Any hope for the Woman in White?

[ElFantasma14]

Posted: 12/10/06 at 9:17pm

Ok, so I was reading an article (which I'll paste below this) about the Woman in White from last fall, and quite frankly it's all about how high the hopes were for this show. There were plans to advertise it so much more than it actually was advertised, and to market it as a romantic mystery. The author was hoping that it would turn Andrew Lloyd Webber's luck around. It just got me thinking, was there anyway The Woman in White could have been saved? Although I do admit it had its share of faults in the annoying as hell lyrics and rather boring, although relevant to the story, book; it's really just as good an effort as Phantom or Sunset Boulevard. So if anyone has any opinions on if it could have been another ALW hit and draw in the tourists, or if it was doomed from the start, please post them here. Also, has anyone any info on the U.K. tour that was supposed to start this winter, or even the U.S. tour which they announced when it closed in February.






Article from last year's Variety:
"One the Queen of England awards you an honorary peerage, you're a lord for life. On Broadway, though, your royalty status is always in flux.

That's even true for Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber, the composer of long-running juggernauts "Cats" and "The Phantom of the Opera."

The former king of Broadway is back with "The Woman in White," the new tuner that opened at the Marquis on Nov. 17 with solid early B.O. tallies and some positive reviews. But it comes after a fallow period of several years that has seen a decline in his hit-maker rep.

In 2004, Broadway saw the Lloyd Webber-produced "Bombay Dreams." His stamp of approval didn't prevent the Hollywood-inspired tuner, with music by A.R. Rahman, from underperforming at the B.O. and closing in eight months.

As a composer, he most recently visited Gotham with "By Jeeves," which lasted just two months in late 2001. A revival of "Jesus Christ Superstar" fizzled in 2000.

A couple of Lloyd Webber's more recent works, "Whistle Down the Wind" and "The Beautiful Game," played in London but never made it across the Pond at all.

It may be premature to say "The Woman in White" marks the beginning of a turnaround, but it's shaping up to be his biggest performer on Broadway in a decade. Lloyd Webber may no longer be the prince of Broadway, but he's not exactly the pauper either.

The production roared out d of the gate in its first weeks of previews, with up to 96% of capacity proving the Lloyd Webber brand can still draw crowds. Group sales are also going strong.

The first post-opening weekend took in about $500,000 in sales, bringing the advance for the $8.5 million tuner to $6.1 million.

That's nowhere near the "Sunset Boulevard" advance, which, with Glenn Close in the lead role, reached a mind-blowing $37.5 million when the show bowed in New York in 1994. Still, producers have reason to be optimistic.

The mixed bag of reviews that hit newsstands Nov. 18 included some tepid notices, but also two out-and-out raves, one from the New York Post and one from the Daily News.

Producers weren't expecting raves of any sort. "We didn't get raves in London," notes Sonia Friedman, producer of the show both on Broadway and in the West End, where "Woman" has done decent biz since it opened last fall.

Even the critics who don't particularly like Lloyd Webber or the power ballads for which he's known admitted that "Woman in white" is one of the composer's most complicated, ambitious scores.

"These are, according to Andrew, the best reviews he's ever gotten on Broadway," Friedman notes.

The show also tells the kind of tale that most Broadway tuners don't go after these days. Based on the 1860 Wilkie Collins novel, the twisty story of "Woman in White" includes a mist-shrouded English mansion, two sisters in love with the same man, a darkly violent nobleman and, of course, a damaged woman with a secret.

"We haven't had a big, sweeping, Gothic romance mystery in a while," says producer Bob Boyett. Not since "Jane Eyre," which opened in 2000 and never caught on, playing 209 performances.

It doesn't hurt that, after the bright music-hall comedy of "By Jeeves," "Woman in White's" Victorian potboiler storyline seems like a return to the period and the style of the phenomenally successful "Phantom."

There's also an enormous amount of goodwill in the industry for the production's star, Maria Friedman. The actress, who is Sonia's sister, was diagnosed with breast cancer two weeks before opening.

"This unbelievable machine, the Broadway community, took over and took care of her," Sonia says.

Maria quickly had surgery to remove a malignant lump and was back onstage a few days later. She performed her role on opening night as planned and earned the kind of reviews, even from the show's naysayers, that can only be described as a personal triumph.

Her story made news. In the week before opening, Maria appeared on "Today," "Good Morning America" and "NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams." On Nov. 12, the New York Times ran a front page story about her.

Lloyd Webber himself has begun to retake the spotlight as well.

"Phantom," which opened in 1988, has seen a bump in sales since the release of the movie version, and will grab more attention when it becomes the longest-running show in Broadway history Jan. 9.

The composer also recently retrenched his presence in the theater world as a businessman. Earlier this month, he announced he would buy out the equity group Bridgepoint for complete control of his company, Really Useful Theaters.

The move makes him sole owner of eight West End theaters--and comes after months of speculation that Lloyd Webber would sell his half of RUT, rather than buy the other half back.

