Man of La Mancha revival questions.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 3:44pm

I just walked up to my circuit city and after thirty minutes of not finding anything good, i bought the new cast recording of Man of La Mancha.






wow.






this version of "the impossible dream" is easily the best recording of any song i have ever heard. just, wow. it's a great album, far superior to the original soundtrack and the movie soundtrack. so now i'm curious.

When did the show start, and how long did it run?
Did it make any money?
How was the production & what were the sets like?

Any info would be appreciated.

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 3:47pm

The set was frickin' massive. There was a huge winding staircase going up the wall.

[jmaclover]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 3:50pm

Hey - I loved the show - I have the recording too.

The cast was amazing!

It ran during the winter (maybe started in the spring). It wasn't that long - I'm not sure if it was a limited engagement or just closed.

Brian Stokes Mitchell and Ernie Sabella were amazing and Mansgkjfhgfklselfhkewhfklhle (lol) was also great!

Mitchell - whata voice! o-m-g. The sets were good - different than the original - so says my family. For scenes, like the windmill, he walked off stage right through this little opening and you see the shadows of the windmill.

They used one set and just changed it by making windows (holes in the walls)

Sorry it was a long time ago - I remebered I wanted to see it again.

The Barber Song was SOOOOOo funny - and the actor was brilliant! Shame it's not still running!

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 3:51pm

Brian Stokes Mitchell could burp and he'd be friggin amazing.

[lvpblues]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 3:55pm

The revival of Man of La Mancha opened on Broadway December 5, 2002 at the Martin Beck (later Al Hirschfeld Theatre) starring Brian Stokes Mitchell, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and Ernie Sabella. The production ran for 304 performances before closing on August 31, 2003. Marin Mazzie replaced Mastrantonio for the final two months of the run.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 4:01pm

thanks everyone! It's a shame it was so short-lived. what a great cast. and the set sounds interesting. there's a black and white picture of it in the cd booklet but it's hard to tell what's what.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 4:04pm

It ran for nine months from December 2002 to August 2003, and was not at all successful -- in fact, it lost its entire investment.

The set was this ultra modern modular functional thing that was completely inappropriate for the show -- it looked like it cost millions (the set for the original was a minimalist concept) and had pieces that would shift to reveal flowers or trees, etc... to suggest different landscapes over the course of Quixote and Panza's journey. But it failed to create an integrated atmosphere that could set the stage and enrich the overall storytelling of the piece -- in other words it was a great big waste of money.

Mitchell sang quite well, but I found his characterization of Quixote as an almost comically dottering old man to be wrongeheaded and undermined his performance (he seemed to be doing an impression of TIm Conway's little old man character from the Carol Burnett Show, which, I'm sorry, is just NOT the character). Richard Kiley who created the role (and won every award in sight), played it some 5000 times in his career and IMO still owns it completely, not only sang remarkably (with more passion and pathos than Mitchell could ever summon) but he played Quixote as a valiant, but deluded, vainglorious, proud, foolish but always noble man (just as Cervantes had written him). Kiley played the role with such charismatic conviction that it was easy to see how everyone he encountered could get swept up in the man's demented vision and why Panza had left his wife and children to follow a man who was so clearly insane (even to Panza). Kiley brought such a stature and dignity to the part that the final scenes in which Quixote is dying were absolutely heartbreaking. Mitchell was good, but no one else has ever come close to playing the role as well as Kiley.

Updated On: 12/6/04 at 04:04 PM

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 4:04pm

This is easily my favorite show to have ever played Broadway - in any incarnation. I've had the pleasure of playing Don Quixote in several productions and I learn to love the show more and more each time I see it or appear in a production.
My favorite moment in the latest revival was a very short one - but when Cervantes initially "becomes" Don Q, in "I, Don Quixote"...the cast forms a false horse for him to ride, made of found objects on the stage...and in the latest Broadway incarnation - when he mounted the horse and began to "ride" - they projected a shadow on the wall behind him, of a real knight on a horse...it was one of the most technically beautiful moments I've ever seen on stage. The performances in this version were all wonderful, and Brian can do no wrong, in my book. His rendition of The Impossible Dream with the modulation and repeat is absolutely gorgeous, without a doubt.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 4:20pm

redhotinnyc2: wow that is really cool (the shadow thing i mean)

