Charlotte - Charity and the Tony- Page 2

[EaboveMiddleC]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 7:37pm

Wasn't Bebe Neuwirth out the opening night performance of Chicago, she was nominated and won.

[Plum]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:52pm

Actually, I remember the buzz being mostly for Donna Murphy before Caroline opened. Anyway, it's waaay too early to make judgements on this.

[eslgr8]

Posted: 3/17/05 at 12:13am

Victoria Who? Actually, I did my IBDB search and I have heard her singing on the How To Succeed recording, but I wonder if I'm the only one for whom this name does not ring a single bell. I'm assuming she's in Light in the Piazza?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/17/05 at 12:40am

Yes.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 3/17/05 at 12:57am

Thanks eslgr8...I was just about to post and ask who the hell she was...

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 3/17/05 at 1:03am

IF Ms. D'Amboise opens in Charity (and I am optimistic she will) there will be great emotional sentiment for her. After all, she is a 20 year B'way vet who many feel has never received the recognition that her talent deserves. She could def. be the "underdog" champ and take the TONY.

And as discussed earlier, most of the early Best Actress/Musical buzz (and all the pre-Tony awards, incl the Astaire) for 2004 surrounded DONNA MURPHY. After Caroline opened , many predicted an upset with TONYA taking it - NEITHER happened.

My point - IT IS ALWAYS UP IN THE AIR!

Let the fun begin!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/17/05 at 1:32am

The only thing I've seen D'Amboise do is CHICAGO, but literally 5 times. I think she's absolutely fantastic. Not to be rude to Appelgate, but I would actually prefer D'Amboise in the role anyway. Talent over name is always better.

[LaCageAuxFollesFan2]

Posted: 3/17/05 at 2:22am

not so in the case of box office. look what happened to Wonderful Town (talent = strong performance/weak draw, name= bigger box office draw/weaker performance) I bet the same is happening w/Charity (just a guess)

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/17/05 at 2:24am

When I said talent over name is better, I obviously didn't mean financially. I meant in terms of actual performance quality, usually.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/17/05 at 3:43pm

FYI -- Contrary to whatever you've heard LaCage, you are simply WRONG in terms of Shields' "positive effect" on the box office of WONDERFUL TOWN. Shields DID NOT IMPROVE the box office figures -- please go back and check (the link is below).

Brooke Shields ultimately wasn't much more of a box office draw than Murphy ever was. If you look at the weekly box office grosses, the attendance figures while Shields was starring in the show were in the 50s and 60s most weeks (with several weeks where attendance dipped into the 40s, and a few others where it was up to the 70s -- JUST like when Murphy was starring). Shields' numbers only perked up during Thanskgiving week and Xmas week -- when you could have had a performing seal playing Ruth and still hit 80% in attendance.

If you actually crunch the numbers, Murphy actually was a BIGGER box office draw in her first six months doing the role, than Shields EVER was during her entire run.
http://www.playbill.com/news/search/?section=7

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/17/05 at 4:38pm

The problem with WONDERFUL TOWN was that it was WONDERFUL TOWN: a musical that most people who visit New York aren't familiar with. The show opened to fabulous reviews and couldn't sell out. Shields opened to favorable reviews -- and the show couldn't sell out. The tour was canceled because Lucie Arnez wasn't a name enough to get butts in the seats.

WONDERFUL TOWN would have needed Bette Midler in it to have sold out. (Or at least Mindy Cohn from Facts of Life!)

As I understand it, ticket sales for SWEET CHARITY have been good but not spectacular. Everyone involved is terrified of what will happen if Applegate isn't able to return.

Despite being better known then WONDERFUL TOWN, SWEET CHARITY is still on the lower end of recognizable musicals. Its certainly not FIDDLER or GREASE or THE KING AND I...