Wicked Tonight Jan 8th Major Flub :)- Page 2

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 10:56am

Professionals should leave the "inside jokes" backstage where they belong. But I love spending over a hundred bucks to watch people laughing at jokes I'm not privvy to.

[LilFinley]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 10:57am

Lol! Maybe!!!

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 11:09am

I understand how it happens, and I understand that they're just people. But as has been said, people...lots of them...are paying megabucks to watch them do their job. Fans who go multiple times and think of the actors as friends and refer to them by just their first names approach seeing the show from a very different perspective than the bulk of the audience, and are likely willing to cut them more slack than most people. When one is paid to do a job professionally, one is expected to rise to the occasion. If I had that off of a day at my job, I'd probably get sued.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 11:15am

I love a meltdown.

I love to see them...I love to have them on stage. It makes my year when everything seems to spiral out of control. That's what happens in the theatre. It's live and visceral and things happen.

That said, if it was happening THROUGHOUT the show, I would probably get tired of it quickly.

When I was doing CHARLEY'S AUNT at the PA Shakespeare Festvial, I had missed two performances due to an almost-serious health concern, and when I came back, the actor playing Fancourt had changed a line. Originally, the line was 'Am I done behind' or something to that effect, meaning 'Am I zippered up in back'. I would then zip him up and we'd continue with the rest of the show. Well...this actor decided to change the line to 'Charley, do me from behind' to which I just stared with a horrified look on my face. He cracked a smile, I started to lose it and the actor playing Jack tried valiantly to hold the scene together. We and the audience enjoyed one of the most delightful meltdowns I've known. It was such a hit that we added that moment to the show so that each audience thought they were seeing a special moment of three actors cracking each other up.

Good times.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 11:26am

I'm 100% with Namo, and glad he's posted multiple shades of outrage. I got irritated just reading about this. A show with WICKED's tone -- a cartoon exchange one minute, an emotional life/death stakes ballad the next -- requires that actors play with extraordinary precision. When that precision goes, and doesn't return quickly -- and it starts to seem like a big joke to the players -- the performance lacks the assurance that lets an audience turn on a dime within the faf-fetched story. WICKED works (for some) because it hooks people, emotionally; the humor is there, but serving characters in specific moments. We suspend disbelief, willingly, and go on a far-fetched journey. When suspending that disbelief seems even TEMPORARILY unimportant to those involved, we are cheated. And since 99% of the audience will see the show once, that is a helluva expensive cheat.

I'm glad the WICKED groupies in attendance enjoyed an insider's giggle, but as for those on stage: Shame on all of them.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 1:05pm

I can understand how people might get pissed off about stuff like that, but personally, I love it. It reminds me that I'm not watching some glossy perfectionalized Hollywood confection. I love the spontenaity of live theatre and everything it comes with. It's the whole reason I buy a ticket rather than just wait for a film or television version where all the flubs are safely tucked away in a Special Features section of a DVD. As an actor, I've had some rather interesting flubs myself and one of the great chellenges is trying to figure out how to hide it from the audience. Sometimes it simply can't be done. Especially if it's been snowballing for the entire show.

Wish I had been there. I'd gleefully pay $100 to watch Chenoweth lose it on stage. What a hoot!

[Karma76]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 1:12pm

haha Honestly. I mean I bet they all did NOT want to laugh. BUT people do have off nights and it does suck for the people who would rather not see someone laughing and losing it but hey that is life. sometimes things aren't perfect. now if this was the whole show I agree you need to stop and focus but it DOES happen, it just does.

[LiTtLeDaNcEr729]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 1:24pm

Even if they are professionals....professionals are people too and people make mistakes. I think that this is one of the joys of theatre- knowing that anything can happen. No show is ever the same and it will never be perfect. I suppose I understand where you are all coming from- people visiting NYC to see shows do not want to see performers laughing the whole time. But you have to understand that they are normal people....just because they are on Broadway doesn't mean they wont mess up sometime.

[actorboy]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 1:52pm

This sounds like an isolated incident and, from what I heard, the audience was having the time of their lives. I save my outrage for targets that deserve it.

I remember vividly Ian McKellen talking back to an audience member the night I saw Amadeus. I loved it, felt that I was seeing something that no one else ever would see.

It's what makes live theater so wonderful, the fact that anything can happen (and sometimes does).

[WSS2]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:07pm

You're right. This kinda of thing has no place in theater. How revolting to see people act like people.

There is a reason it is called LIVE theater and not your favorite show on the WB. The people up there are live and anything (just like in real life) can and does happen. It could be a flubbed line or soemthing that happned days ago that just suddenly seems funny. Guess what...that happens in real life.

Things happen. SH*T happens. Life goes on. Performers are people, not some multi-camera actors who can be edited. Rent the movie next time for a clean performance.

[friesgirl]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:11pm

I can understand the laughing after Taye's flub because that happened on stage, and the audience saw it (and sounds like they laughed at it as well), and it does sound very funny.

But Kristin laughing during the ENTIRE show to the point she couldn't finish three songs? That's just downright unprofessional, IMO, and an insult to the audience.

