Any hope for the Woman in White?- Page 2

[All_For_Laura]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 6:52am

I don't think the zoetrope sets were the issue. Because either people didn't know about them or people had heard interesting things about them.

[Lori]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 8:27am

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

[chernjam]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 9:14am

Lori - exactly...

As much as I love ALW's music, when he's not totally in control of stuff - he does pull back on stuff.

For me - I enjoyed the sets. Thought it was a neat and innovative thing to try. My feeling was that if it wasn't ALW's name on the show, the theatre public would be calling it groundbreaking and genius.

Maria and Michael would have been great marketing tools. But like someone mentioned - No broadway on broadway - no today show - etc.... the fact that it garnered a $6 million advance before it opened was all on ALW's name.

The full broadway cast was excellent too. Still ticked that RUG didn't re-record the show with the changes to the score and all and the new leads. Or at least video shoot it so people could see the sets and all...(dont want to start this up again!)

Jim

PS - I liked the Logo...

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 9:39am

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.

[Lori]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 10:30am

Jim and Sharon...obviously we should have been in charge of the marketing for WIW lol!

I enjoyed the sets as well, they were innovative and allowed the story to move very quickly across a number of different scenes. I don't know how they would have pulled it off with traditional set changes. And with all due respect to the London Cast (which I saw as well), the BW Cast was stronger. The depth of talent in the ensemble was what got them through the cast illnesses. I also think it's a great shame that we didn't get a BW Cast Recording (or even a BW Cast Programme!)

[kec]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 10:31am

"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?

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 10:55am

Kec
I either got it in an email from the Kennedy Center or a review I read last week. Online. But those were the names they mentioned. Maybe it was on ALW's website. But I do know that they referred to Elena as making her US debut, and the new star of Evita in the West End. Yes I do believe we should have been in charge of marketing. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! I mean the first rule of marketing is to know your product. Obviously those in charge of WIW did not know the subject at all. Or chose not to. Whichever they dropped the ball. Oh my that is punny. Sorry. Just went and looked on the ALW website. That is where I got one of the reports. And sorry I forgot to mention Christine Ebersole.
Updated On: 12/12/06 at 10:55 AM

[lostgirl]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 11:32am

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

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 12:09pm

A liminy snickets kind of thing. I could not help myself with that one. A series of unfortunate events that is for sure. But I do wish the entire cast well and I am so glad that they have all successfully moved on.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 1:33pm

Sets had nothing to do with it.

The show was just plain awful.

[CarolynW]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 1:53pm

"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."

No problem Lori. I was only trying to clarify what people do not understand when there are multiple producers. In the US Maria's sister did not control the pruse strings. In fact that is usually done by the investors (backers) from all that I have learned over the years.

Usually ALW insist on being considred a producer to control the artistic portion of the shows. If he is not the lead producer he cannot do anything about promotion. With PHANTOM Cameron Mackintosh is the general manager of the productions in the UK, US and the US Tour. Andrew could not have used any of that promotion for his show. Over the years I have learned a lot about being a producer as I was going to produce a show in Las Vegas once until the rights owners changed their minds.

Anyway, the show closed and to me that is the end of the story. It is now in Live Nation (one of the original producers of the show and I think they were an investor in WIW also) pocket to I believe to make any decisions on if it tours anywheer. This is my opinion I do not have any facts. I just know that RUG is not working on anything to do with WIW at this time, per their comments to me and other fans in emails.


Yours,

Carolyn

[musical_devotee]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 3:33pm

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.

[All_For_Laura]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 4:46pm

IMO, WIW is a brilliant piece of art. Clearly, it doesn't satisfy a large group of people. I think that all in all, it only would attract its small fan base and it couldn't run forever, but it definitely deserved a longer shelf life.

[ElFantasma14]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 5:05pm

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

[chernjam]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 9:27pm

To each their own they say -

For me, it was one of ALW's most beautiful scores. Very haunting - lots of melodic motifs (similar to Aspects) rather than full blown songs. I believe my heart the "big"song really wasn't one of my favorites.

Another point in terms of the marketing. I had suggested to RUG that they get Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson to redcord it pre-opening and release it. Could have been a huge hit record here and help with promotions like it did in the UK

[jo]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 10:04pm

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!

[Fabrizio2]

Posted: 12/12/06 at 10:57pm

I was a big fan of this show, mainly because of my love for the novel. But I have to agree with everyone this show lacked the publicity it needed (the reviews didn't help). It could have had a good two year run with correct advertising.

It's not Sondheim but its also not Elton John.

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/13/06 at 8:49am

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.

[Lori]

Posted: 12/13/06 at 9:36am

Good summary Jo. And you know I agree with your assessment :)

Sharon, actually, the notion that the show was just a filler is one I've heard expressed by several people. I think it's a well supported one when you consider the lack of promotion; the total disinterest in producing Programmes or a BW Cast Recording; the fact that all the merchandise offered for sale featured the London Cast (even the calendars). The BW cast were not even asked to take new head shots for the Playbill. It seems quite obvious that the Producers did not want to waste the money. And they had Drowsy in the wings just waiting for a theatre to open up after it's West Coast trial run.

It's a shame, because the reviews in London were very similar to NYC...a mixed bag. Some loved the show and others just didn't get it. Yet it ran for over a year with several cast changes. They lost their much touted male lead three months into the run and survived the transition. There was a lot of enthusiasm voiced on the Boards about Judy Kuhn's impending fill-in for Maria. That also might have given the show a shot in the arm for American audiences and gotten them through the winter as well. I think Jo is right, the Producers just didn't care if the show made it or not. They had their money running on Drowsy.

[sharon1]

Posted: 12/13/06 at 10:03am

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.

[chernjam]

Posted: 12/13/06 at 4:00pm

I was very disappointed never to have the opportunity to see Judy Kuhn in the fill in role.

While I agree with everyone the marketing/publicity was abysmal for the show - I'm not in the conspiracy camp that they did it so that they could hold the Marquis for Drowsy. It was surprising how quick the show had closed and in days Drowsy was there - but if that were the case, I would think that they could have had a limited run/engagement announced from the beginning (with a US tour or something). Which would have made sense since Michael Ball was only contracted for 6 months.

And think back everyone - the reviews for ALW were some of his better ones in the US - the NY Post and NY Daily News had raves for it - which was pretty rare.

Considering how tony voters practically begrudgingly gave the Tony to Drowsy - I think WIW could have had a sweep if it had held on...

[ElFantasma14]

Posted: 12/13/06 at 4:30pm

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

[chernjam]

Posted: 12/13/06 at 5:03pm

Another excellent point/question. It was suppose to open in Fall 05 in Chicago and then in NY in Jan/Feb. Considering the first 3 months of NY were practically sold out pre-opening, WIW would have been sold out thru Tony Noms. Chicago probably would have had a highly successful run.

What I heard was that to do a transfer like this is very expensive...