CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY Previews- Page 14

[Kad]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 1:24pm

Shaiman and Wittman seem to most comfortable working in the realm of pastiche.

[Patty3]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 1:29pm

BroadwayConcierge said: "little_sally said: "Does anyone think Borle is good enough for a nomination?"

Curious to hear thoughts on this too."

Also curious - At least he still has a chance with Falsettos.

[Solaire]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 1:33pm

I don't even know where to begin. I saw the London production and while I thoroughly enjoyed it, I was missing the familiarity of the 71 film that we've all grown to love. When I heard that this production was in the works, I was super excited because it seemed that that goal was to get WB on board and hit all the beats of the movie because so many people LOVE it here in the states. 

I simply don't understand how they could have screwed this up. It's astonishing. Why not have Bill the shop owner open with Candy Man? We all know who he is!! Why not just have Veruca sing "I want it now" and go down the bad egg shute? Even if they did a line for line production of the movie, it sounds like it would be lightyears better than this hot mess.

I was so looking forward to this. What's hilarious is I bought a ticket for a Saturday night show but I have a 2pm, 2nd row Hello Dolly the same day!  I'm wondering of I should just call it a night after Dolly or proceed to Charlie and ruin the mood.

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 1:35pm

A squirrel death ballet?!?  Omg. This truly sounds like a piece of crap. This makes the Marilyn An American Fable foster home ballet look like genius. What makes me sad is that this story and the movie adaptations were so magical and this sounds like it's been completely deprived of all magic and wonder,

[little_sally]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 1:37pm

Patty3 said: "BroadwayConcierge said: "little_sally said: "Does anyone think Borle is good enough for a nomination?"

Curious to hear thoughts on this too."

Also curious - At least he still has a chance with Falsettos.

I figured they'd nominate him for Charlie to honor his work in Falsettos too but this doesn't seem like it'll get any nominations.

[EvanK]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 1:37pm

Solaire said: "I don't even know where to begin. I saw the London production and while I thoroughly enjoyed it, I was missing the familiarity of the 71 film that we've all grown to love. When I heard that this production was in the works, I was super excited because it seemed that that goal was to get WB on board and hit all the beats of the movie because so many people LOVE it here in the states. 

I simply don't understand how they could have screwed this up. It's astonishing. Why not have Bill the shop owner open with Candy Man? We all know who he is!! Why not just have Veruca sing "I want it now" and go down the bad egg shute? Even if they did a line for line production of the movie, it sounds like it would be lightyears better than this hot mess.

I was so looking forward to this. What's hilarious is I bought a ticket for a Saturday night show but I have a 2pm, 2nd row Hello Dolly the same day!  I'm wondering of I should just call it a night after Dolly or proceed to Charlie and ruin the mood.

 

"

 

Like for real... of any movie to translate to stage and be faithful, this is the one. 

 

[Kad]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 1:39pm

Well, they seem to want to be faithful to the movie and the book and also do their own thing.

[Kalimba]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 1:52pm

Where is David Merrick when you need him to pull the plug?

Updated On: 3/30/17 at 01:52 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 1:56pm

Kalimba said: "Where is David Merrick when you need him to pull the plug?

 

"

 

Kalimba!  Grrrrrl!  Where have you been?????

 

[EvanK]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 1:57pm

Kad said: "Well, they seem to want to be faithful to the movie and the book and also do their own thing.

 

"

And that's the issue. Do you want a huge commercial hit? Translate the movie faithfully, keep all the key moments and songs, expand the story with elements from the book, add new songs in that fit the feel of the originals.

The end. 

[JennH]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 2:09pm

Babe_Williams said: "ntrackbar said: "Thanks for posting the song list, catalana3.

It strikes me very odd that they don't get to "I've Got a Golden Ticket" until the end of Act I. Maybe I am misremembering the story, but that feels like an awfully long time to wait for Charlie to find his ticket. 

 

"

I was thinking the same! You would think he would get right to the ticket and the majority of the show would be in the chocolate factory.

