Little Women the Musical, What happened!??

[Broadway_Bound_Star]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 12:06am

Ok... I saw this show at a university a week ago and I fell in love with the music and the script!
Now, what happened to the broadway run? From what I could tell, they had a pretty awesome cast!

Anyone have a theory?

[mauriposa]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 12:17am

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/theater/reviews/24litt.html

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 12:18am

Like the majority of new Broadway musicals, it flopped.

Like the majority of flops, the cast wasn't to blame in the slightest.

Read Ben Brantley's review for a truckload of insight:

http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=9902E0D91E38F937A15752C0A9639C8B63&fta=y

A lot of critics (and presumably, audiences) had trouble with the general shoehorning of plot and characters that he illustrates in his review. And the show was given stiff competition that season by a slew of new, successful musicals like Spamalot, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Light in the Piazza, and Spelling Bee.

Also, the schoolgirl audiences that the producers were courting didn't seem to like 'girlpower' so much when it was surrounded by a small cast, minimal production values (comparatively), and a less modern- sounding score than Wicked.

With all that said, I loved the score the first time I heard it in the theatre, and have loved it more and more upon repeat listenings. The friends I was with enjoyed themselves, but wrinkled their noses at the sentimental direction, and everyone agreed it was a C+ Broadway musical.

[Juliash]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 12:29am

I played Meg in it regionally. I grew to love it but the script is actually terrible and it takes good people to really make it seem not crappy. When good actors do it right, its a nice show. I love the music, theres nothing wrong with it.

My theory is that it just technically produced badly. I didn't see it though so I wouldn't actually know.

When I did it, we did it in a tiny theatre where we were really close to the audience with entrances and exits through the aisles and stuff. It was intimate and it worked because its really about one family and your looking into their lives and its not a big song and dance ACL extravaganza. So I don't think it would work if you saw it in oh say....the New Amsterdam or something (I don't even know what theatre it was in so I could be dead wrong still). It's the kind of show where if you see it from the 2nd row, it has a totally different impact then if you saw it from the 52nd row. Make sense?

I know what you mean though because I loved the girls I was in it with and I'm from around Concord MA so when people don't like the musical, I don't get it.....

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 1:11am

"big song and dance ACL extravaganza"

ACL is not the quintessential 'big song and dance extravaganza' by any means. Have you ever seen it? It is 17 actors onstage in rehearsal clothing, surrounded by blackness and no sets. This is why many people who saw the original run at the Public, off- broadway, say that they preferred that venue to the Shubert.

If you would like to point out an example of a 'big song and dance extravaganza' that Little Women is the opposite of, you might point to:
42nd Street, with its cast of 48, filled with showgirls and giant dimes and set pieces and dances.
Or the currently running...
The Phantom of the Opera, The Lion King, or Wicked, all with casts over 30 and giant production values.

Little Women played at the Virginia Theatre, which is now the August Wilson. A medium- sized Broadway house, it now is home to a little (literally) show called Jersey Boys, which only has 13 cast members, but has proven a big hit. Little Women had 10 cast members, a comparable amount. This is veritable proof that the cast and show size were not the main issue in the show not becoming a hit.

[fxy2003cmu]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 1:51am

Hey Broadway_Bound...did you by any chance see the production at Central? Because I saw it and as much as I love the music, I thought it was terrible. Select parts were good, but I felt like everyone was terribly miscast and they didn't have the huge prescence that the piece requires. I go to central and I saw Urinetown last year and it was awesome but this just did NOT cut it for me.

[mallardo]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 2:21am

It was the last show I was interested in seeing but I went and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The score was good and the book was just fine - contrary to some opinions above. The problem was one of perception. They couldn't get the aging Broadway audience to come see a show called Little Women.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 2:25am

The less said about the writing and the abysmal direction (i.e. the feminized, desexed casting of the male romantic leads, etc) of this show, the better.

This absurd little show was doomed from the start.

Vivian Darkbloom
Ramsdale, New England




Updated On: 11/6/09 at 02:25 AM

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 10:00am

theenchantedhunter - i couldn't agree more.

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 10:06am

..and it was as boreing as hell.

