CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY Previews- Page 15

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:38pm

When I hear about good actors (Borle, Hoffman, Padgett) taking work like this, I feel bad because they MUST know the material isn't all there but need to eat like the rest of us.

Some days I also feel grateful that I'm a writer and can create my own work...

[EvanK]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:55pm

WithoutATrace said: "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.

 

"

I really think the creative team should read this thread, suck up their pride, and start figuring out how to fix this before it's too late... or maybe it is already? 

[Joshua Boyd-Williams]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:55pm

I wasn't all that excited for the show at first, but I begun getting more excited once the previews arrived. But when I saw the reviews on here about thw show, i quickly lost my excitement, and grew more dissappointed. Especially with the set design. When I found a picture of the Factory Tower, I was actually offended by what I saw. This is what they're showing us? This is so disappointing, compared to what we get in London. Where did they go wrong?

 

[kellyhallo]

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

Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "When I hear about good actors (Borle, Hoffman, Padgett) taking work like this, I feel bad because they MUST know the material isn't all there but need to eat like the rest of us.

Some days I also feel grateful that I'm a writer and can create my own work...

 

"

I find this statement a little unfair. 

At the outset this show had tremendous potential when the majority of the cast signed on (as clearly believed and evidenced by the heartbreaking disappointment of many of us on this board) . I can't see how the actors, especially Borle who signed on way before the others, could have possibly forseen the total mess the Creative Team would thrown together. The sets, choreography, direction and costumes all happened as rehearsals in New York began.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 3:59pm

Don't forget Roald Dahl famously hated the 1971 movie. It would make sense for the estate not to approve a copy of that film. The sad thing was they could have improved upon the movie (and the London production) but they didn't.

[Tag]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 4:01pm

Don't forget Roald Dahl famously hated the 1971 movie. It would make sense for the estate not to approve a copy of that film.

Well clearly things have changed.  They approved the use of the film's score.

[EvanK]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 4:10pm

Tag said: "Don't forget Roald Dahl famously hated the 1971 movie. It would make sense for the estate not to approve a copy of that film.

Well clearly things have changed.  They approved the use of the film's score.

 

"

And lest we forget P. L. Travers hated Mary Poppins, and none of us would dare deny it's a well-loved classic. 

 

[ggersten]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 4:19pm

This is one of the more depressing threads I've read on BroadwayWorld.  Such high expectations...sigh.

We saw this in London - didn't love it. Ok, we didn't actually like it much.  My then 12 year old was mildly entertained but had no desire to see it again.  But, the sets were eyecatching - even the opening dumpyard set.  We had a working glass elevator our night - and it was pretty cool (although I still preferred the car in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which we also had seen in London prior to its ill-fated move to Broadway).  We had found the parade of ticket winner/interview/song tedious - in part because the songs were not memorable.  I remember really not liking the songs for Veruca and Mike.  We didn't mind the deviations from the Gene Wilder movie version (which was, after all, supposed to be an advertisement for candy http://www.cbr.com/movie-legends-revealed-was-willy-wonka-a-big-ad-for-candy/ (slightly revised version here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-cronin/was-willy-wonka-and-the-c_b_8102576.html)

But, I'm just shocked to read about the paucity of the set.  That has to have been the easiest thing to get right - because they generally did get that right in London!  

Well, Chitty ran for 285 performances on Broadway - so, this might duplicate that run.  

[Famebroadway2]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 4:25pm

"While we know that veteran set designer Mark Thompson spearheaded the creative vision, the specifics have been kept closely guarded. The exterior of the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre, which has been transformed into the Wonka Chocolate Factory – complete with an Oompa-Loompa-sized door – may be a taste of the level of detail and whimsy to look forward to. Speaking of Oompa-Loompas, the team has kept how the factory workers will be depicted a secret as well." 

Soooooooo, again could the factory set not actually be finished, or possibly being retooled and will be "put in" later? 

Wonka Comes to Broadway

 

[Kad]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 4:28pm

If more set pieces are being added... it's pretty inexcusable to be charging full price for performances without them.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 4:31pm

That's a paid story as disclosed at the top of the article. It is most likely from the production's marketing team.

[BroadwayMomma]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 5:11pm

Undercover Wonka in the first act sounds pretty creepy.  I hope kids watching the show know it's not ok to talk to a baldish guy with stringy hair about candy and then go watch tv with him.  

[evic]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 5:17pm

If there are more sets to be put in, how stupid of the producers to charge full prices and risk getting the awful reviews it has been getting.  Many other shows have postponed or cancelled previews until the show is almost ready.  If they ripped off the paying public, then they deserve the humiliation that they are receiving and their advances will diminish very quickly....Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people already know what a bomb this is due to comments on the internet.  Rewriting the music, book, redoing costumes, sets just cannot be accomplished in 3 weeks.  And the additional cost!  The cast must be so depressed.

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 5:26pm

Well, people on FB seem to like it

https://www.facebook.com/pg/CharlieOnBway/reviews/

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 5:33pm

Even the good reviews are disappointed by the set.

[jpbran]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 5:34pm

"Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people already know what a bomb this is due to comments on the internet."

Exactly how many people do you think read less than 48 hours' worth of theater message board posts? 

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 5:45pm

disneybroadwayfan22 said: "Well, people on FB seem to like it

https://www.facebook.com/pg/CharlieOnBway/reviews/

 

"

I feel like this is the E-equivalent of the meaningless standing ovation; all shows look great from Facebook page reviews. If it meant anything, Allegiance would be running today and five years from now. 