 

"

I actually have always thought that's more or less where the act break is...is when he finds the ticket. Sure, we all want more "factory" but to me, when he finds the ticket has always seemed to be such an obvious act break. Plus, we have to see all the other children finding their tickets first. If paced right, yes it can take a whole first act. There's been quite a few shows over the years where we don't see the titular character or what we're sitting on edge to see until waaaaayyy later in the show. This happens to be one of them.

I will say, I'm moaning the loss of "I Want It Now". That is one of my favorite film songs. The more I watch the film, the more Cheer Up Charlie is almost unnecessary. It's a sweet tuner, but not wholly needed. THANK GOD they kept "I've Got a Golden Ticket" because that song is nearly as iconic as "Pure Imagination". 

I will see it at some point, just to say I saw it, but if it's as cheap looking as it seems...that's a damn shame. Even theatre nuts know that this is material that screams flashy, candy colored, spectacle. I don't know how much 'candy' itself plays into this but a lot of Dahl demands more or less some degree of spectacle. Matilda had a great degree of this but still played up the "dark side" when it needed to and it worked. 

[JennH]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 2:11pm

newintown said: "Speaking structurally, I think that the only place you could effectively put an intermission into this narrative would be before they enter the factory. After that, an intermission would only slow the momentum.

 

"

Exactly. It takes half the film to get there, therefore it just make sense, to put an act break before entering, or at least use the act one closer to enter it, and black out.

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 2:14pm

I haven't seen the production, so I trust Whizzer et all that it's not very good. However, it seems like a lot of people here are married to the 71 film adaptation, which Dahl himself hated. I think it's obvious that they're not trying to copy the film, but it probably would have been better to work from the book, not wildly invent subplots (with Wonka emerging through the first act). So much potential... wasted.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 2:15pm

I agree having the act break happen that makes sense... but having Wonka be present earlier in the show undercuts any tension for the audience.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 2:20pm

"Translate the movie faithfully, keep all the key moments and songs, expand the story with elements from the book, add new songs in that fit the feel of the originals."

That may be a formula to try if one is aiming for nothing more than a potentially good financial return. However, it's sort of antithetical to any artistic mindset.

It really ought to be possible to avoid mere copycatting, and leverage something actually original AND magical from a good successful book and a questionable and not as successful movie - remember that it wasn't much of a hit when it was first released, and Paramount didn't renew distribution rights, believing there would be insufficient return on investment. But like many such movies (among them, Newsies), young indiscriminate viewers took to frequent television showings and translated it into something perhaps better than it actually was.

Updated On: 3/30/17 at 02:20 PM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 2:20pm

Kalimba said: "Where is David Merrick when you need him to pull the plug?

 

"

 

I miss you so much, Kalimba. 

[audview]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 2:53pm

I think whoever saw this is missing the point of the minimalist sets.  It's a show about Pure Imagination!  We're supposed to imagine the lush sets.  

I for one,am going to use my imagination and use my imaginary money to buy and imaginary golden ticket, then imagine a show that has to be better then what's being reported on stage at the Lunt-Fontanne.



I hope they can fix it.  I wanted this to be good.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 2:58pm

"It's a show about Pure Imagination!  We're supposed to imagine the lush sets."

And pay $159 for the privilege!

[EvanK]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:01pm

newintown said: ""Translate the movie faithfully, keep all the key moments and songs, expand the story with elements from the book, add new songs in that fit the feel of the originals."

That may be a formula to try if one is aiming for nothing more than a potentially good financial return. However, it's sort of antithetical to any artistic mindset.

It really ought to be possible to avoid mere copycatting, and leverage something actually original AND magical from a good successful book and a questionable and not as successful movie - remember that it wasn't much of a hit when it was first released, and Paramount didn't renew distribution rights, believing there would be insufficient return on investment. But like many such movies (among them, Newsies), young indiscriminate viewers took to frequent television showings and translated it into something perhaps better than it actually was.

 

"

They aren't producing Charlie for any form of artistic merit, they are producing it because they thought it would be a huge, commercial hit. I am just stating the formula that would work best for a commercial hit. Beauty and the Beast, Lion King... HUGE hits, stayed close to the source material, but still found creative and inventive ways to make them their own. 

[newintown]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:03pm

"Beauty and the Beast, Lion King... HUGE hits, stayed close to the source material, but still found creative and inventive ways to make them their own."

Well, I agree with the first two statements...

