BOB FOSSE'S DANCIN' at the Music Box Beginning March 2 — Page 2

ACL2006 said: "QueenAlice said: "I'm sure this has been asked / answered elsewhere, but why didn't they just recreate Bob Fosse's production?"

I wonder if Nicole Fosse signed off on this getting recreated? Not sure if she did when Cilento didn't use the Fosse choreo for the Applegate-lead Sweet Charity."

Considering that the link to the Old Globe production listed above, from just last night, clearly credits the full billing as “Original Broadway production created, directed, and choreographed by Bob Fosse, Choreography by Bob Fosse, Direction by Wayne Cilento, Produced in cooperation with Nicole Fosse” … either people are too lazy to look it up or have very verrry short memories, but regardless I’m flabbergasted that people think it has nothing to do with Bob Fosse’s original choreography or, even less believably, that Nicole Fosse might not have even authorized or “signed off” on this production.

Updated On: 11/8/22 at 11:50 AM

Is this definitely happening? Interesting because I saw prima Facie is making an announcement on Monday….also doubt this would do well without a name…maybe Derek Hough?

Kimbo said: "Considering that the link to the Old Globe production listed above, from just last night, clearly credits the full billing as “Original Broadway production created, directed, and choreographed byBob Fosse,Choreography byBob Fosse,Direction byWayne Cilento,Produced in cooperation withNicole Fosse” …either people are too lazy to look it up or have very verrry short memories, but regardless I’m flabbergasted that people think it has nothing to do with Bob Fosse’s original choreography or, even less believably, that Nicole Fosse might not have even authorized or “signed off” on this production."

What does that have to do with anything? Lots of revivals give credit to the original creators. It doesn't mean they're recreating their work.

And the question was whether Nicole Fosse signed off on recreating the original choreography. All that "produced in cooperation with Nicole Fosse" means is that she, the rights holder, is allowing a revival to happen, not that she's allowing a recreation of the original.

Broadway61004 said: "Kimbo said: "Considering that the link to the Old Globe production listed above, from just last night, clearly credits the full billing as “Original Broadway production created, directed, and choreographed byBob Fosse,Choreography byBob Fosse,Direction byWayne Cilento,Produced in cooperation withNicole Fosse” …either people are too lazy to look it up or have very verrry short memories, but regardless I’m flabbergasted that people think it has nothing to do with Bob Fosse’s original choreography or, even less believably, that Nicole Fosse might not have even authorized or “signed off” on this production."

What does that have to do with anything? Lots of revivals give credit to the original creators. It doesn't mean they're recreating their work.

And the question was whether Nicole Fosse signed off on recreating the original choreography. All that "produced in cooperation with Nicole Fosse" means is that she, the rights holder, is allowing a revival to happen, not that she's allowing a recreation of the original."

Actually, those weren’t the questions. There were two different posts (yours not among them, I don’t think) – one asking why they didn’t recreate any of Fosse’s original staging (that in response to a comment that insisted the choreography of “this revival of Dancin’ has ZERO semblance to Bob Fosse’s original”. ) – and another comment responding to THAT one saying “I wonder if Nicole Fosse didn’t sign off on this getting recreated” - as if it were somehow a bootleg, unauthorized production done not just without her involvement but against her desires, like the Hamilton down at that Christian church. So I think my answer has, well, “a lot” to do with “everything”, since I was directly answering the people who’d posted those things… not whether, in general, “lots of revivals” revivals happen without the original staging. (You make it sound like this is like an amateur staging of Fiddler or West Side, for crying out loud, where productions in high school gyms are contractually obligated to give credit to Jerome Robbins’ original staging whether they use a single step of his or not.) Today’s New York Times article, with the sub-heading “The show, originally created by Bob Fosse in the late 1970s, has been reimagined with the blessing of his daughter”, also makes clear it’s being directed and having the Fosse choreography reproduced by TWO different members of the original company.


Context is everything. That’s one thing they still teach in reading comprehension classes. But as the kids say, ‘you do you’. Listen, if the Broadway community is lining up against this production, as is already seemingly the case, it isn't gonna matter what the staging OR the billing is, because it’s clearly not going to do well. Hopefully that isn’t the case, and that while the show arriving in the spring may well be something of a pale facsimile for those who remember the original, it’ll also have improved since San Diego to make it well worth seeing for those of us who weren’t around to see it 45 years ago. I like to believe in and hope for the best rather than trashing things 5 or 6 months before they open.

Updated On: 11/10/22 at 08:51 AM

A few factual things:

Rightsholders have the right to approve certain creative choices, overall productions, creative teams, and new material. Nicole Fosse no doubt saw it at the Old Globe + archival video, and has been a partner to this team for years before. This production does not come to Broadway without her blessing. Not unlike her involvement with FOSSE/VERDON. That she is billed on this revival is already a greater level of involvement than most estates. This spring, we can revisit the convo of whether or not WE feel this is a good use of $15mil,

Now, plenty of rightsholders have “greenlit” bad productions. Or they’ve sat through the final dress on Broadway and realized that it’s unsalvageable crap (Jo Sullivan famously at the 09 revival of GUYS & DOLLS).

But the bottom line is Cilento and Parnes cannot use Fosse’s creation (and his name) without the consultation and approval of his estate.

