me with an increasing fondness for this stage musical! I would rank it behind ASPECTS, SUNSET BOULEVARD, and PHANTOM among my favourite ALW musicals.

Updated On: 1/4/06 at 08:22 PM

[VinnieTheIceman]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:59pm

Ball and Friedman will both gets Tony noms.

[Greekmusicalfan]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 9:31pm

Jo, I know it was not your intention, as I said I have noticed how careful and respectful you are in all your posts and I really enjoy them. That's why I thought your comment was a little odd. I still like you very much
I was under the impression you lived in Great Britain, isn't that so ?
And for the record, I have to say that I AM an ALW fan, I have seen Phantom 3 times and Sunset and Starlight twice and I really loved all of them. I also own most of his recorded work !
I liked the OLC recording of WIW and I went with high expectations, it just didn't do it that much for me. Maybe it was because, two days before, I had seen Mary Poppins which was fantastic and the previous day I saw Billy Elliot, which was one of my most magical theatrical experiences ever, so the comparison of those with WIW left me a bit cold !


Updated On: 1/4/06 at 09:31 PM

[FrontRowFirst]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 9:43pm

Before this show I was not a MB follower, so I'll explain why I absolutely loved WIW.

First of all, the first scene in the show opens up the storyline immediately. No supperficial fluff, just down to business. I love that in a show. I settled into my seat right away.

Furthermore, the relationship between the characters is genuine to me, and having sisters I immediately identified the connection between the girls. This also speaks to their acting and what they were able to create onstage. I was interested in their lives and was drawn into the story very quickly.

I'm also a fan of the projected sets. It's not for every show, that's for certain, but it adds a fluidity to the piece that helps keep it moving. The transitions are beautiful to watch as their seamless...yet at the same time the video allows for such detail. I was impressed at the audience reaction to one of the effects the set offered especially (not to give any spoilers). You don't always see that kind of reaction in live theatre.

I personally found the music haunting and couldn't get it out of my head the evening I saw the show (in a good way!) and since then haven't taken the recording out of my car.

I've seen just about every musical on Broadway right now at least once, and WIW is my current favorite. I'd love to see it again in the future. I hope it pulls through!

[jo]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 9:46pm

Hey, GreekMusicalFan --

Nope, I do not live in Great Britain - but even farther than that. I am from the Philippines ( where Lea Salonga comes from ), here in Southeast Asia. But I have seen a lot of shows both at the West End ( London is the usual gateway for holidays to Europe - I've been to Greece, too, if that is where you come from) and on Broadway ( I used to work in NYC a long time ago and that was how my love affair with the theatre started.).

Weren't you a fan of THE BOY FROM OZ? I am a great fan of that show, too.

Jo




Updated On: 1/4/06 at 09:46 PM

[Greekmusicalfan]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 9:51pm

Yep, I live in Athens, Greece and you are right, I am a big fan of BOY FROM OZ !! I had the great fortune of seeing it from the front row at the Imperial and Hugh's performance was a magical experience that I feel blessed I was lucky to have witnessed !!

[CDuffy5062]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 10:33pm

Thanks, Vinnie, for replying.

[chernjam]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 10:57pm

well, I'm going to see this brilliant musical again, with a group of 50 on a Tuesday night in FEBRUARY - screw you nay-sayers.... I can't wait to see it again, and expose other people to ALW's latest masterpiece!

[CDuffy5062]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 11:27pm

NYLG: fair question, but with, perhaps, an unfair premise. I have admired Michael Ball's work for a long time: since my husband and I saw him in Aspects here about 15 years ago. I think he had and has one of the best voices in musical theater today. Doesn't mean I loved Aspects: in fact, I hated it. And I can tell you precisely why. I thought, despite some lovely music, and strong vocal performances by Mr. Ball and Ann Crumb, that it represented an adolescent British schoolboy's view of women. Still love some of the music, still intensely dislike the show.
And I wanted to see WIW in London before Michael Ball took over the Fosco role because I'd heard about the sets and wanted to see them for myself; just couldn't schedule it when I was in London before MC left.

Perhaps you feel that one cannot admire a performer's work and be objective about a show in which he or she appears. I completely disagree with that statement. I enjoyed WIW because I enjoyed the use of the projections to tell the story; particularly in the "perspective" scene, but also throughout. I found the performances here in New York to be uniformly excellent (and I believe that a show can be enjoyed on the strength of the performances alone; I would, for example, see a show just to see Simon Russell Beale or Derek Jacobi or, for that matter, Edward Petherbridge; I enjoyed Breaking the Code mostly because Mr. Jacobi gave such a stellar performance in it). In fact, I think that the opportunity to see Ms. Friedman on a Broadway stage would, in and of itself, make this show worth seeing even if Mr. Ball had not come over with it. I enjoyed the WIW score; I think it lovely, subtle and mostly missing bombastic power ballads.

Now I am a total sucker, in general, for Victorian melodrama.
Nicholas Nickleby was one of my all-time favorites, for what it's worth.

Is WIW a perfect show? Nope.


Spoiler space







I thought the "Lost Souls" scene could have been cut considerably. I thought the wedding scene at the end of the show could and should have been lost in its entirety.

But, on the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's an honest opinion, even though I can see where others would not.