Posted: 3/30/17 at 5:51pm

I've been reading through those Facebook reviews and most of them are negative on the set even if they enjoyed the show.... They definitely should have done the same chocolate room set that was in London since literally everyone dislikes what it is now.

[thattreegurl]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 5:56pm

This might also have something to do with people with little experience with theatre being taken with any professional-grade acting and singing. This isn't to look down on them, just that it might explain why there's so many 5-star reviews. 

[JennH]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 5:57pm

I'm watching the "71" film as we speak ( because while I enjoy the Burton one for going for book darkness mixed with bizarre, it has character issues among other things but I digress) and this thread just makes me even more depressed at reading more negative thoughts (seemingly rightly so) for a show that absolutely should 100% be a slam dunk, is turning out to be terrible. I'm not saying copy the film exactly. I realize this is a very difficult thing to be done...it's dealing with what all iconic films being adapted to the stage, or even vice versa, deal with. How much should be kept of the first incarnation that audiences love and what can we change that will work and still be a good show? It's identity. Trying to not have an identity crisis. Ala Hunchback, Tarzan, among many other show that are based off a book, but also were made into very well known films. This trying to balance the original source with an iconic adaptation of it is almost impossible because this identity crisis is what will almost always happen. It's like it'll get knocked for being too much like the film by critics (maybe?) but then would also get knocked by many laymen audiences because they want the film on stage, more or less. But trying to mesh the two creates a terrible show that's trying to be two things at once. 

If the 71 film weren't such a beloved icon of the American cinema this wouldn't be an issue. But...Matilda as a film is also pretty iconic in it's own right, so where did that one go right where this one seems to be a near, if not outright abysmal, failure? They're dealing with the same thing. British origin source material made into extremely well know films that were Americanized for the US audience. Obviously Mara, who's ingrained in our heads as Matilda, didn't keep most of us from loving the musical and it's a DAMN good one too. So what in the name of the theatre gods is going wrong with "Charlie"? Are we Americans so in need of things to be "Americanized" that we don't even read a book anymore? Most of the US knows the film, but hasn't read the book...are we that...um, uncultured? But that brings me back to why Matilda works...

[EvanK]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 6:04pm

JennH said: "I'm watching the "71" film as we speak ( because while I enjoy the Burton one for going for book darkness mixed with bizarre, it has character issues among other things but I digress) and this thread just makes me even more depressed at reading more negative thoughts (seemingly rightly so) for a show that absolutely should 100% be a slam dunk, is turning out to be terrible. I'm not saying copy the film exactly. I realize this is a very difficult thing to be done...it's dealing with what all iconic films being adapted to the stage, or even vice versa, deal with. How much should be kept of the first incarnation that audiences love and what can we change that will work and still be a good show? It's identity. Trying to not have an identity crisis. Ala Hunchback, Tarzan, among many other show that are based off a book, but also were made into very well known films. This trying to balance the original source with an iconic adaptation of it is almost impossible because this identity crisis is what will almost always happen. It's like it'll get knocked for being too much like the film by critics (maybe?) but then would also get knocked by many laymen audiences because they want the film on stage, more or less. But trying to mesh the two creates a terrible show that's trying to be two things at once. 

If the 71 film weren't such a beloved icon of the American cinema this wouldn't be an issue. But...Matilda as a film is also pretty iconic in it's own right, so where did that one go right where this one seems to be a near, if not outright abysmal, failure? They're dealing with the same thing. British origin source material made into extremely well know films that were Americanized for the US audience. Obviously Mara, who's ingrained in our heads as Matilda, didn't keep most of us from loving the musical and it's a DAMN good one too. So what in the name of the theatre gods is going wrong with "Charlie"? Are we Americans so in need of things to be "Americanized" that we don't even read a book anymore? Most of the US knows the film, but hasn't read the book...are we that...um, uncultured? But that brings me back to why Matilda works...

 

"

I am Canadian, I have never read the book... but have readmany books. I just don't think it really matters. If the show was good, but not like the film... people would love it because it is good. But if you take a show that has lots of source material, and then don't meet expectations at all... it's just not going to work. The one thing this show should have going for it from the get go is the scenic design. 

Updated On: 3/30/17 at 06:04 PM

[toofunktastic2]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 6:05pm

I mean I'm kinda biased since I adored Matilda and had never seen the film or read the book, and I haven't experienced Charlie much at all in any form, but at least one thing Matilda had going for it, compared to the version of Charlie we're getting on Broadway, is that it has a set.

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 6:06pm

thattreegurl said: "This might also have something to do with people with little experience with theatre being taken with any professional-grade acting and singing. This isn't to look down on them, just that it might explain why there's so many 5-star reviews. 

 

"

This doesn't matter. Majority of their audience will be made up of non-experi need theater goers. 

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 6:07pm

toofunktastic2 said: "I mean I'm kinda biased since I adored Matilda and had never seen the film or read the book, and I haven't experienced Charlie much at all in any form, but at least one thing Matilda had going for it, compared to the version of Charlie we're getting on Broadway, is that it has a set.

 

"

Charlie has a set... it's not a bare bones production like The Glass Menagerie. It's just not as extravagant or as huge as some people might have hoped for. 

[thattreegurl]

Posted: 3/30/17 at 6:11pm

GreasedLightning said: "thattreegurl said: "This might also have something to do with people with little experience with theatre being taken with any professional-grade acting and singing. This isn't to look down on them, just that it might explain why there's so many 5-star reviews. 

 

"

This doesn't matter. Majority of their audience will be made up of non-experi need theater goers. 

 

"

Fair point. And exactly what I was going for, in a way. I was just searching for a reason why this show might have so many people rating it as a 5-star experience. It is awful, by the way, for any doubters.