"Chicago" in Chicago

[QueenAnne82]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 9:17am

Wow. Wow. Wow. I think that was truly one of the worst performances I've seen. Paige Davis (Roxie) can't sing, dance or act. I found myself wanting her to hang. Lines were delivered with 10-30 second pauses between responses. Billy Flynn couldn't sing. The ensemble was ok. Choreography was basic.... community theater style. No interesting costumes, no set. WOW! If you were planning to see this tour, save your money and go see ANYTHING else!

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 9:20am

I don't believe Paige is with the tour...

This is a BEAUTIFUL show.

Updated On: 12/5/05 at 09:20 AM

[QueenAnne82]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 9:22am

Paige was on in Chicago. This show was not beautiful. Is the orchestra always on stage? Also... there was almost NO dialogue. I know that it's mostly music, but I felt like I was at a concert, not a musical. Aggg! Can't believe I spent money on that. At intermission everyone in the audience around me was saying how they wanted to go and rent the movie.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 9:25am

It bothers me that you cannot see the beauty of this production.

[QueenAnne82]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 9:28am

I love the book, the music, the obc recording. THIS particular production was atrocious. I hope that other versions live up to what it is supposed to be. The actors, direction and staging that this particular version demonstrated were aweful.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 9:35am

Ok, I respect your opinion.

[Justin D]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 9:52am

DOnt forget that this version of Chicago was originally meant only as a concert version, but it was so successful that they kept it as it, personally i saw it twice and hated it both times.

[tthomas76]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 10:04am

I saw Paige in NYC back in August of 2004. She was great... I really don't know anything about the tour w/ her in it... But she was fantastic when i saw her. The tour came here last year but not w/ Paige...

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 10:06am

WOW...I couldn't disagree more...I thought the cast was pretty damn great!

I hope you know there is a huge difference between a live musical theatre performance and a dubbed to hell and back again and edited Movie version, ESPECiALLY in the case of Chicago. The movie is fabulous, you can't expect that same production on stage that's not how the musical does it.

That said, I was thoroughly impressed with Paige. I had NO clue she could sing/dance and I thought she did both wonderfully! I thought (like alot of the critics) that her Roxie was a bit too "Perky" but it didn't affect my liking of the show in anyway. Ensemble was fab, Velma was a dream. Loved them all...

GREAT show..it's a shame it isn't there longer!

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 10:22am

The show is AMAZING. I saw Paige twice on Broadway, and she was excellent both times. Paige trained in Musical Theatre for many years, she can sure as hell dance her ass off, plus sing and act.

The revival got RAVE reviews, absolutely stellar reviews. The show won 6 Tonys, 6 Drama Desk Awards, 5 Outer Critics Circle Awards, 2 Oliver Awards (for the London production, including Best Musical), and a Grammy. Some people just can't handle a show that dosen't have a huge set and costumes. Get over it. The show is all about the art. The performers make up for the set.

It's the most successful and longest running revival in history. And the tour has been running strong (on and off) since 1997. The show isn't going anywhere.
Updated On: 12/5/05 at 10:22 AM

[tthomas76]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 10:30am

And just to be known.. Chicago is one of my very favorite musicals of all time... The revival is wonderful and I really can't belive that half the audience was talking about going to see the rent movie... If they were, it was not because they were bored w/ Chicago.

[Jon]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 11:43am

QueenAnne82 is obviously unfamiliar with anything buy the movie. Yes, the musicians are always on stage. Yes, there is very little dialogue. Yes, there are no set or costume changes. The production you saw on tour is the exact same production that has been playing on broadway since 1997.

[BreakingTheCircle07]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 11:51am

It really bothers me that people only want the movie production...a production that came out six years after the revival. The stage revival is a wonderful show. Yes, the orchestra is always on stage. Very Vaudvilian. Yes, there is little dialogue. It's a musical, not a movie. And yes, Reinking's choreo is based on Fosse's original. Very not community theatre. I'm all for opinions, but I get weird when people talk about movies after a popular show has been produced.

Updated On: 12/5/05 at 11:51 AM

Posted: 12/5/05 at 12:26pm

Saw the show on Broadway twice and on tour; Paige did a great job. I guess this is what happens when a movie becomes so popular that it redifines what a show "Should be." My visit to see it Thanksgiving weekend was a great experience and the sold out crowd seemed to love it. Different strokes...