[Phantom2]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:14pm

I'm sure they got reprimanded. If you don't bounce back really fast, there is major hell to pay. Again, this depends on the show, but it usually ain't pretty. It's kind of like laughing in church. A big no-no.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:20pm

I have no issue with spontaneity on stage, and yes, it's not always going to be perfect, nor do I expect it to be. My issue is that it sounds like whatever was going on encompassed more that just the "flub" and it appartently (from more than one first person account above) majorly affected the whole show. To not be able to finish THREE songs because you can't stop laughing? That's just not acceptable. One song and I've been amused, two, irritated, and by the third, just plain pissed off.

[Amneris]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:24pm

ahh im sorry i didnt mean for this to turn into a war...i just posted my final "wicked" review lol... to chime in though, it was funny at first but, when it happened the entire show... it looked a bit strange and it was annoying because even during serious scenes, they broke character A LOT.

PS Copeman, I guess we wont have our wedding that was planned by Michael Crawford? Our Community Theatre fiddler on the roof mamma mia sponge wedding is over??!? BOY PLEASE PM ME :o(

[bestofbroadway]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:25pm

Saw the show last night for the first time. Let me comment on the screw up. First off it is live theater. While it was unprofessional I found myself laughing at the way Taye handled the situation. However, when they began the scene and Idina once again burst into laughter I found myself unamused and her behavior extremely unprofessional. It also could not have happened at a more inconvenient point in the show and it took me out for almost the rest of the show. With that said I tried not to allow it to impair my judgement of the show. Here are just a few of my thoughts:

First Impressions- I felt like I was at the ice capades when I came into the theater. Ushers walking up and down the aisles yelling "get your programs and CDs." I have to say that really upset me. It's the theater not a sporting event. What's next- popcorn vendors?

The Show- There seems to be two groups of people. The people who read the book and hate the show, and the people who have not read the book and love the show. I personally did not read the book although I can tell you now that after seeing the show I am extremely interested in reading it. I thought it was an excellent production with a flawed book and an interestingly varied score. I found some of the moments to be the most exciting I have ever experienced in theater, while others reminded me of a Disney theme park show. Act I in my opinion is far superior to Act II, which at times seems to rush through important moments to tell you in a clever yet campy way how it all relates to the Wizard of Oz. Overall I thought it was a very good show and you would have to be completely devoid of any emotions to not fell something for these characters and their story which I found extremely moving.

The Performances- Let me begin by saying that Kristin Chenoweth is a musical theater and comedic genius. Her performance was one of the most inspired I have seen in years. Idina was also excellent. Her phrasing in the songs is exemplary and her voice is unreal. With that said, she does not compare to Kristin as an actress and the flub up completely turned me off. Taye Diggs did a fine job in my opinion. The man gets by on his charisma alot but he still did a commendable job. Carole Shelley and Joel Grey where both superb. It is probably one of the most talented casts I have seen on a Broadway stage.

The Choreography- I take it back...Wayne Cilento is the worst choreographer on Broadway, not Jerry Mitchell. What an embarrasment.

That's just a taste of what I thought. Not the greatest thing I've ever seen and no where near the worst. After seeing Idina, Donna and Kristin's performance I have to say that there is simply no competition. The award belongs to Kristin.

[newyorkuniq]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:25pm

do they get some kind of broadway star probation:P

[Phantom2]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:29pm

bestofbroadway- You did not just say that about Jerry Mitchell? You must have typed his name in error. He is GREAT. Ugh!

[bestofbroadway]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:30pm

Jerry Mitchell is the most Overrated, Wayne Cilento is the Worst

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:31pm

They don't get Broadway star probation, but they could be reported to Equity for not doing the show as rehearsed.

[Phantom2]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 2:34pm

They get spanked and people post things about them on message boards. Which is worse? Personally, I'd rather take it like a man.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 3:04pm

I haven't seen Wicked, but I loved Wayne's choreography for Tommy.

[bestofbroadway]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 3:06pm

I never saw Tommy but I did see Aida. And if you saw Aida and hated his choreography in that this is twenty times worse. Updated On: 1/9/04 at 03:06 PM

[Phantom2]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 3:31pm

Aida has great choreography. Where were you during the show, the bathroom?

[bestofbroadway]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 3:34pm

Nope I was right there watching them dance with poles and all.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 3:36pm

Come on, many of us have been going to the theater for 30-40 years, so please don't patronize us by saying "it's LIVE, not WB..." "Live" and "WB" aren't definitive polar opposities, dear poster. "Live" doesn't entitle a performer to be out of control. With performing "live" comes responsibility. Yes, all humans make mistakes, but part of a professional's obligation is to handle mistakes--and put the audience first. I appreciate the poster who was dismayed when Idina laughed again after the fix began. Surely that crossed the line from "human" into self-indulgence.

Over the years, I've seen some brilliant fixes -- costume, set problems, text omissions, photos and cell phone rudenss. But they were isolated moments in shows -- the stunning part of their being "live" was how quickly those in control got back to the biz at hand: the play. John Lithgow went up opposite Glenda Jackson in WHO'S AFRAID OF VA WOOLF in LA, and she got him back on track without breaking character. That's what it's all about to me.

We may never agree on this. Some people here can't understand the outrage disproportionate to the crime, some of us can't understand the myriad excuses so quickly afforded a group of people at the top of their game, for whom top dollar is charged. It's very much like the raging debate about repeated no-shows. We all have different standards I guess.

Updated On: 1/9/04 at 03:36 PM