Any hope for the Woman in White? — Page 2

I agree that most US Theatre-goers don't really know Maria or Michael well enough for their absence to have truly killed the show (although both of them were extremely well-reviewed, even by the critics who didn't care for the show). Having said that however, they could have been huge marketing assets. Maria always gives an intelligent, thoughtful interview, and Michael is an extremely popular talk show guest in the UK...funny, intelligent and frequently a bit irreverent. And they are both great live performers with catalogues of music that extend beyond musical theatre. They would have piqued people's interest in WIW given the opportunity to appear or perform on any of the shows mentioned in ThankstoPhantom's post.

Carolyn, I didn't mean to imply that ALW controlled the marketing, or that he was directly responsible for the closing of the show. But his name is the most widely recognized of any of the Producers and he had ample opportunity to help promote WIW at no cost during all of the POTO press. He chose not to and that did not help the cause. As for Maria's sister, she may have been the Lead producer but I don't believe she controlled the purse strings here. The show needed little marketing or promotion in the UK. Maria is one of the darlings of British Theatre, and the show was touted as a West End "comeback" vehicle for the hugely popular Michael Crawford. And ALW's name still carries much weight there. The advance bookings were very strong. None of that was the case here. The show needed strong promotion and it needed a concerted marketing effort. None of that happened. To anyone on the outside it appeared as though the Producers gave up on the show before it even opened. There was only one ad run in the NY Times prior to the opening...compare that with the media dousing that preceded the opening of Drowsy (which shares the same lead Producer). There may have been other problems and issues, but with some marketing effort the show could of and should have made it through it's original June booking period.

---

Updated On: 12/12/06 at 08:27 AM

I liked the logo too. And Lori you are right, Maria and Michael were not used to their full potential as marketing tools. Jim, you are correct too it seems, if ALW isn't in full control he does seem to pull back. At least that is the impression whether true or not. I think of this past weekend at Kennedy Center where he could have used Elaine Paige, Maria, or either one of the two Michaels. They used Sarah because she has the name, Betty Buckley, and his new diva Elena Rogers. But maybe it wasn't his decision. I think back to his birthday gig and the duet with Sarah and Michael. It was beautiful and not often repeated in the stage show with such passion. But I do know one thing if this show goes on tour in this country I will see it if I can. I really loved it.

"I agree that most US Theatre-goers don't really know Maria or Michael well enough for their absence to have truly killed the show (although both of them were extremely well-reviewed, even by the critics who didn't care for the show). Having said that however, they could have been huge marketing assets. Maria always gives an intelligent, thoughtful interview, and Michael is an extremely popular talk show guest in the UK...funny, intelligent and frequently a bit irreverent. And they are both great live performers with catalogues of music that extend beyond musical theatre. They would have piqued people's interest in WIW given the opportunity to appear or perform on any of the shows mentioned in ThankstoPhantom's post."

It should be pointed out that Michael B. did have one or two written press interviews, but none of those, as far as I can recall, appeared in any of the three NYC papers. If I remember correctly, they were found in papers outside the tri-state area. But for the rest, I agree with everything that Lori has said. There were many opportunities for promotion that were lost, the most significant one being, I think, ALW's non-mention of the show in January when he was doing public appearances in relation to the Phantom milestone.

Sharon, where did you hear they used Elena Roger in the Kennedy Center Honors performance?

I don't think it was a bad show at all. I liked that they did something different with the sets- theater is often about that kind of experimentation. As for the show as a whole, it kept me entertained for a few hours, which is really what I went in looking for- I don't go see ALW productions to be presented with an intelectually provocative work of art, I go to be entertained for a little bit. And it had a few things going for it. It was based on one of my favorite novels, it had two great leads and some semi-catchy tunes that are in your head like it or not! It wasn't among his best work or even his most entertaining but it was enjoyable for what it was.