[EvanK]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:07pm

newintown said: ""Beauty and the Beast, Lion King... HUGE hits, stayed close to the source material, but still found creative and inventive ways to make them their own."

Well, I agree with the first two statements...

 

"

Okay maybe Beauty was less creative and more recreative... but Lion King, while it has faults, Julie Taymor really transformed that piece. 

Updated On: 3/30/17 at 03:07 PM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:13pm

re: how closely they replicate the movie, I think they can't have it both ways. They should either completely deviate and do their own thing or if they want to play it as safely as possible to ensure a big, fat hit, they should replicate the film as best they can. 

Right now they sort of straddle the line and it feeds the disappointment. Borle's costume, for example, isn't an exact replica of Wilder's outfit, but it's close enough to instantly evoke it. Maybe they should have designed something wildly different. 

I think someone like Julie Taymor could have maintained the opulence of the film sets without copying them. The chocolate room should wow- you should hear gasps (and maybe some cheers) from the audience, whether it's a recreation from the film or not. 

Three women, maybe 50-55 and from out of town, were sitting next to me and struck up a conversation about the sets. (How often do you go to musicals and all you here people talking about are the sets?) They all expressed disappointment. One said, "With all the hype I expressed so much more. I thought I would see candy everywhere. Gumdrops. Chocolates." (I don't know what "hype" surrounded this production, ha, but it's clear people came in with expectations that weren't met.)

 

[thirtythirtyninety]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:13pm

Definitely apprehensive about the Mary Poppins Returns score now.  

Too bad Lin didn't write the songs for that one!

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:15pm

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a property has always provided me with happy positive memories.  I read the book (and all the other Roald Dahl books) multiple times as a kid, saw the 1971 film countless times, and even enjoyed the more recent Johnny Depp version. When I heard this was transferring from London to Broadway and read that the show was going to be retooled to make it more like the 1971 film so American audiences would embrace it, I was excited and hopeful that this would work.  As many others have said in this thread, this hit musical has essentially already been written.  Take the movie word for word and you will have a major hit on your hands. Well, I saw the musical last night, and I'm very sorry to report that it was one of the worst musicals I've seen in years, possibly a decade.

Often times when you see a flop musical, at least something is good about it (Jessie Mueller in CLEAR DAY, the score to STEEL PIER, etc.) - but in CHARLIE last night, the book, score, sets (or lack thereof), costumes, direction and acting were all awful, in my opinion. When you enter the theater to see a musical such as IN MY LIFE or FIRST DATE or probably even NERDS (which we never got to see), you go into the show with low expectations because none of these are known properties and you almost go into them expecting them to be bad.  But when you enter the beautifully decorated exterior of the Lunt Fontanne Theater to see this extremely well known property CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, you expect to be wowed.  That made last night even more of a disappointment.

It's hard to know where to begin, but I'll start with the score. Each of the golden ticket winners was introduced with their own song in Act 1, and each was worse than the next, with Queen of Pop being a standout (negatively). The few songs and snippets of songs from the original film were nice to hear, but when they were surrounded by songs that didn't even attempt to fit in with the rest of the score, nothing felt cohesive. Sadly, the score in Act 2 was even worse.  As I was looking and listening on in horror to "When Willy Met Oompa" - a dreadful production number with Willy Wonka surrounded by all of the Oopma Loompas and Violet Beauregard rolling along the stage periodically - I thought to myself, this has to be the ultimate low point of the show and it can't get any worse.  Unfortunately, I was proven wrong with the very next number, "Veruca's Nutcracker Suite," in which Veruca Salt was dancing ballet with five squirrels until they eventually pulled her apart. As stated above, given the fact that this was CHARLIE, a well known entity and something we all had high expectations for, I would say that this was one of the most embarrasing musical sequences I have ever seen.  Why they didn't stick with the "I Want It Now" Goose with the Golden eggs plotline instead, we will never understand.

