The Producers...

[wicked_mimi]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 4:19am

Has anyone else ever wondered why this show won the most Tony's ever? I fell asleep when I saw it on tour and thought, hey... maybe it was Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane that made it great, even though I am a big fan of Hunter Foster. But I watched the movie today and also fell asleep! Was it just a really slow year for Broadway or am I missing something?

[philcrosby]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 9:33am

I never wondered. I saw the show on tour and it was one of the flat-out funniest shows I have ever seen. It perhaps didn't deserve its clean sweep of Tonys that year, but it certainly was a breath of fresh air, and inventive and hilarious show still.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 12:10pm

Well I wont say why i think it won... that would be offensive. I do not know what it was up against, but it was a nice return to musical comedy. Lane and Broderick were so much fun to see. The music was aweful and I never hear anyone sharing my feelings on that. I think I remember it being like ABABABA for each song.

The movie version was just a snore.. but I guess it was one of the best film adaptations you could hope for. It has everything the stage show does and never tries to leap beyond it. I wish it would do what Broadway shows do best, close.
Updated On: 5/8/06 at 12:10 PM

[neocomposer]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 12:16pm

The Producers WAS a breath of fresh air, Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane were involved, and EVERYONE wanted to see it. I don't think it deserved the sweep of Tony's, but compared to the shows it was up with, it deserved a good amount of the attention it got.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 12:18pm

It had literally no competition, and it was "the" show of the year. It's only competition was THE FULL MONTY (which has a better book, score, and is just a better musical), but THE PRODUCERS is one of those well-made musicals that Broadway hadn't seen for a while. It was a valentine not only to musical comedy, but the golden age of Broadway. Even though I don't think it's incredibly funny, and I've never been impressed with the OBC (Cady Huffman's Tony win will forever baffle me), it's not a BAD show, it's just not really wonderful.

All the stars were aligned for the show that year. In another year, it still would have won a lot, but probably not the most EVER.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 1:14pm

Broadway has Hits and then it has the rare Smash Hits that happen ever 10 years or so: OKLAHOMA! in the 40s. MY FAIR LADY in the 50s. HELLO DOLLY in the 60s. CHORUS LINE in the 70s. LES MIZ in the 80's. LION KING in the 90s. And - so far - THE PRODUCERS this decade.) Whether you like it or not is personal and highly subjective.

THE PRODUCERS arrived in late April 2001, having been a huge hit out-of-town which created a pre-opening buzz. It had two big power house stars. It was based on film that has a huge cult following. And when it opened the critics found it fast, funny and fresh even though derrivitive.

It all came together too create a big smash hit, the likes of which Broadway had not seen in several seasons. And it rolled, gaining momentum right through the Tony awards.

PRODUCERS is not the greatest musical Broadway has ever seen. But it was the first smash hit musical comedy since..well since HELLO DOLLY!

[TabooPhan1]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 1:34pm

1) Just my opinion, but I would say Phantom was the bigger hit of the eighties. I mean, you don't have to like it, but you can't deny it's a bigger hit if it went on to become the longest running musical. Just a thought...

2) I can totally understand why The Producers won at least most of the Tonys it did. It was an original musical (which, let's face it, is unfortunately and increasingly rare these days) which was well cast, had upbeat, funny songs with lots of dancing and good jokes. It's the type of musical you don't see much of anymore outside of revivals. One of my pet peeves is when a show that is fairly subtle and straight-forward is pinned as uninteresting. It may not be profound or existential, but it's cute, entertaining, fun, and has lots of hummable tunes. Not to mention the talent (I, personally, do believe Cady Huffman deserved the Tony... did you see her or the touring Ulla?) was amazing. Say what you will, but I will always have a soft spot for Nathan :) (No gay jokes, please, although that seems an opportune comment...)

[ACL2006]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 3:06pm

Andrew Lloyd Webber was the hit of the 80s. Anything he touched turned to gold. Now anything he touches turns to dust. A shame. And Lion King for the 90s. I think the 90s would belong to Rent. It created so much buzz and was in every magazine & newspaper. Lion King was and still is a huge success, but the 90s title should go to Rent.

[rufussars]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 4:58pm

Wicked Mimi, while I do think you are missing something, let me offer my explanation of why one of my absolutley favorite shows may not appeal marginally to some.

1) Mel Brooks. While he is a comic genius, the type of humor the show consists of is mostly offensive, crude, or satirical. If you cannot handle those very specific genres of jokes, then there's little chance you may be able to relish in the delights of the show.

2) The show is purposely old-fashioned. While working in the confines of June 1959, the show evokes a very classic traditional musical comedy feel, like that of Guys & Dolls. It is no wonder, then, that the score is a limiting factor in terms of audience.

3) There's no spectacle gimmick, like that of a chandelier or flying harness. Other than the fantasy sequence, the monstrous sets never step out of theatres or offices in New York.

It's always best to know what you're getting yourself into. I really can't relate to people who blindly buy tickets without at least a smidge of background on the show. Some may decide at that point that there's no need to proceed. Of course, it's all a matter of personal taste. Though, I can't imagine not buying into at least a touch of the show's outlandish fun.

[sondwisenheimer]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 5:02pm

Good, solid, inventive fun, but certainly overrated.

I feel this way about Spamalot, too.

[TabooPhan1]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 9:14pm

Obviously you are all entitled to your own opinions. I'm kind of happy to see musicals like The Producers, Ave Q, and Spamalot appearing more and more, simply because it's just fun. Don't get me wrong, I love a show that makes me think, but I also really love a show I can go to just to laugh and have a good time. And like rufussars said, they are, in some ways, satirizing shows from many different genres and eras, and also embracing them. I don't think they are overrated, but rather a nice balance to the Sweeney Todds and Phantoms.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 11:53pm

You can't judge the Producers by the movie (although it adds weight to my argument that movies of Broadway musicals usually = shizz). But if you saw the stage version WITH Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, and you didn't laught, then go out and get measured for a coffin, Sydney, because you must be dead. I paid a fortune for a pair of tickets and had the giddy time of my life. And that's all I have to say....

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 5/8/06 at 11:57pm

The only other respectable new musical that opened that year was The Full Monty.

[sondwisenheimer]

Posted: 5/9/06 at 12:04am

I agree about the value of pure fun, I just personally think that, even on that level, "The Producers" and "Spamalot" have been a bit overpraised. Of course, nothing's more subjective than humor.