I think the biggest problem is that most people didn't know what it was. The Phantom of the Opera, Sunset Bvld, Jesus Christ Superstar, Joseph, all had very culturally familiar source material due to a basis in an extremely familiar story or a popular film or films. The Woman in White is a Victorian novel- a wonderful one- but not a known quantity in the same way that JCS or POTO is. The promtional campgain did nothing to illuminate what the show was "about". Audiences, for the most part won't spend over $100 unless they have some clue what they're getting for it. Add to that the fact that the show had two big name stars who weren't utilized in terms of publicity and then suffered health problems shortly after opening. By that point I think the show had a repuation for problems and people started to stay away. I don't think it was really the fault of the material itself- more a combination of unfortunate circumstances

Sets had nothing to do with it.

The show was just plain awful.

---

Even though I am a huge fan of ALW's work, The Woman in White is not my favorite. Except for some songs (like, 'All for Laura', for example), I think the score is much below ALW's standard. As a whole, the show did not work for me. I think 'Whistle down the wind' and even the short-lived 'The Beautiful game' was better in this respect. I hope ALW's next project, 'The master and Margarita' will bring him back on track, especially since there are rumors he is talking with Tim Rice about doing it together.

If we're discussing whether it was a good show or not, I admit the score is much less likable than some of Andrew Lloyd Webber's other musicals. Although most musicals are chastised for this, "Woman in White" is one musical that could have done well with a "staple song" like "Don't Cry For Me..." and "The Phantom of the Opera". I adore the book, and although I never got to see the musical (had tickets for the wednesday after it closed), I love the atmosphere of the cd. Overall, the score is underwhelming, but the story is brilliant even if it is a
skeleton of what Wilkie Collins' book was.


Although I'd love it if the show were to tour the U.S., I can't see it happening at all. Could it perhaps be released for regional rights soon?

Updated On: 12/12/06 at 05:05 PM

This brings me back to all the postmortems we indulged in after the show closed prematurely ( or was it just a filler show before A DROWSY CHAPERONE arrived ?).

I had seen the show in London when Michael Ball filled in for Michael Crawford. I saw it on Broadway again in late November and early December. The show was very good and should have attracted a good size of the Broadway audiences, as it represented a very different type of show, compared to those which opened during that time. It could have even been a serious TONY contender had it not closed prematurely.

Maria and Michael had received excellent reviews both from critics and even posters from this board and ATC. Some had even speculated that Maria and Michael were surefire nominees for their roles. True, their health had gotten in the way of the show's run, but in Michael's case, it came after a few months's run ( by that time, most people were starting to write off the show).

I think the sets were not the reason for its closure either. They were very efficient in moving the story along and was a very good experiment on how to tell a tale, even if it was a complicated Victorian novel ( including its period setting).

The musical score had moved a lot of people - even if they only had a London cast recording to fall back to, if they wanted to recall how it sounded on the Broadway stage. Where was the Broadway cast recording ????


So, what went wrong --

You are all correct -- it is the very measly amount of publicity that accompanied the show. If nobody heard what it was all about, why would people come and see it? And did anyone of the movers and shakers care?

One thing though, even if Andrew Lloyd Webber had not been the lead producer and could not control that marketing aspect of the show, it carried his name! He went to New York to promote the anniversary of Phantom but he failed to capitalize on the fact that he could get good press for THE WOMAN IN WHITE if he wanted to. He could have helped the show a lot! Maybe he could have appeared on some of the talk shows, together with Michael and Maria ( who could have astounded TV audiences with even a brief outing of their fabulous voices), and that would have aroused great interest.

I am resigned to the notion that maybe they never intended the show to be on Broadway for a long time

In the end, I was feeling that neither the producers nor the creators cared how the show fared...and it was only left to the fans of the show to keep hanging on!

Jo
As usual you are spot on. I had never thought of the notion of a filler before Drowsy before, though. But now that you mention it WIW was supposed to go into Chicago first and not open on Broadway until later in 2006.

Maybe we should all get into the biz. Become producers and agents, and marketers. Then we "can right this wrong". Sorry couldn't resist again.

I wonder how things would have turned out if the show had done it's Chicago pre-town try out as it was supposed to. Then Drowsy would have taken the Marquis right away, and Woman in White would have to take a different, and probably smaller, theatre. It might still be running today in that case. Hmm..

BTW, does anyone know why it skipped Chicago? It was supposed to re-open the LaSalle Bank Theatre, which would have been great publicity for it. Stupid producers again?

Updated On: 12/13/06 at 04:30 PM