I guess I'm moving onto the "sets" next, and yes, I'm putting them in air quotes because there essentially were NO SETS to be had. Another coworker of mine, who has tickets to see this monstrosity in mid-April, told me that the main reason she bought her tickets months ago was to see the Chocolate Factory sets. When I told her that the chocolate room was a green square with astroturf and a dingy fake chocolate lake barely large enough to hold Augustus Gloop, her face sunk, as mine did last night when that "set piece" was rolled out. When you create a show like CHARLIE, one of your main focuses should be to want to elicit audience applause when the chocolate factory set is finally revealed - instead it was met with silence and bewilderment. Not to mention the "set pieces" in Act 1 that were supposed to be the outside of the factory, Charlie's house and the candy shop.  Even with all three of those "sets" on the stage, the Lunt Fontanne stage still appeared 80% bare. ADDAMS FAMILY and FINDING NEVERLAND did a significanly better job filling the stage. It's almost as if CHARLIE was designed for the Little Shubert or the Mitzi Newhouse.

The book was also awful. What time period were we supposed to be in?  In what world does Grandpa Joe's life savings amount to 79 cents, cabbage is 5 cents, a high-end chocolate bar is a dollar, but smart phones and tweeting exist? It seems like they wanted to update the setting, but did not account for inflation. These lines need to change immediately in order to convey the proper setting (assuming the creative team knows what that should be). Also, I'm all for bashing Trump in the theater or during award shows, but the lines about the morning tweets and little hands felt very out of place here and seemed like desperate attempts to get an audience response, which they did not. So many scenes from the movie have been cut - everything with Slugworth, the Goose with the Golden eggs, when Charlie and Grandpa Joe take the fizzy lifting drink and fly too close to the fan above - and replaced with subpar material. As stated above, this show was already written for the creative team - why mess with something that is already perfect?

Last night's performance had Ryan Sell as Charlie. He was serviceable at best.  Incedentally, the other two Charlie's are Ryan Foust and Jake Ryan Flynn - did you have to be a Ryan in order to be cast? John Rubenstein as Grandpa Joe was fine, but didn't have much to do.  Emily Padgett was fine, but had an embarassing "Dead Pa" dance sequence in Act 1...luckily she didn't have too much to do either.  The other three grandparents were pretty bad.  Augustus, Violet, Veruca and Mike TV all had the potential to be good, but the material they were given was so poor, that it did not reflect well on them. I must admit that the one positive thing about this production was Jackie Hoffman.  She has been hit or miss for me over the past few years, but she does good work here and is funny at times.  Still, you wonder how much better she would be with good material as Mike TV's mother. Unfortunately, I did not care for Christian Borle's performance as Wlly Wonka. He is a fantastic actor and I have loved him in everything I've seen him in, but he was not able to rise above this material.  I loved him in FALSETTOS and hope he gets a nomination for that show, as CHARLIE deserves to be snubbed across the board.

I know this show has a good advance and I feel for those who have already purchased tickets, but for those fortunate enough to have not yet purchased tickets, please allow this post to be a warning to you.  Go see SUNSET or SUNDAY or DOLLY again...hell, even go to AMELIE...but steer clear of CHARLIE.  You'll be grateful that your wonderful memories of the book and film won't be soiled.

[EvanK]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:16pm

WhizzerMarvin said: "re: how closely they replicate the movie, I think they can't have it both ways. They should either completely deviate and do their own thing or if they want to play it as safely as possible to ensure a big, fat hit, they should replicate the film as best they can. 

Right now they sort of straddle the line and it feeds the disappointment. Borle's costume, for example, isn't an exact replica of Wilder's outfit, but it's close enough to instantly evoke it. Maybe they should have designed something wildly different. 

I think someone like Julie Taymor could have maintained the opulence of the film sets without copying them. The chocolate room should wow- you should hear gasps (and maybe some cheers) from the audience, whether it's a recreation from the film or not. 

Three women, maybe 50-55 and from out of town, were sitting next to me and struck up a conversation about the sets. (How often do you go to musicals and all you here people talking about are the sets?) They all expressed disappointment. One said, "With all the hype I expressed so much more. I thought I would see candy everywhere. Gumdrops. Chocolates." (I don't know what "hype" surrounded this production, ha, but it's clear people came in with expectations that weren't met.)

 

 

"

Nailed it. Either do it, or don't do it. But straddling the line and then under delivering is a sure way to disappoint. This show should be whimsical, magical, and HUGE. This is not a show you go for minimalism.