For "Woman in White," what remains is to parlay the high media profile, the reviews and the Lloyd Webber brand into strong sales.

"We've got to get the music out there, position it as a big romantic musical," Sonia says. Direct-mail CD samplers are being sent out to complement advertising on radio and TV.

Boyett expects tourists, both domestic and international, will be drawn in by the Lloyd Webber name--exactly the aud that's kept "Phantom" afloat for nearly 18 years. If that prediction plays out, box office could see a significant bump over the Christmas break.

It's early yet, but for Sonia Friedman and Boyett, it's so far, so good. "We're very pleased," Friedman says. "It's all positive." "

[Eastwickian]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 9:01am

According to a poster on the West End board, the proposed UK tour has been cancelled. RUG have a habit of announcing tours that then never happen...

[chernjam]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 9:28am

cancelling their tours is their easier way of closing the show. They announced a UK and a US tour in 2007 right at the closings of both. Not shocked they never materialized.

Could it have been saved? I think it could have. But unfortunately, between Michael Ball being out sick for a majority of the run and Friedman fighting breast cancer... the two main stars weren't around to promote. the two of them would have been great on so many shows (Regis and Kelly, The View - etc)

That, with the really abysmal advertising campaign really made it a rough go.

If they could have held their heads above water till the Tonys - with a real lack of competition from the 2006 winners, I think Woman in White could have scored a bunch of noms and won a bunch as well. I'm not saying it would have been the next Phantom (or even Sunset) but it could have a much better, lengthier run...

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 10:18am

Chernjam
You know how much I loved this show. Saw it eight times. With Ball and Friedman and with their respective understudies, who were both very good. Frankly though, I think what was proposed in the way of advertising and promotion just never materialized. Too bad really. Especially when I see what lasts a tad longer on Broadway. Of course that is only my opinion. Funny thing though Michael Ball was in New York about two weeks ago talking with the producers of Drowsy Chaperone. What do you suppose that means??? Not rumor, fact. From his own lips.

[Lori]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 11:20am

The lack of publicity surrounding the show was not due to Maria's or Michael's absences. Michael didn't leave the show the first time until the beginning of January. He made almost every performance in October, November and December (he actually missed a couple of shows the last week of December). In addition he was in NYC all of August and September working with the NYC Opera. Since the publicity machine should have been ramping up prior to the show's opening and during the beginning of the run (pre-holiday season), he was certainly available to do publicity. Maria was available for the majority of October and on and off in November and December as well. Those types of decisions were made by the Producers. Although Michael and Maria's absences certainly did not help the situation, the appalling lack of promotion was, IMO, as much to blame for the show's early demise. ALW never once mentioned WIW when doing Press for POTO's take over as the longest running show on BW. In fact, in one interview when he was talking about the lack of original new Theatre Productions he actually referred by name to "The Beautiful Game" as "the show before my current show". He couldn't have been more pointed in his desire not to promote WIW. Very sad.

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 12:20pm

Lori
I have to agree with your statement about ALW. When you have performers of the caliber of Maria Friedman and Michael Ball doing their best under adverse conditions, you would think the creator would do his part. All the performers in WIW were oustanding and their situation less than ideal.

[chernjam]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 12:45pm

We also have to remember that ALW and RUG weren't the sole or the lead producers of WIW in NY(someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that... I remember there being a whole group of producers and even the decision to close in NY wasn't made by ALW)

Perhaps ALW was in one of his ticked off moods about the way it was being produced? wouldnt be the first time

A real shame since it was a beautiful show - --
Jim

PS - Sharon1 - great to see you online! It's been way too long!

[chernjam]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 12:45pm

We also have to remember that ALW and RUG weren't the sole or the lead producers of WIW in NY(someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that... I remember there being a whole group of producers and even the decision to close in NY wasn't made by ALW)

Perhaps ALW was in one of his ticked off moods about the way it was being produced? wouldnt be the first time

A real shame since it was a beautiful show - --
Jim

PS - Sharon1 - great to see you online! It's been way too long!

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 1:02pm

JiM
I vaguely remember ALW stating that he wasn't keen on the movable stage for the show and would have preferred a standard staging for his musical. I just think he could have supported his two stars a little more. And you are right Boyette and his group were the major producers of the show here. That is why I find it interesting that Michael Ball was in meetings with them a couple of weeks back. Since they are also producing the show DC that replaced WIW at the Marquis. Just thinking out loud really

[Lori]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 1:34pm

Jim, you're right that Boyette's group were the primary producers, but ALW was the creative and his name and face are the ones that Joe Public would recognize. He also had the opportunity to plug the show while doing press for POTO (and it wouldn't impact the budget for WIW at all). The fact that he actually went out of his way to avoid talking about WIW is, I think, of note.

