A Hugh Dilemma : PAL JOEY or STOP THE WORLD?

[jo]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 7:22am

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/63405.htm

Wow - to be the subject of a tug of war between Gerry Schoenfeld and Marc Platt!!

I hope PAL JOEY wins out in the end - it is a perfect vehicle for Hugh - timeless theme, great music, a fascinating character role -- and he must be looking forward to working with the creative team of Mantello and Bourne. Btw, Marc Platt is also a producer for one of the new film projects announced for Hugh recently called DRIVE ( by mystery-noir writer James Sallis).

But he has been friends with Schoenfeld ( didn't he say some words during the renaming of the Schoenfeld Theatre?) probably since TBFO and that would be quite a difficult offer to turn down, too.

Solomonic decision, huh?

How about a limited run for PAL JOEY ( 6 months?) and maybe an even shorter run ( 3 months?) for his one-man show in one of the Shubert theatres - not necessarily one following the other. Maybe over a two-season period? He also has many other film commitments.


Updated On: 3/22/06 at 07:22 AM

[Katurian2]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 8:49am

I think he should do Pal Joey first...but I am not a big one-man show fan so....

[jo]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 9:35am

I was actually thinking of Hugh's own one-man show that he did in Las Vegas ( which he was rumored to be keen to take to Broadway in a Shubert theater)...not STOP THE WORLD.

But it's nice to be wanted

[apdarcey]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 9:37am

pal joey.

with hugh and an amazing vera it will be great.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 9:54am

If these are the two choices, I'd go with Pal Joey if and only if the book is fixed. It has major structural problems.

However he is too old by 10 years for Joey and Stop the World was cutting edge in the early 60s and is now drivel.

Certainly there is a better project out there.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 10:09am

I'm not familiar with either show at all, but from what I've read and briefly know about each, I also agree that Pal Joey would be the better choice.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 1:57pm

Two words: PAL JOEY.

Ok, a third word: PLEASE.

[children&art]

Posted: 3/22/06 at 2:17pm

i'm leaning towards "Pal Joey", although with Hugh in either show it would be great, but i think "Stop the World" is not as commercially viable as the Rodgers & Hart.

"Stop the World" seems more dated and less easily adapted to a modern theatre sensibility than does the older "Pal Joey" - maybe it's the combination of great Rodgers and Hart songs and a good solid character.

[broadwaygal3]

Posted: 3/23/06 at 12:09am

Jo - I completely agree with your suggestion that Hugh do a limited run of Pal Joey and a limited run of the show that
he did in Las Vegas. I don't think he's right for Stop the World, that show is very outdated and the character doesn't
seem suited for him. Of course we know he could do it, but I
would rather hear him sing "What Kind of Fool Am I?" in his
one man show or on a CD, if he ever gets around to doing that.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/23/06 at 12:49am

Stop The World is fun but needs a visionary Director.
I'd go for PAL JOEY with Stockard Channing as Vera.
But not Joe Mantella
Maybe Sam Mendes?

[Plum]

Posted: 3/23/06 at 1:02am

Oh my, what I wouldn't give to see Stockard Channing on stage.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/23/06 at 1:59am

It's just so damn sad. It's come to this.

Hugh Jackman is a genuine Broadway leading man. A star. He can fill a theater like nobody else in the business. He can sing and dance and carry a show. And audiences adore him. There hasn't been a man of his star power doing Broadway since Yul Brynner died. (And don't try to suggest names, you know I mean a superstar. Michael Crawford is amazing but has zilch in the movies, Jackman is a big, big movie star as well.)

So here FINALLY we have a superstar equal to Peters and Landsbury and Merman and he's about to spend one year of his late youth-early, early middle age in... a revival.

I don't care if it's Pal Joey or Stop the World. They are other men's work. That the Shuberts should even be trying to snare him for that piece of fossilized dung is a tragedy; for him to agree to step into Gene Kelly's tap shoes is just, well, sad.

Where is Hugh Jackman's next original musical?

This man should not be doing knockoffs, no matter how good or how re-imagined they are. Especially not revivals of shows he didn't create. Hugh represents the unique chance that no other male star has provided in AGES - to launch a book musical, a musical drama, a vehicle that will itself become a classic for the ages. He brings a vast audience into the theater and after his last show (which was a good start but I don't see "Boy From Oz" becoming a Tams Whitmark classic on the amateur circuit) he's shown he really does know how to carry an entire show on his shoulders.

But that show should be something new. If Hugh Jackman doesn't do fresh material, how can lesser names be expected to carry all the weight

Everyone is currently raving about the new revival of "Company" and the producers of the revival of "Sweeny Todd" and Barry and Fran Weissler are rushing out, contracts in hand, hoping to book it for Broadway.

But why isn't someone trying to do "A new musical, starring Hugh Jackman" instead of yet another photocopy.