Sorry u didn't like this version Margo. It sounds like Mitchell's version was more like the Don Quixote i remember from the book, which, the way i saw it, less of a tragic and heroic figure than he was in the original production and movie, and more of a comical figure; especially toward the beggining, it almost seems like Cervantes was making fun of this character. There certainly is humor in the songs, but they seem to try to make the story more serious and tragic than the original story. i like the idea of him being a semi tragic figure. i wasn't around when the original show came out, in fact i was only 12 when the revival started, so i can't really compare the two performances. Kiley is very good in the soundtrack, and the first time through the new soundtrack, it was hard for me to adjust to mitchell. i think that they're usually pretty much equal in the singing, i don't know about the spoken scenes because i never got a chance to see either of them. i do, though, think that mitchell's impossible dream was superior to Kiley's, but it might be partially because i like the changes they made to the song for the new version, even though they were subtle. kiley's performance will allways be the one that's remembered though...and it is a great performance

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 4:32pm

Cervantes does, in a way, "make fun" of Quixote at times towards the beginning, but as you go deeper into the novel, the multi-facted and heroic human the character becomes. He is a richly comic, but ultimately tragic figure, and Dale Wasserman's book for the musical reflects this. Kiley certainly got his share of laughs, but it was more from the character's outrageous blind egotism and over-the-top chivalry than from the sorts of silly voices and slapstick that Mitchell was engaging in. At times Mitchell seemed to be doing a Mr Magoo comedy routine than playing Cervantes' hero.

[Jon]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 4:38pm

I preferred the original production's version of the horse and donkey - actors in masks doing a flamenco dance.

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 5:22pm

I personally like Stokes's Quixote. It was the first production of La Mancha I had seen where I actually saw a marked difference between the portrayals of Cervantes and Quixote. At the end of Impossible Dream, the audience gave him a standing ovation right there in the middle of the act. That was a first for me. Even though he didn't interpolate the high note (who does nowadays? buncha pansies...), his rendition was so strong and the last note so powerful that I got some serious goosebumps even without the high note. The set sucked. Mastrantonio's voice quiver drove me a little nuts, but her sex appeal more than made up for it. I mean she's no Sophia Loren when it comes to sex appeal, but who is? And Sophia couldn't sing. All in all, a really enjoyable show.

[timote316]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 5:24pm

That shadow bit is really awesome.

My high school is doing it this year :-/ I really don't know what to think about that... lol

[bially082]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 5:51pm

I loved the revival. I saw it several times. The set was one of the things the critics really praised. It was huge and awsome. I'm sad to hear that it floped so bad.

[Testing1232]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 6:03pm

The revival was amazing !!! Saw it 27 times !!! (Yes, we were addicted !!)

Amazing cast.... amazing group of people ! Don Mayo gave me his cast jacket at the end of the run. Very cool !

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 6:43pm

i have to agree that the character becomes more complex in the novel as it goes on. i really can't argue for either of the actors because, again, i haven't actually seen either of them. in fact, i've never seen it on stage.

I wish my high school would do this, it's a great show in any form...

Posted: 12/6/04 at 6:49pm

Is it just me or is La Mancha the most underrated show of all time? I love that score.

[jo]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 6:50pm

I was lucky to have seen both the original version with Richard Kiley and the revival with Brian Stokes Mitchell. And I completely agree with Margo's views of both performances and productions. I saw the first version with practically a bare set and yet the atmosphere was most compelling in watching the tale of the quixotic knight unfold. And Richard Kiley was simply outstanding - his acting and vocal perfomance completely mesmerized me and I was practically crying during most the show. I was disappointed with the revival after looking forward so much to it. The sets ( while obviously expensive) and BSM's singing ( while artistically perfect) both left me cold - the emotional impact was not there for me. I could not visualize Don Quijote in Stokes's performance.

Yet, Man of La Mancha still ranks as one of my all-time favourites, together with Camelot and Les Miserables.