Perhaps even more to the point vis a vis your question, along with my husband and I were two other couples who had never heard of Mr. Ball in their collective lives, but are dear friends of ours from my college days. All four enjoyed the show thoroughly, and admitted afterwards to having had some concern that they would not. They're good enough (and old enough) friends that had they not enjoyed themselves they wouldn't have hesitated to speak up!


Updated On: 1/4/06 at 11:27 PM

[chernjam]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 11:36pm

CDuffy5062

I agree with your evaluation of the ending. I wish they would have ended the Broadway production with Marian singing "Now I have a secret..." without the wedding scene. Such a poor number to end such a wonderful show!

Jim

[Piazzaslight]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 11:42pm

I thought that they should've kept the first ending, with... (WARNING: MAJOR HUMONGOUS SPOILERS!!!)











Marian walking by the tombstone of Anne Catherick.












(END SPOILERS)

[NYLG]

Posted: 1/5/06 at 8:51am

For CDuffy5062...you said, "Perhaps you feel that one cannot admire a performer's work and be objective about a show in which he or she appears."

Why so defensive? I didn't make a sweeping generalization...but you did. As I recall...I didn't say ALL. What I said was, "Unfortunately, MOST of MB's devoted fans have a problem with objectivity when it comes to reviewing anything with which MB is involved."

Last time I checked, the word MOST leaves room for exceptions. Nevertheless...I stand by my statement. If you check the MBFC forum or general MB topics on other theatre boards, his loyal fans RARELY say anything negative about any of his projects. Perhaps you are one of those RARE exceptions who actually enjoys what's inside the theatre more than who walks in/out of the stage door sixteen times a week.

For those of you non-MB followers who responded to my request...thank you for your objective opinions. I still believe that the general consensus about WIW is not favorable, and that the future of the show is precarious at best.

[CDuffy5062]

Posted: 1/5/06 at 9:12am

For NYLG: You did, in fact, say "most". And if you felt I was generalizing where you did not, I apologize. It was not my intent. It just has appeared to me -- and not from your post -- that a feeling exists among some, that one cannot be an objective theater-goer and reliable reporter about Mr. Ball's performance if one also happens to admire his work.

I'm actually not defensive about this, even if my post may have appeared that way. I'm more a bit surprised, really, since I do feel that his voice is one of the best I've ever heard on a musical theater stage and don't believe that this automatically renders my opinions suspect.

In any event, as I have over the years, been chided in the nicest possible way by many friends who consider me a bit of a Philistine because I genuinely do enjoy some of ALW's work in addition to that of Mr. Sondheim, I understand quite well why some theater goers may genuinely not care for WIW. I genuinely did. As I mentioned above, I didn't think it was perfect by any means. There are some things about it I didn't care for, but then I could say the same about "Into the Woods": I would still recommend them both, although perhaps to different people.
Updated On: 1/5/06 at 09:12 AM

[sharon1]

Posted: 1/5/06 at 9:26am

CDuffy I have to agree about Michael Ball's voice, but need to add something. He has "one" of the three great theatre voices of this time. The other two belong to Anthony Warlow, Australia, and Brian Stokes Mitchell, USA. And what makes them great is not just the sound they produce but the conviction and passion they bring to each song.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 1/5/06 at 9:30am

Re: Whistle Down the Wind.

There are plenty of interviews, over time, where both Andrew Lloyd Webber and Jim Steinman stated that Whistle was not ready for Broadway. Lloyd Webber felt it was "not quite right" and Steinman actually said "it sucked". That production at D.C., while quite a phenomenon at the box office, had its share of problems...

For starters, I disagree that Hal Prince was right for the project. He should have come nowhere near it. Fair enough, he has had his share of intimate musicals over the years, but even with that in mind he wasn't right for the project. The work that he did for that show, based on what I've seen, was all wrong. There was no intimacy. It was too "distant". This is one of those shows where you're meant to be onstage with the characters, apart of their lives, not watching a spectacle. Gale Edwards had the right approach, and approached the characters more intimately, although the settings were quite complicated (and some impressive special effects).

I have heard recordings of Whistle in Washington, and compaired it to those of the London show. The London show, in my opinion, is vastly superior to what was seen and embraced in Washington. If they had of taken Whistle to Broadway in the state that it was, they would have (probably) had a lukewarm success or a disaster. I'm willing to bet on the latter. And if that was the case, Woman in White and other projects would not have gone ahead. If what you say is true, then Lloyd Webber could not afford another disaster after Sunset. He was right to withdraw it. The show in London moved me to tears. It had its flaws, and Whistle still has its fair share of flaws, but it was (definitely) an improvement on what was seen in Washington, and a unique show. If that had of crossed the pond it would have had a better chance than the Washington version.

But it was too late. All the fuss of the Broadway / Washington cancellation caused bad air. The show never transffered. Its reputation was damaged.

Lloyd Webber could have (potentially) ruined his career, or made the comeback of the century, with the proposed sequel to Phantom of the Opera. I wonder if he'll ever stage it... I heard rumours he was going to film it at one point.

Beautiful Game, frankly, is more difficult to warm up to than Woman in White. And even more so than Aspects of Love, which I thought was horrible and deserved all the failure it got. Here we have a source for the ultimate erotic musical of all time, and he turns it into sugary boring prudeness. It was horrible. I thought it was so so horrible LOL

But that's my 2 cents. Pity it may be too late for Whistle, unless a film is made

But even then.

Whatever the case, Steinman failed with Dance of the Vampires and I suppose that makes things worse. Especially his controversial behaviour with Opening Night