I'm sure I'll get flammed by some of Hugh's fams who will say, Oooooo, I can't wait to see Hugh as Joey." Well first, he's a decade too old for the role. Second, he's a great dancer, but is he as phenominal as Gene Kelly was? If not, there goes 40 pages of the score which are solid jazz dance numbers. Third, does Hugh Jackman really want to use up one of his valuable remaining dynamic years playing someone else's role? When he must realize the unique opportunity fate has given him?

He has the time, the place and the talent to create a role that will itself be revived for decades.

Hugh, hold out for original roles. Don't waste this opportunity on a revival.

[Plum]

Posted: 3/23/06 at 2:20am

Easier said than done. This isn't the 50s, when a show could be developed in months- it takes a long, long time for a show to go from workshop to tryouts to whatever, and he just doesn't have that kind of time to give. So what to do? Pounce on a show that's about to transfer (and dump the original leading man in the process)? Stay with a show for years as it's created? It doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like him to launch his own show- I'd love it if that happened. But as things currently stand, I just don't see it happening, unless some team really gets off their collective asses and makes an almost-polished show for him.

[jo]

Posted: 3/23/06 at 4:57am

A new musical would always be more exciting for someone of Hugh's talent and stage presence. But where is that new musical?

He has been announced for a Disney deal for 3 movie musicals. The first project has been identified - via the purchase of the film rights to a whimsical novel by Cecelia Ahern called IF YOU COULD SEE ME NOW. But it will take some time for the musical score to be composed and the book stage adaptation to be written - and we don't know how long that will take. So even there, it may take another year or so for Hugh to start filming his first movie musical. It has been buzzed that even in this 3 movie musical-deal, that Disney wants at least one musical that is a revival of a screen classic.

Hugh was also quoted by Patrick Pacheco as saying that he prefers a new musical for his return to Broadway. At the same time, Patrick surmised that Hugh might have been attracted to the PAL JOEY prospects because of the creative team that is being assembled.

It is probably the same in his movie career - he would of course wish to be in the most artistic film and with great box office potential, but it may be impractical to think that you will always get those two criteria together all the time. I am excited about his forthcoming films THE FOUNTAIN and THE PRESTIGE as the first has so much artistic praise probably awaiting it ( hopefully, that will start in Cannes if the film makes it there...and towards the end of the year when films with Oscar potential are screened) while the second has the potential for both artistic and commercial merit.

It may be a question of waiting in either medium -- but how long does one want to wait? Plus the dilemma of Hugh is that there are many opportunities awaiting him in terms of movie projects. Should he wait around waiting for the next new stage musical and not commit to any film prospects in the meantime ?

Easier said than done, as someone has said it here.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 2:49am

So what? If you are the head of a film studio and you see a guy with talent like Hugh Jackman and a built in audience base, you throw some money at it. You hire a vice-president-in-charge-of-Hugh-Jackman, get some writers cooking and try to build some projects.

Okay, so you're the Chairman or president of The Shubert Organization (or the Nederlanders) you should consider doing the same thing. One big hit floats many boats on Broadway AND provides a steady stream of revenue for years.

You lay off your development expenses by doing deals with the studios. You point out to the studios that if they help defer development of a Hugh Jackman vehicle, they'll get the film rights without having to bid against their fellow studios. The development costs of a Broadway musical equal the $$ Sony used to pay certain exec to maintain their koy ponds, for god's sake.

It makes sense for the studios to spend money letting the experts develop the material. The big theatrical compaines (all three of them) should each have a star deal or two.Getting Hugh Jackman, Michael Crawford, Sutton Foster, Bernadette Peters and one-or-two other stars that are close to sure bets back on Broadway should be an absolute priority.

[jo]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 5:59am

If the Michael Riedel story is correct, it is indeed the Chairman of the SHUBERT ORGANIZATION, Gerald Schoenfeld, who is supposed to be exerting some friendly pressure on Hugh to consider a revival ( STOP THE WORLD...) and not a new musical ( maybe there isn't anything that's interesting for him to consider offering a performer like Hugh at the moment).
Updated On: 3/24/06 at 05:59 AM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 6:12am

Pal Joey by a mile. Do not see him as Littlechap

I have a feeling if & when it happens, it will be used as a justification to jack up tickets prices again. You know it will be more than $ 110. It may be a moot point as not mortgaging the farm to see him or any other show

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 10:57am

Jo, that's exactly what I mean. The guy heads the most powerful theatrical organization in the world and he wants to use his biggest draw to sell used goods. That's a tragedy for Broadway.

[jo]

Posted: 3/24/06 at 7:06pm

Maybe the tragedy is the seeming dearth of new material (with both artistic and commercial merit) that can translate into an exciting night at the theatre.

I think a performer as talented and as charismatic as Hugh can provide us with such an evening, regardless of the material ( a revival or a new work). I was lucky to have seen him in London in OKLAHOMA! in 1999 and that was quite a performance, too. It didn't make a difference that he was taking on a role that has been performed by so many others. He brought on a new dimension to the character of Curly, perhaps one of the most definitive performances of this classic role in American theatre. And if I remember right, he also drew raves for his concert performance of another memorable Rodgers and Hammerstein character, the one of Billy Bigelow in CAROUSEL. I just wish he had the chance to work on such a classic in a full-fledged revival instead of a concert version.

