Ensemble1763372746 said: "bear882 said: "I suppose it’s possible that theChessrevival was doomed by the announcement of Lea Michele’s upcoming departure - prompting her fans to think she had already left the show.
But there is a more likely explanation: The show, whatever the virtues of its score and musical performances, just wasn’t regarded as very good. Some people loveChess, or at least the score, and that contingent yielded its excellent box office for several months.
I agree that Lea Michele is the biggest draw inChess. The numbers back that up. When the producers were trying to revive the flagging box office, they sent Michele - and only her - out to promote it on the talk shows in March. I saw Lea Michele staring down at me during my week in New York City, and we seriously considered seeing it as one of 9 shows I saw that week.
In the end, we decided against it. I think Nicholas Christopher is a terrific performer and was tempted to see it just for that reason. I had never seen Michele (not for lack of trying; she was out both times we tried to seeFunny Girl) or Tveit.
But the show sounded so dumb, and the reviews didn’t really persuade me. Biden and Trump jokes? There’s nothing less appealing to me than a show promising meta commentary throughout.
The first Broadway incarnation ofChessflopped a lot harder, as noted. Musical revivals always run out of steam after a time. The successes make enough money while they’re still hot (Hello, Dolly; Sweeney Todd; Merrily We Roll Along).Sweeneyis such a good musical that even Thomas Kail’s disappointing direction couldn’t doom it.
Chessisn’t one of those musicals. Even its biggest fans groused about the book. It’s not a classic and didn’t have a magical combination of stars that made it a must-see show long after the diehards had seen it.
So the box office faded, perhaps earlier than expected, but it was an easy ticket during the same week in March when Lea Michele was promoting the musical on TV appearances.
The situation is unfortunate for Levesque, but the advance must have been awful.
I don’t think the failure of a divisive musical revival that has never succeeded in America and got mediocre word of mouth is a sign that all musicals are doomed. We just tend to see things that way given the current environment.
I’ll write a full analysis this weekend explaining why this version is so ****ing good. Not because it’s perfect, but because it actually understands the material instead of treating Chess like some dusty 80s relic.
People keep judging it based on old criticism and productions they’ve never even seen. Meanwhile, this version finally embraces the political satire, the absurdity, and the emotional core of the story instead of running away from it.
The Biden and Trump references aren’t random jokes — they modernize the East vs. West tension and show that political theater hasn’t changed, only the faces have. That’s exactly in the spirit of Chess.
They also make it clear that the Arbiter exists in the present day. He’s telling a story that took place in the 1970s, but he’s not just narrating it from the outside. He actively participates in it by moving the chess pieces and manipulating the action. As Arbiter, he literally and metaphorically hovers above the players and the conflict itself. The modern references reinforce that framing device and make his role much more interesting than in traditional productions.
And the idea that the story is impossible to follow, a comment often made, remains ridiculous to me. I understood it perfectly as a kid in 1986 without English even being my first language. The problem is not the show. The problem is that too many people walk into it already convinced it doesn’t work.
"
I agree with every word you said. I loved this as well.
People are saying they can’t follow the plot? That’s pretty pathetic if true.
"
