Beauty and the Beast

[overthemoon419]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 7:39am

I saw Beauty and the Beast way back when, in 1994, about a month into the run at the Palace Theatre (yay Terrence Mann!) and, since I was only 7 at the time, I took the "big picture" with me rather than details. For example, I knew "Be Our Guest" was big and flashy, the clinking beer steins in "Gaston", that we never see Chip's legs when he's still a cup...and that the funiture talks. That's pretty much it.

I went to see Beauty this past Tuesday, because I had read that Mark Price (squee!) would be playing Lefou, and because I remembered so few of the specifics from the show. While I enjoyed the show, I was very disappointed. Steve Blanchard pulled a Rex Harrison and spoke-sang most of his songs (save the Michael-Crawford-like note at the end of "If I Can't Love Her") and made the Beast so modern in terms of humour--even going so far as to almost "play it gay"--that I found it quite difficult to take him seriously, especially when he was trying to be sincere. He was good, but Terrence Mann he was not.

Anyway, my major concern was "Be Our Guest". I didn't recall specifics from my first visit, but I did recall a big, splashy number full of people. What I saw on Tuesday was 2/3 of the number performed in front of a closed curtain, three plates, a few gadgets... Mark told me the show had been scaled down since its move from the Palace, but what I'm wondering is, how much?? Was the number always this small, and I simply remembered it bigger because it was my first taste of live theatre, or was "Be Our Guest" more of a showstopper rather than just the showstopper-by-comparison-to-the-other-numbers that I attended this week?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the show-- but between (what felt like) a minimalist "Be Our Guest" and a Beast more concered with audience reaction than emoting... I almost felt like I was at a totally different show.

[dancinfan]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 8:49am

"Anyway, my major concern was "Be Our Guest". I didn't recall specifics from my first visit, but I did recall a big, splashy number full of people. What I saw on Tuesday was 2/3 of the number performed in front of a closed curtain, three plates, a few gadgets... Mark told me the show had been scaled down since its move from the Palace, but what I'm wondering is, how much?? Was the number always this small, and I simply remembered it bigger because it was my first taste of live theatre, or was "Be Our Guest" more of a showstopper rather than just the showstopper-by-comparison-to-the-other-numbers that I attended this week?"

SETS: The purple drape has always been in for the top of the number and flown out at exactly the same time, so what you remember about the reveal is probably what was behind it. At the Palace, there was one more big pink circular portal, a taller platform, an elevator, and plate stairs that changed positions for the entrance of the Can-Can Napkins. Also, the champagne bottles fired sparklers at the Palace, and now they fire CO2 (a concession to the musicians' union's complaints about smoke and pyro).

CAST: At the Palace, the cast was bigger by four people (2 singers and 2 dancers), so you saw two full sets of flatware instead of the one that exists now, you saw 5 Plates instead of 3, you saw 8 singers in the object parade instead of the current 6, you saw 6 Napkins instead of the current 5, and at the end of the number, there was a total of four more people onstage.

I am pretty sure that everyone I've ever talked to who saw the show more than once (whether the first time was at the Palace or not) was surprised by how small Be Our Guest seemed after they had seen it once already. Not to say that the downsizing isn't noticeable and frequently disappointing for people who did see it at the Palace.

But the show is still running and employing people and bringing young kids into the theatre.



Updated On: 1/13/06 at 08:49 AM

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:22pm

dancinfan Thank you for the in-depth details. I've often wondered exactly what had changed with that number as well. Thanks for putting that thought to rest in my mind.

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:42pm

Beauty & the Beast - which I also saw very early in its run at the PALACE, now, in its current state (which I saw about 2 months ago) is a WASTE OF TIME, ENERGY, SPACE, AIR, AND A GREAT THEATRE! I wish I could say talent too, but every single performance was phoned in beyond belief. I HATE saying this, because I love the story...but it was dreadfully awful. It is beyond time to put this one out of its missery.

[mominator]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 12:51pm

Or as they say in FB... "Beauty's been decreased!"

[Billboard Girl]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 1:15pm

dancinfan, thank you for the in-depth explanation. Be Our Guest was the number that left the biggest impression on me when I first saw BatB as a 9-year-old back in '95, and although it was still pretty impressive when I saw it again back in October, something just didn't quite seem the same.

[misto625]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 5:10pm

I haven't seen Beauty on B'way in 5 years so Steve Blanchard must have changed his performance within that time because he did not act that way when I saw it. I wish I had seen Terrence Mann as the Beast b/c he is one of my favorite actors. I think Beauty is a magical show and one of my all-time favorites. Maybe I should see it again and see what I think now.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 5:13pm

This show needs to close. IT is absolutely DREADFUL.

[wickedfreak]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 5:19pm

This makes me so sad! I love that show! Bu ti think you are right....it needs to close.

[Jilani]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 5:39pm

While I can't make comparisons to how it was at the Palace, I could never wish for this show to close as long as Ashley Brown is in it. She's great as Belle! While it's a common meme on this board that the rest of the cast phones it in, I didn't find that to be the case when I saw it in October (expressly to see Ashley Brown in the lead role). However, I do agree that Steve Blanchard's performance as the Beast left a lot to be desired, particularly with regard to the speak-singing.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 5:44pm

The show doesn't "need" to close. It is family entertainment. It still has a high percentage of sales and pulling in a decent amount of money. People forget that Broadway is a business...if it's a success, don't close it unless it is intended to be a limited run!