Sharon, I agree that it's interesting that Michael was talking with Boyette. But Boyette, to his credit, was very diplomatic in his statements about the WIW closing and any impact his stars' abscences may have had. He's no fool, if he's looking to transfer Drowsy successfully to the West End it couldn't hurt to consider a sure-fire box office draw like Mr. Ball. From what I understand though, they are looking to open the show in late spring. With a tour in March/April and Kismet for three weeks in July it would seem to rule out Michael's participation. But who knows...I'm just glad he was back in NYC talking to U.S. Producers period.

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 2:03pm

Lori
I know that with the tour and then with Kismet Michael being part of the London production of DC may be a long shot, but how about over here????? Just a thought????

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 2:05pm

Hope for what?

The show to be re-written or the show to tour?

[Lori]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 2:32pm

Munk...I think Sharon was referring to Drowsy with her last comment (not WIW).

Sharon, my thought was that they would consider him for the London Production. Take over roles have never been his thing (Fosco in London being the obvious exception). And I don't see him coming back here for another lengthy stay (at least not in the near future...although I really want to be wrong about that!)

[ElFantasma14]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 3:06pm

Any hope as in, does it have any sort of future? Considering all the things the producers had planned for the production, it seems like they did very little to save it. And it startles me to think that ALW wouldn't give all his love and support to this production.

[CarolynW]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 3:26pm

ALW did not have any say in the show closing in the UK or the US. He was not the primary producer or the one to make those decisions. Usually the people with the money make those decisions more than the producer.

When talking about Maria remember her sister's company was one of the main producers in both UK and US. So if anyone should have done publicity it should have been the sister's production company I would think.

ALW had creative say, but not that the show was closing or touring. Those were made by another as in all the press releases implied.

Live Nation would be the ones doing the tour in the UK, as I mentioned on the website. Troika would do a US tour, I would imagine. The only thing RUG stated is that the show was not touring in 2007. There apparently was a planned one for the UK, but it was cancelled. No word on when they might start it up or if they are. Live Nation is doing two other ALW productions that are doing well. I figure they decided not to take a chance on a show that is not know by the majority.

Lack of advertising goes to whomever was in charge of marketing the show. I have no idea who that was.

You never know it could go back to London's West End sometime. I doubt it will open on Broadway again. My thoughts nothing official.:)


Yours,

Carolyn

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 3:28pm

Well, considering the show received mostly negative reviews in New York and closed at a complete loss, I can't imagine the producers would find it profitable to tour it.

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 6:56pm

If it does tour it would be great. I invision it as a concert piece. Like they have done several of the shows. The music is beautiful.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 8:45pm

Looking in my Playbill from the show, the marketing was controlled by HHC Marketing/Hugh Hysell, Matt Scioli.

This group has also, according to IBDB, marketed Jersey Boys, The History Boys, The Lt. of Inishmore, among many others (http://www.ibdb.com/person.asp?ID=116852)

The marketing was some of the worst marketing I had ever seen. I think the show really could have appealed to an audience had they marketed it. They did not. The most you saw was an interview with Maria Friedman on NBC Nightly News and Breakfast with the Arts...

That was IT...

NO Today Show.
NO Early Show.
NO Regis and Kelly.
NO Broadway on Broadway.
NO Parade.

Oh...and a magazine ad or two.

If the powers that be had really been passionate about it, they would've marketed like crazy, and it really could've been a hit. For some reason I still think it could have been a big hit, running for about 3 or so years.

[All_For_Laura]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 8:55pm

This treasure could have lasted MUCH longer if the advertizing was better. Its the simple truth.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 9:13pm

That's what frustrates me...it was the ADVERTISING. Word of Mouth really wasn't that bad, it was just really small...Joe Schmoe couldn't figure out what it was about.

For the record: looking back, posters on here were as mixed as they are for any other show.

[CarolynW]

Posted: 12/11/06 at 10:20pm

Someone mentioned concert version. Troika is planning a concert tour called "New Ways to Dream" (think that is the name). It is listed in their shows that are coming. It would be all ALW shows. So they may be planning on including some of WIW in that for the US, this could also be one they are planning for the UK. Just thought I would mention that.:)

Yours,

Carolyn

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 2:12am

The dreadful 3-d project sets killed the show....It would have been much better with real sets instead of the projections.

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 5:15am

I liked the projections and scenery. But that is just me. I do have to say though that in all the performances I saw they had difficulties with it twice and had to interrupt the show to repair it. And once Maria stopped the show because someone got ill upstairs. So it really was kind of cursed. I have any heard Michael Ball refer to "the curse of the fat suit" about the costume he and Michael Crawford had to wear.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 6:31am

Yeeek, Boyett was involved? That explains it all then

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 6:40am

I remember the awful marketing too...the logo they had was horrendous. No one knew what the show was about, really. They didn't market or promote the elements of the show that would have appealed to people (the romantic mystery element of it).

I don't think the health problems of either Freidman or Ball had anything to do with it. Most U.S. theatre-goers have no idea who they are, and were probably just as content to see Lisa Brescia or Daniel Marcus in the respective roles.