[QueenAnne82]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 1:47pm

No... I had not seen Chicago before. I myself did not expect the film... I was relaying others opinions in the audience. I know what to expect when I see a show. I was captivated by Billy Crystal alone on stage for 3 hours. This production of Chicago barely kept me awake. I thought the orchestra onstage was intersted. My biggest beef was with the leads... and I stand by that opinion. Paige talked her way through most of her songs. Never giving any power to big notes. She was whinney and overly perky. Her reactions to other characters was so delayed its as if she wasn't sure what to say. Tom Wolpat was flat. Flat dancing, can't sing. It was disturbing. Momma could sing! She has an incredible voice, but did very little with character development. There was a stanby in for Velma, who was by far the best in show, but even so was only acceptable. I apoligize to those who liked this cast, but I found it attrocious. Shoot... Amy Adams was AWESOME in joseph... bring in more idol stars...

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 1:48pm

I saw Paige in the show as well and she was fantastic. Yes, she can sing, act and dance and she does it all very well. I enjoyed her MUCH more than Ann Reinking.

"Choreography was basic.... community theater style. No interesting costumes, no set. WOW! If you were planning to see this tour, save your money and go see ANYTHING else!"

Community theatre choreography??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I guess you go to some pretty amazing community theatres.

"THIS particular production was atrocious. I hope that other versions live up to what it is supposed to be."

Well, I guess you wouldn't like the Broadway revival either as the tour was identical. The only other version was the original Broadway production, which was a bit more opulent, but ran just a little over two years and was overshadowed by the other minimalist non-set, no fancy costume musical, A Chorus Line.

"I know that it's mostly music, but I felt like I was at a concert, not a musical."

The staging of the revival was based on a concert production that basically transferred to Broadway as a revival.

"No interesting costumes, no set."

That was a popular artistic concept that allows the story, music and performances come through without the trappings of overproduction. When the concert won raves for its simplicity, that became the concept for the revival. It's minimalist, but not a new concept. Many shows have been staged this way.

"Is the orchestra always on stage?"

Yes.

"Also... there was almost NO dialogue."

That's how it was written. The stage version came first. Not the film.

A friend of mine who had only seen the movie hated it as well. Especially the Cell Block Tango. She as expecting the film choreography. When I explained to her that the film shoreography would be impossible to perform live on stage eight shows a week, she backed off a bit. But she still had no idea that the stage production might be different and therefore had a preconceived notion of what the show "should be".

"At intermission everyone in the audience around me was saying how they wanted to go and rent the movie."

Nobody around me said that at all. I guess those who expect to see the film proabably should have stayed at home and watched the DVD. What is the point of going to a show expecting it to be a reproduction of a film? Unless the stage production has a $100 million budget, it's going to look a bit different. Especially if the film was completely REWORKED from the stage production IT WAS BASED ON.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 1:51pm

"bring in more idol stars..."

Ok, that says everything I need to know. You should have saved us a lot of time and led with that.

[QueenAnne82]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 1:53pm

Dude... did you SEE Amy Adams? I myself was skeptical, but she was incredible. Certainly better than the crappy TLC fare that Paige offered up.

Updated On: 12/5/05 at 01:53 PM

[QueenAnne82]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 1:54pm

Look I'm not trying to anger the people that loved this version... I just hated it.

Updated On: 12/5/05 at 01:54 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 1:57pm

This is a wonderful production that is a exact replica of the NY broadway production. For a second I thought that maybe all had gone wrong for some reason. But then I read your American Idol comment and it just told me so much about you ( wether Amy Adams was great or not).

[CJR]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 1:58pm

Who was the Velma standby? Terra MacLeod should be playing Velma on tour currently, and I know she went on IN Chicago.

Paige didnt thrill me as Roxie.... I could have taken or left her.

Everyone else has responded already but the "version" of Chicago you saw is the same as all currently running productions.

Your post makes me want to bang my head on my desk because of how uninformed you are. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but like Mister Matt said, the stage production came long before the movie. You have to remember, stage productions dont always translate well onscreen and things usually need to be added to make the story flow better.

I pity your entire audience, considering they wanted to leave at intermission and rent the movie.... although the movie was wonderful in it's own right, the stage production is absolutely stunning on it's own.

[DAME]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 2:00pm

The ignorance made my blood boil too.

[QueenAnne82]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 2:01pm

Velma was not Terra. I'll have to look and find her name... she originated Velma in France. I am not uniformed. The actors were terrible. Period. I stand by that opinion. If you disagree... cool. Whatever.

[QueenAnne82]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 2:01pm

Velma was not Terra. I'll have to look and find her name... she originated Velma in France. I am not uniformed. The actors were terrible. Period. I stand by that opinion. If you disagree... cool. Whatever.

[CJR]

Posted: 12/5/05 at 2:02pm

Umm... the french Velma IS Terra.

She originated the role in Paris opposite Veronique DiCaire as Roxie.

www.terracmacleod.com

Updated On: 12/5/05 at 02:02 PM