[folkyboy]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 10:17am

i had a problem with the book as well. the storyline is NOT to blame and i actually loved the score a lot more than i thought i would've. i just couldn't get past the fact that NO ONE seemed to age as the story went on and the script kept trying to assure us that they had.

SUCH a snoozefest with some great diva numbers. no doubt the songs will come back to visit us in cabaret performances

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 10:25am

I saw the tour in DC. The show was dreadful and boring.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 11:10am

I loved it. However, I had only seen one other Broadway show prior to that, so maybe that had something to do with it.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 11:16am

Oh, dear God, I'm actually agreeing with TheEnchantedHunter. It's the end of the world!!!!!!

No, but seriously, the score is totally generic. I never saw the show so I can't particularly judge the book but it seemed like they were bursting into song every few seconds. I actually grew to like three songs from the show but I am honestly the kind of guy who heads for the hills upon any mention of something called "Little Women". I've got friends who are huge fans of the show and quite frankly, I just don't see what they see in it.

[CJR]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 11:20am

TheEnchantedHunter, I was a part of this show..... you are spot on with your assessment of why it failed.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 12:48pm

I never even read the book but found myself agreeing with a lot of what The Enchanted Hunter said. It's just not that great a show. A really good cast can mask that, but only for so long.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 5:59pm

It flopped.

It was enjoyable but merely enjoyable don't cut it these days on Broadway.

[gypsy4]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 7:45pm

The National tour was amazing I actualy attended the closing performace it closed in Portland,Oregon maureen mcgovern was
fantastic and there was an understudy for jo and she was stellar
i believe they are relaunching it this summer.

[me2]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 8:01pm

It was a paint by numbers show. The music was fine--not great but a pleasant listen--but it felt if they were inserted into the libretto long before the libretto was written.

The alterations to the source material also proved disastrous. Any mild LITTLE WOMEN fan wonders why they sent them off to the seashore and missed out on the beauty of Beth's death.

I would also say the casting of an adult as young Amy threw off the tender balance of the sisters because 99% of the time, when you have an adult playing a child, you get a caricature instead of a real character.

I love my CD, but watching the show on tour was underwhelming.
Broadway Blog: Enchanted (Spoiler Free)

[ashley0139]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 8:08pm

I saw it on Broadway and on tour. I really enjoy the music. I think it is beautiful. The show itself was just... boring. It really helped its case on Broadway by boasting an amazing cast- Sutton, Maureen, and Megan McGinnis. On tour it was much less entertaining.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 8:13pm

The score is incredibly generic but at the same time I wonder if any other adaptation of the novel could have been better. To me, it is the best job that could have been done with the source material. While I enjoy LITTLE WOMEN as a novel, it doesn't scream musical theater to me, it's so episodic and long (especially if you want to include both parts as the musical decided to do) that unless the whole novel had been deconstructed and re-invented, I doubt that it could have worked any better with a different score/libretto.
The cast recording isn't THAT bad. Sutton Foster was the right choice for Jo and although for some reason they make her scream incredibly loud, she makes the CD worthy of listening to.

[Malice]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 8:32pm

Little Women is one of my favorite books over the years, and I was happy to see a musicalized version of it when it was on Broadway. I was sorry to see it come and go so fast, especially with Maureen McGovern and Sutton Foster doing such amazing jobs I thought. "Astonishing" was great, but I thought Maureen McGovern brought the house down with "Days of Plenty"

[Malice]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 8:34pm

The musical did kind of take it for granted that everyone was familiar with the novel. But hey, I love me some Louisa May Alcott.

[xM3L24x]

Posted: 11/26/07 at 9:48pm

I never read the book or saw the movie prior to seeing Little Women the musical. My mom and I went to go see it and I found it really boring. I didn't really follow the plot, and none of the songs stood out to me besides 'Astonishing'. My mom LOVED it though, and raved about it for about an hour after we saw it.

[desiree armfeldt]

Posted: 11/27/07 at 12:06am

Frankly, the show was not the best.I completely agree with The Enchanted Hunter.

However, the soundtrack is really thrilling. It really transports you into the story, more so than the show itself. I recommend it.