[myManCape]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 7:08pm

When I saw it my first time which was at the Lunt, Be Our Guest did not impress me too much. In fact i chuckled to myself that the pictures out side the theatre show the Be Our Guest set that was used at the Palace with the Objects dancing down the plate staircase, then not seeing that in the show was odd. Steve Blanchard was ok, but nothing great, however Ashley Brown was amazing. I didnt like the theatre much, the balcony was very high up and far back, and the way the balcony is designed, if you sit in the very last row the front of the balcony appears to hang over the stage and blocks your view of the very front of the stage and and of the Orch. Thank goodness it was only 1/2 full and i moved up to mid balcony at intermission. I wont say that the show "needs to close" but i do believe its begining to die out and near the end of its run within a year or so. I plan to go back before Ashley Brown leaves and do SRO. Id rather stand and have a good view than pay $40 for a ticket where the theatre blocks my view. And no it was not a partial view seat.

[Footlooser]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 11:00pm

It doesn't need to close, it needs a new Beast

[overthemoon419]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 11:09pm

Thanks dancinfan-- I guess it was part reality, and part just the exaggeration of my childhood memory =)


And I agree, Beauty and the Beast does *NOT* need to close! Were it not for B&tB, I couldn't predict when my first exposure to live theatre would have been. Although it's far from perfect, it remains a charming, fun show that pleases adults and kids alike.


Can't say I'd object to a new beast, though... or maybe the original

[FosseBoi]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 11:25pm

Have they changed the prologue? I didnt see that part when I went way back when because for some REALLY odd reason, I found it to be a wee bit scary. But I saw it a year or two ago, and was wondering if I was seeing what I missed...did that make sense?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:06am

U who are saying it must close do not understand BROADWAY these days.
The Show made 1 Million 2 Hundred Thousand Dollars Xmas Week!
It ain't going anywhere till those number go down.
Keepin it Fresh and Exciting ain't easy.
Ashley Brown is One Way, She is Amazing!
Getting a New Younger Beast would be another.
and yes It has been a lot of younger audiences first B'way Show and a great Memory, The Lion King may make more Money but Beauty has More Heart.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:32am

Okay, it needs a new CAST.

A completely new CAST that is excited about what they're peforming. A new cast that doesn't look like they'd rather DIE than be singing "Be Our Guest" for the 5,000th time. The director needs to come in and tighten up the show and realize that what was once the most magical experience on Broadway is now the most poorly performed, most unkempt show I have ever seen in my entire life.

[FosseBoi]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:41am

Could someone answer my question please? ::does puppy dog face::

[wickedfreak]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:43am

I am sorry i said i think it should close.....dont tell, but i was just saying that becuase that is what everyone else said.....i actually love this show.....i have seen it 4 times.....3 on stage one on ice(lol) and i have been in it! lol.....i am a huge fan! ummmm....So i do not think it should close now....and i really think that!

[Jilani]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 1:27am

munkustrap, just out of curiosity, when was the last time you saw the show? When I saw it in October, I deliberately scrutinized the ensemble very carefully because of the oft-repeated mantra on here that they aren't into the show, but I just couldn't find any evidence to support that. At best, it strikes me as an exaggeration. Maybe I lucked out and they were having a rare good night? Or maybe Ashley Brown's radiance has given the ensemble a much-needed boost?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 8:05am

I just saw Beauty and the Beast two weeks ago and I didn't think it was that bad. Ashley Brown was amazing! She is so talented! The Beast was ok but I thought everything else was fine. I enjoyed it and everyone else in the audience seemed to too. But then again it was the first musical I saw on Broadway. So yeah.

Oh and btw, Ashley is is even nicer in person!

[Buscee]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 9:12am

I will agree that the show is not as tight as it was when it first opened. I saw it at the Palace in 1996, and I was not that crazy about it. I enjoyed it for what its worth. (Prefer the Film much better) About 3 years ago I saw it again at the Lunt-Fontaine Theatre when Jamie Lynn Sigler was Belle. She was great, but the show seemed tired then, and I was 8th row center in the orchestra, and there was no one behind me, and the balcony was empty too. I was shocked then how it was still running. The only thing I can think of is Disney will keep it open at a loss no matter what. I would rather close the show than perform to an empty house for half a week, assuming it sold out on the weekends.

[wickedobsessed]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 9:45am

I saw BATB when I was seven years old. I remember the big moments too. Be Our Guest, Belle, and Beast Transformation. We did it at my high school last year. My director went to see it, and she also said how she was dissapointed too. She said the big production numbers where not big, and it lost it sparkle. I wonder how much longer it will have its run on broadway.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:59pm

Steve Blanchard has gotten worse, I agree with that. I saw him about 4 years ago, when Ann Sanders was Belle, and he was really good. The most recent time I saw him (opposite Ashley Brown), he was doing exactly what you describe- speak-singing and not holding out any of the notes. It was disappointing.

The last time I saw the show, it did look a bit tired, but it was still cute and enjoyable, though I miss the days when it was at the Palace.

Ashley Brown is amazing and knocks the roof off the place. She's going to be a star, I think. You can tell she loves playing this role, because she has this awesome energy. It was refreshing to see, since many members of the cast seemed to be "phoning it in."

I don't see any reason for the show "needing" to close when it is as profitable as it is.

[dancinfan]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 1:31pm

The Prologue is the same as at the Palace, except that there are no pyrotechnics, just CO2 blasts and strobes.

Again, there are many newer ensemble members now than there were a few years ago, and they are being maintained well. I think there's a lot of fresh energy since Ashley Brown came in, too (she's great), but I won't argue that several of the other principals have been there too long and need to be replaced to add more verve to the story.
Updated On: 1/14/06 at 01:31 PM