Singin' In The Rain - Broadway?

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 3:23pm

Another user and I were having a discussing via PM about the current London revival of Singin' In The Rain. It really is a fantastic production and I was saying how much I think it should go to Broadway. The last production ran for almost a year at The Gershwin and I was wondering how you guys would feel about a Broadway production. Which theatre could you see it playing at? Who could play the roles? When could it open?

Updated On: 8/19/12 at 03:23 PM

[CONAries]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 3:39pm

The current West End production really is phenomenal, I'm not that savvy on what theatres on Broadway are available, being a Brit, but from my past experiences in NYC, somewhere like The Lunt-Fontanne would hold it brilliantly. It really needs a wide stage for this staging to work properly, and is something that let's it down in London as half the stage runs into what is usually wing space.

[Huss417]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 4:32pm

The Broadway production I believe was not successful. I remember the ads kept mentioning that it rained onstage. Like they were using that as the selling point.

I saw the show and I believe Sandy Duncan's husband was in it. Other then that I really don't remember much more.

[wonkit]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 4:36pm

I saw the London production in May. I'm afraid the movie does it better (being a movie about making movies), so I was let down by the production overall, in spite of high production values and a hard working cast. Because of my lack of enthusiasm, I don't have any casting or theater suggestions.

[AnythingGoes23]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 4:39pm

Stage Ents are exploring taking the show to the US. Either on tour, Toronto or Broadway, it's being discussed.

A show wouldn't go to Broadway just because it fits in a theatre, it would need serious work to even get the cash to mount a Broadway and it doesn't help the previous Broadway run, despite a year run, wasn't a success.

For some reason, despite Americans loving the movie, Singin in the Rain has never hit it off in the US.

Top Hat is another looking at America...

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 5:15pm

Oh yes, of course there are many things to factor into planning a Broadway run, but I just wanted to see how our American friends would feel about the show transferring there. I think it deserves to far more than Top Hat, and hope it does!

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 5:26pm

I haven't seen the London production, but the problem with doing this show in America is that you will compete with the film. No getting around it.

The answer for most productions (including the failed original in the '80s) is to throw a lot of money at it, and try to impress audiences with spectacle. That's why it rained on the stage.

I would think such a gamble on Broadway today would be a lose-lose scenario. If you don't give it a lavish production, you won't bring the people in, and if you do, you'll never recoup, due to the insane overhead it would take to give the audiences what they want.

Besides, "Singin' in the Rain" would never work as a "factory" production. And what I mean by that is a show with no stars or personalities. Something that is basically Disneyland on stage with interchangeable performing robots, that are highly capable but would never be all that distinguished from the next robot who replaced them.

Singin' in the Rain IS a personality show, and it would need strong leads and, dare I say it, STARS to play the four principal roles.

Ain't never gonna happen. Unless you get someone with an open wallet and a clueless head who doesn't care about recouping.

"Singin' in the Tax Write-Off!"

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 6:45pm

I don't know what they are doing in London at the moment, but I saw the American production in Pittsburgh and it was a big "why bother?" to me. Not that it was bad. And it starred Lara Teeter, who is no slouch, but also no Gene Kelly.

I don't want to restart an old argument, but that was exactly the sort of production that calls into question our assumption that "live" is necessarily of value in and of itself. I spent 2-and-a-half hours wishing I were watching the movie.

[wonkit]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 6:52pm

Exactly my reaction, Gaveston.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 7:05pm

ClapYo'Hands, if I understand your post above, you are speaking as a British person inquiring about American interest in the piece.

IMO the answer is that after THE WIZARD OF OZ, SINGING IN THE RAIN is probably the best known musical from the Golden Age of American Film Musicals. It is regularly ranked as one of the best films of all time by American critics.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a musical theater fan in the U.S. who doesn't know the film by heart. Of course, we've all seen TOP HAT on television, but it isn't nearly so iconic.

So as you can see from the posts here, it's hard for us to watch a stage production of SINGING IN THE RAIN without running the film simultaneously in our minds. And stage productions only suffer by comparison.

Updated On: 8/19/12 at 07:05 PM

[broadwaybabytn]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 7:09pm

If Hugh Jackman would do it, that would be a dream, and possibly enough to keep it open for a while...

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 7:25pm

It appears that, as the saying goes, Hugh Jackman could read the phone book and run for at least a year. I think you'll see him doing CAROUSEL or the like before he bothers with SINGING IN THE RAIN. What makes a great film musical and a great stage musical are very different things.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 8/19/12 at 7:32pm

'Ain't never gonna happen. Unless you get someone with an open wallet and a clueless head who doesn't care about recouping.'

Or in other words more money than sense, there has been a few of those with their name above a show, in both the West End and Broadway.