What went wrong with Dames at Sea ?- Page 2

[newintown]

Posted: 11/18/16 at 7:57am

To those "analyzing" the material itself - the show is a classic, and the material isn't the problem. It's proven itself successful countless times over the past 40+ years.

"I just don't understand all the hate for this.  And John Bolton was outstanding.  Just stop."

"Just stop" what, exactly? Expressing opinions you don't like? Articulating constructive criticism? Princess, get a grip - that's not going to happen.

"Cary Tedder was fine as the equivalent of the male ingenue."

It has a name, Helen - a "juvenile."

 

Updated On: 11/18/16 at 07:57 AM

[markypoo]

Posted: 11/18/16 at 9:15am

From out of left field here, in the summer of 1973, the long-gone Academy Festival Theatre outside of Chicago produced the show with Bernadette starring.  To me, the show (televised the year before) seemed like a creaky relic at that time.

Point being - with all the new musicals being optioned for Broadway and remaining thus far untouched - why in heavens name did the producers not only descend on this one, but think it would create a stir in 2015?

[newintown]

Posted: 11/18/16 at 9:20am

Skinner had been trying to engineer a revival for years - he does one thing very well (white-people-tap choreography), and had exhausted the 42nd Street market, so he hoped to turn Dames into a cheap little version of same.

Updated On: 11/18/16 at 09:20 AM

[darquegk]

Posted: 11/18/16 at 9:23am

The show just makes me think of "Daddy's Boy" now.

[drewalexander]

Posted: 11/18/16 at 11:52am

Sorry about that. I didn't realize auto correct changed it. Eloise and Mara! 

[newintown]

Posted: 11/18/16 at 12:00pm

Oh, yes, that was clear. Just going all Ella Peterson (or Melisande Scott) on you.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/18/16 at 12:05pm

Melissa25 said: "I loved this show and had a great time.  Personally I think Mara Davi should have been nominated for a tony.  She's a true triple threat and I wish we could see more of her on Broadway.  I just don't understand all the hate for this.  And John Bolton was outstanding.  Just stop. "

The show was objectively a flop. And it's not even a mystery as to why.

People on here, whenever there's something even remotely charming premiering off-Broadway or regionally, immediately ask, "WHEN'S IT GOING TO BROADWAY?" and usually skip over, "Does this belong on Broadway?"

This production was the embodiment of the importance of the latter question, because it apparently was never really asked.

 

[newintown]

Posted: 11/18/16 at 12:36pm

Right, Kad - there are a lot of shows on that list:

Little Shop of Horrors
Passing Strange
[title of show]
Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson
Amour
Triumph of Love

Etc., etc., etc.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/18/16 at 5:34pm

Dames is indeed a well-constructed piece that can work under most circumstances, but the very act of putting it on Broadway subverts the camp aspect of the show's humor and charm. Imagine it in 1966 in a ramshackle Off-Broadway theatre, in the days before home video, when the lines, situations, cliches and character names all were part of the show's knowing wink at the audience. The show also derives some of its appeal trying to be a big Warner Bros. style musical, but with a cast of six and a shoestring budget. That original production was also 14 years before there was a stage version of 42nd Street. 

But what is an audience in 2015 or 2016 to make of references to Ruby Keeler, Dick Powell or Joan Blondell? A little Off-Broadway show trying to be a big Broadway show, but with only six people, is a funny idea. But putting it on Broadway, it just looked like an anemic version of 42nd Street, and the entire enterprise deflated like a balloon. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/18/16 at 7:44pm

There are a great many (most, in fact) works from prior generations that are well-constructed etc, that have no place on Broadway, without regard to what they do or do not subvert. There may be a place for such work, for the limited audience interested in it, such as the Mint which produces just such works in an environment in which the minimum audience needed for a week on Broadway would absolutely delight them for the entire run. 

[astromiami]

Posted: 11/20/16 at 9:08am

One big factor is that the Busby Berkeley musicals parodied are not longer seen round the clock on television.

In the 60s and 70s films of the 30s were constantly airs so there was an awareness of them. Today, the show parodies something most audiences are unfamiliar with.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 11/20/16 at 9:37pm

There was nothing artistically wrong with that production of Dames At Sea. Randy Skinner did a marvlelous job on the show as he did with Gentlemen Prefers Blondes at Encores. That should have to come to Broaway as it was ready. unfortunately Megan Hilty was not available. And I do not know Randy Skinner but I am a fan of his work.

 

So the real problem with Dames at Sea is that not enough people wanted to see it. Plain and simple. People who remember 30's musicals were 60 in 1968 when Dames at Sea First premeired Now they are dead.    I enjoyed every minute of it.  Loads of fun. That cast and producers have a lot to be proud of.. Unfortunately financial recoupment and big audiences were not one of them.

[Sondheim_Disney1595]

Posted: 11/20/16 at 10:42pm

goldenboy said: "There was nothing artistically wrong with that production of Dames At Sea. Randy Skinner did a marvlelous job on the show as he did with Gentlemen Prefers Blondes at Encores. That should have to come to Broaway as it was ready. unfortunately Megan Hilty was not available. And I do not know Randy Skinner but I am a fan of his work.

 

So the real problem with Dames at Sea is that not enough people wanted to see it. Plain and simple. People who remember 30's musicals were 60 in 1968 when Dames at Sea First premeired Now they are dead.    I enjoyed every minute of it.  Loads of fun. That cast and producers have a lot to be proud of.. Unfortunately financial recoupment and big audiences were not one of them.

 

" 

Very well said