Updated On: 11/10/22 at 09:49 AM

Who wants this? This gotta pretty uninspiring reviews out of town. Nobody seems particularly passionate about it. No stars and presumably a high cost? Additionally, a show like this would normally would be a great sell to English-challenged tourists but I don't think their numbers have bounced back such that they could support a show like this. This is pretty bizarre.

Cilento's choreo was horrendous in the Sweet Charity revival. If it's anything similar to this, I'll take a hard pass.

Jordan Catalano said: "$114 for the last row of the mezz. Insane."

I'd expect discounts for this to pop-up and to always been at TKTS for 50% off.

I'm surprised this is actually happening, given that what I saw at the Old Globe in May was pretty much a mess. FWIW, here are the thoughts I posted on that thread at the time:

Saw this last night and while it definitely had its moments and some strong individual performances - and the audience responded with the de rigueur standing ovation - IMO there are some big problems that need to be fixed before this gets anywhere near Broadway.

First, and most problematic given the title of the show, is the dancing. Again, some great solo work, but the lack of uniformity and general sloppiness in some of the group and ensemble numbers was really surprising (particularly this deep into the run, as last night was supposed to be closing night before the late extension). When you've got a row of dancers performing precision choreography in supposed synchronization and every leg extension is a different height and every hat tilt is at a different angle, that's very noticeable - and it ain't Fosse. (Note that I blame Cilento and not the dancers for this, since it's his job to take in the whole stage picture and ensure consistency.)

Second, there are some stunningly misguided choices that have been made in attempting to update the show's book and structure. Act I contains a new and long (ok, interminable) "Big City" section that incorporates bits of classic Fosse choreography such as the Manson Trio, Rich Man's Frug, and Mein Herr, but performs that choreography to different music (rights issues, maybe?), severing the movement from the music it was originally created to serve. It seems the creative team wasn't comfortable retaining the original concept of a fully original standalone show and instead attempted to throw in a fan-service Fosse-like "greatest hits" pastiche that ends up not being that at all. It all feels jarring and very misguided. And pretty much the entire second act - after the great "Sing, Sing, Sing" opener - is a mess. The pointless "Female Star Spot," in which four performers sing "Here You Come Again" while trading attempted-woke but actually-trite dialogue about female empowerment, includes no dancing at all and plays like a 12:50 a.m. SNL sketch. The "America" sequence (now retitled "America?" ) understandably updates the 1970s jingoistic patriotism in the original by opening with a new segment of the cast reciting quotes and angry reflections about the state of the country - which would be a powerful segment in a different show - but the updated text bears little connection to the original choreography that follows. And while "Beat Me Daddy" is a hugely fun number, placing it within a lengthy new Big Deal section in which the cast provides Cliffs-Notes summaries of the characters and plot while reenacting a seemingly random selection of truncated dialogue scenes - and preceding the section with an "interview" of character "Bob Fosse" in which he congratulates himself for being such a visionary as to make the show about Black characters - is a whole series of head-scratching "what were they thinking?" moments. By placing the segment at the climax of the evening and giving Big Deal a level of attention and veneration shown to no other Fosse show, it makes it seem like the pinnacle of his career; it wasn't (except possibly for Cilento).

I saw the original Dancin' in 1978, and while I honestly don't remember the specifics all that well and am pretty sure there were one or two numbers that fell flat, I do remember a general feeling of awe at the range and expressiveness of movement. This revival might recapture that with some major reworking of the book and a whole lot more precision in the direction and choreography, but it's not there yet.

I saw the original twice, the second time for a bizarre reason. I was expecting so much the first time I saw this, but I found myself getting increasingly bored as it went on. As ridiculous as it sounds, I got tired of non-stop dancing. Strange, I thought, since since I love ballet and much modern dance. I think part of the reason was also that it was non-stop Fosse; I have loved a number of Fosse shows, but the dancing was not the entire show. Non-stop Fosse got repetitious, despite the great cast and variety of numbers.

I went a second time because I thought that maybe I was not in the mood the first time. I was more bored the second time.


I think one of the reasons it was a big hit was timing. It opened in a very weak season for musicals. The wonderful Ain’t Misbehaving won the Tony that year…as good as it was, in how many seasons would a 5 person revue win best musical??

If the new production it is nearly as mediocre as opined, this will be a disaster.

BritCrit said: "In a season with several blockbuster revivals (Into The Woods, Sweeney Todd, Camelot, 1776) Bob Fosse's Dancin feels like it won't make much of an impact. There are enough Fosse fans to keep it going a few months, but it just feels like it has taken the Music Box from a smaller original musical (The chance of getting Sing Street and/or Lempicka on Broadway grows smaller by the minute, which frustrates me so much!) ..."

One of my friends who works in the industry hinted strongly that SING STREET was going to come back and reclaim the Lyceum in March/April after ASL closes. (This is also the guy who gave me the hint that ASL was ending on 1/15 if I was hoping to scoop up tix so I trust him.)

Age_of_Mendacity said: "Does the revival omit Dixie (please say it does)?"

Yes, “Dixie” plus countless other numbers are not included in this hot mess revisal (not revival). Cilento even added elements of other shows in the mix to make this even more incoherent. This is NOT Bob Fosse’s DANCIN’ nor a faithful recreation of his original. It’s Cilento doing his Fosse-esque work very much like Ann Reinking would do.