Updated On: 12/6/04 at 06:50 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 7:27pm

wow, i wish i was alive to see Kiley. i mean, even though i think that Stoke's singing is better, Kiley's performance is a legendary performer, and that's his most famous role

[TBone]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 8:19pm

I have to say that I really loved the recent revival of MOLM. Stokes is a god and can do no wrong . I thought MEM was fine as Aldonza, but when I saw Marin Mazzie towards the end of the run, she was absolutely amazing. Her "Aldonza" was one of the most incredible things I've ever heard/seen. Just thinking about her singing that gives me chills.
Nastascia Diaz was also a damn good Aldonza, and a very sweet lady too

- Eric

[sanda]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 9:06pm

I had listened to 7 recordings. OBC, OLC, Complete, French, Belgium, Domingo's studio cast and NBC.

I love most of them.

I cannot say Stoke's Don Quixote is the best. There are so many great actors in this show. London's Keith Michell?C for example, moved me deeply in his acting. However, I would like to say that Stoke's Impossible Dream is the most wonderful, touching, glorious thing ever happened in theatre. When he sang that song, he is imcomparible.

[Mr. TN]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 10:47pm

I hate to disagree with you Margo but I did not like Kiley. His voice just wasn't round enough for me. Not that he was terrible or anything because he was quite good. However, his voice just seemed one-dimensional, especially during Impossible Dream. There was no contour or shape to the melodic phrases. I still listen to the recording of it every once in a while but Stokes added so much to the quality of tone, melodic contour, and minute detail that the part requires vocally.
Kiley did, however, portray the quixotic hero better than Stokes. This depends on if you really see Quixote as a complete fool or as an honorable hero. I read the book sometime back and found Quixote to be a complete idiot. However, after more readings I started to see the element of honor, dignity, and valor in the character.
One must remember that there are MAJOR differences between the book and the musical. In fact (some trivia here) Don Quixote is split into two parts. Part one is the original book published in 1605. Soon after Cerventes published the book, a copycat book was printed stealing his character of Quixote. Cerventes then wrote Part Two which was published in 1615 (correct me on the date if I am wrong). In this part, he is more romantic and does not mock the "romance" as he did in part one. (Romance is a type of medieval work with chivalric qualities but whe the real knight in shining armor not a false one) He also mocks the other false Quixote and kills off Quixote (Quixana). Cerventes states that he is merely translating the story and that is is actual historic fact although is it proven that Quixote never existed. Ok, so long trivia but it is worth stating.

MOLM is one of the less appreciated musicals. It should be right up there with Cats, Phantom, Les Mis, and the rest of the ultra hit musicals but sadly is not. Updated On: 12/6/04 at 10:47 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 11:14pm

I do indeed know the difference between the book and the novel as well as the difference between Part One and Part Two of the novel and Wasserman's book reflects the nobler aspects of Quixote in Part I of the novel. As far as the interpretation of the title character as depicted in the reduction of the novel that is "Man of La Mancha" Kiley's Quixote (according to Wasserman himself) is definitive.

[sean martin]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 3:58am

The set, all 14,000 pounds of it, was - as Margo says - completely inappropriate: it was like the prison was at the bottom of a missle silo. Characters would make their way down to the deck on stairs that were downright dangerous because the tread to riser ratio was almost 1 to 1: the barber, for example, makes his way down a 45 degree staircase without a guard rail. It was awesome to look at for the first few minutes then lost its charm and became more intrusive than anything else.

Stokes was pretty good in the role, but he (and the rest of the cast) suffered from the director's lack of imagination in most of the staging: almost every number was sung down center to the audience, like some sort of bad opera production. The choreography was amazing, especially for the muleteers, but that damn set..... Yikes.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 9:04am

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the great book Wasserman wrote a couple of years ago - "The Impossible Musical" all about how it was conceived and written and the trials and tribulations of getting it produced in the first place. It is a great read and includes the script of the first version of the show (written for television and before it was musicalized). My fondness for this show grows deeper every year. It could conceivably be one of the finest if not THE finest musical ever written. I happen to also love "She Loves Me" as a very well-rounded book and score.