I do understand what you are saying about maybe the lack of support for new material in the theatre -- and no doubt that Hugh would probably prefer to introduce a new role in the theatre -- but where are the composers?



Updated On: 3/24/06 at 07:06 PM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 2:56am

Jo, I do so agree with your last comment EXCEPT that for Broadway to continue, we MUST increase the ratio of new shows to revivals. I also saw Hugh Jackman in Oklahoma and was very impressed. But even then, I remember lamenting the waste of his valuable youth doing retreads. Certainly he gave me a good night in the theatre, but Alfred Drake gives me a good night in the same role when I listen to the OCR and Gordon McCrea gives a creditable performance in the film. I'd like to see Hugh create a role as unforgettable on the stage as Wolverine is on screen (and I know that's based on a comic book so is, in effect an adaptation but atleast it was not a remake or a sequel - okay he is doing the sequels but they give him the $$$$$ to go off and do Broadway.) I realize "The Boy From Oz" was risky but it was a huge success critically for Hugh and he should spend that good will creating a new character, not doing one Gene Kelly already explored, from what I understand, magnificantly.

I also agree about the dearth of writers and composers but there are thousands out there. The must be seduced into doing Broadway and I blame the producers there. When so many revivals are on Broadway, (and currently there are quite a few - 5 out of 25 shows are revivals and another 8 are based on movies, that makes 50% of the shows on Broadway) producers see them as the easy way to $$$$: no battles with composers, no long and expensive gestation periods. They start to get a little lazy. I think that it's time to launch a concerted effort to get fresh blood into the theatre before all we have left is plasma, which can be recycled only so far....

[jo]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 3:33am

>>EXCEPT that for Broadway to continue, we MUST increase the ratio of new shows to revivals. <<

Absolutely!

>>I also agree about the dearth of writers and composers but there are thousands out there. The must be seduced into doing Broadway and I blame the producers there. When so many revivals are on Broadway, (and currently there are quite a few - 5 out of 25 shows are revivals and another 8 are based on movies, that makes 50% of the shows on Broadway) producers see them as the easy way to $$$$: no battles with composers, no long and expensive gestation periods. They start to get a little lazy. I think that it's time to launch a concerted effort to get fresh blood into the theatre before all we have left is plasma, which can be recycled only so far.... <<

Very astute insight!


Maybe Hugh and his SEED Productions can do the same thing that they are now doing for movie musicals ( a 3-picture deal with DISNEY for movie musicals, where his company is working together with the producers in developing new musicals ) for stage musicals. He can team up with some theatre producers in supporting the development of new musicals ( with him in the potential lead).

I am a happy Hugh fan this year because of the new movies he has on deck ( I am particularly enthused about the Darren Aronofsky movie THE FOUNTAIN and the Christopher Nolan movie THE PRESTIGE) and the new film projects that his name has been linked to. It is going to be difficult to simply segue into the theatre ( if the right material comes along) when there are commitments for excellent film projects that are waiting.

Now, that is the real dilemma for the talented Mr. Jackman


Jo

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/25/06 at 9:14pm

Jo, for the first time in a few decades a man has come along and become a Broadway star with the power to open a show in the fashion of Len Cariou or John Raitt or Jerry Orbach (in his prime). There have been women who have achieved this goal, but, as far as I can see, only one man.

This makes Hugh Jackman totally unique and the one thing that works in Broadway's favor is that Hugh is savvy enough to realize this and, since he managed to shephard through "Boy From Oz" perhaps strong-willed enough to stand up to his agents who are pushing him into what we in the film business call "payday productions ("Okay Hugh, you've done a few art films, now it's time for you to do a film where your agents get a good payday.") I've seen this happen so many times, usually sadly. Scarlett Johansson does a number of good, small films and then someone "talks" her into doing a "dangly action" film like "The Island" for a big paycheck. And it flops.

Hugh has already made his "for a big check" film (Van Helsing) which was, BTW a bomb. Perhaps he can now resist this type of decision and take up the mantle that is his destiny. I really pray he does because composers will come out of the woodwork to "do a Hugh" if he shows he's willing to commit and that will help alleviate some of the dearth of material problems we have been discussing.

Broadway cannot survive on just revivals, gimmick revivals, puppet musicals and macabre melodramas and rock operas. It MUST have a steady stream of robust male star driven hit shows to balance the female star driven shows that have managed to continue apace.

Look at the vast numbers of "straight-guys-who've-never-been-to-a-musical" who have poured in to see Spamalot. That's an audience that has been missing for decades and could be at least tangentally cultivated if guys like Hugh Jackman were on the boards more often.

And BTW, Spamalot's success was achieved by Tim Curry, Hank Azaria and David Hyde Pierce. Imagine what would happen with Wolverine in a "manly" role.... (that last comment only works in Michael Palin's voice by the way).