Children! Children! - The Play Flop Starring Gwen Verdon..?

I have read that the play was just damn awful.

I’m shocked they’re covering it so much! But it makes sense for the narrative of Gwen trying to take charge of her own career.

You can actually read the first 30 pages of the play as a preview on Samuel French. It...is really bizarre, and uncomfortable- and this is coming from someone who enjoyed “Lolita My Love”, “Assassins”, and “Mr. Burns.” Gwen seems like she could have brought some much-needed warmth to the play as a fragile, emotionally wrecked woman who starts out believing in the inherent innocence of children(and is proven horribly wrong). But the script seems to hammer in the “Children are shaped by their parents, and in this case the parents are sociopaths” theme over and over just to be shocking, without much of a higher theme or idea. Granted I only read the first 30 pages but what I read sounds like the controversial pulp novel (which I’ve never read) “Let’s Go Play at the Adams’” (which was based on the Sylvia Likens murder).
This early part of the play features the little girl coming on to Gwen and putting her hand in Gwen’s blouse, and i’m pretty sure most people were thinking “i’m outta here” at that point, myself included.
I think a reading with the kids played BY ADULTS would be an interesting gathering for all us Fosse Verdon fans out there. I’d pony up the rights money and direct it if I knew people would come and discuss/analyze the play (but that makes David Mamet cry).

---

Is this basically "The Bad Seed" with more onstage violence?

---

Michael Bennett said: "Lincoln Center has the script in their archives and it's hilariously awful- the best part is when the 11 year old girl comes out in a sexy peignoir and tries to seduce the frumpy babysitter. Gwen's character spends the rest of the time answering obscene phone calls and trying to rescue a wet cat she finds on the street- popping pill after pill in the process.... would love to see his interpretation of the part where Verdon pushes the teenage boy’sface into the smoldering embers of the fireplace when she thinks he has killed her wet kitten."

Oh. My. Gosh.

This sounds like legendary flop territory, and yet I've never heard of it, which is surprising given Gwen's involvement. Yes, Charles Busch needs to be all over this.

At ten years old, my parents took me to see Sweet Charity. And I fell head over heels in love with Gwen Verdon. In my ten year old naivete, I imagined that I told "Charity Hope Valentine" that i would marry her and save her if she would wait for me.

And so I dug out Damn Yankees and every film (those with Danny Kaye) that Gwen Verdon was in. I was astounded that she was Marilyn Monroe's dance coach (with Jack Cole) on Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. I became fascinated with Gwen and watched her on Ed Sullivan every chance I could.

So when Gwen came back to Broadway in a play.. you know I was there. I took the Long Island Railroad to the city and went to see Children Children by myself. I guess i was around 15.

All I remember is that that Gwen was a nanny or something to some children. The play was eye rollingly awful. Gwen seemed sincere and worked hard but it was a fruitless attempt. No one could have saved this turkey. I kept thinking how stupid her character was. Why didn't she just leave if the children were a threat? But idiotically she stayed to get tormented by children.

I do remembering thinking halfway through--, why isn't she singing and dancing? Where is Charity Hope Valentine? Why did Gwen chose this talky piece of dreck to be in? Why doesn't she just leave? Is her character mentally challenged or something? And most troubling I remember thinking that Gwen seemed to have aged. Or did she just seem older in a straight play.

In a musical, Gwen was ageless.

Trust me. Children Children is not worth reviving. Even with Katherine Hepburn it wouldn't have worked although it would have camp appeal with Hepburn. I could hear Hepburn shaking " Chiiiiiilreeeen dooonnnt touch myyyy brrreeasssssts." But i digress.

But Children Children was not campy. Trust me. It was dull. Unbelievable, Insipid. Gwen's character seemed really idiotic. And because she didn't leave-- mentally challenged. And a really bad play.

So glad she came back to Chicago in a musical where she belonged a few years later.

I love and miss Gwen Verdon. Children Children did her no favors.

Updated On: 4/25/19 at 12:31 PM

I love hearing about this kind of thing. Thanks to all who have contributed!

Goldenboy, that is hilarious! I can't believe you actually saw the play. Thanks for posting!

Fascinating that Dennis Patrick co-wrote and had a role in this. His acting credits were extensive. I was a fan of his on the original Dark Shadows and later on Dallas.

As another on the short list of people living today who saw Children Children, I have a different view from a number of the posts here. The show was so-so but not a disaster. It had some interesting moments. Gwen gave a good performance. This is not an opinion formed in hindsight but was my comment back in 1972 when discussing the show.

The early 70s was an era of economic weakness for Broadway, and a number of shows opened under a "closing notice." Those shows had weak advance sales and the company knew in advance that they would close after opening night unless the reviews changed the producer's mind. "Father's Day" by Oliver Hailey was such a one night flop but later became a hit on its revival.

Because Children Children had only 13 preview and closed on opening night, it was not reviews that killed it. It simply failed to draw advance sales, and did not get the boost it would have needed from reviews. I would add that thrillers as a genre were not generally successful in this era.

I was going to say the something. The two you mentioned were -- unless I am forgetting something -- the three longest running mysteries in Broadway history were (in order): Deathtrap, Sleuth and Angel Street.

I think there were a number of reasons it failed:

-- your comment re the economic aspects of producing plays in that era...there were so many super short runs in those days. No vanity producers, Little to no funding to support early money losing weeks, etc.

-- I did not see it, but I remember that the reviews were horrible. Since it had no advance and got horrible reviews, there was no point in trying to raise extra funds...

-- Probably not a popular opinion, but I felt it at the time. Gwen Verdon was strictly a stage star. She never really had a stellar movie or TV career that increased her bankability, i.e., lots of TV series guest shots. By the time Children opened, she hadn't been on Broadway in five years, and she was starring in a drama. She was not a box office attraction. (I am one of the people who always thought that Chicago was a better musical (by far) than A Chorus Line. I always felt that the best thing that ever happened to Chicago was when Verdon needed to leave for 6 or so weeks, and Liza Minelli took over. The box office grosses were really lousy initially (totally lost in the Chorus Line shadows), because Verdon and Rivera just didn't sell a lot of tickets. Liza's appearance gave it huge press and momentum was established. PS -- Verdon was GREAT in Chicago. She or Rivera should have won the Tony, but they were swept-up in Chorus Line fever and Donna McKecknie won for a feature role.

-- I also remember reading that it was 65 or 70 minutes long and, in my early 20s, I would not have come into the city to see anything that was 65 or 70 minutes long. I imagine others felt the same way.

-- I admit that this will sound silly, but I even think it was hurt by its choice of theatre. Is was the first Broadway show to reopen the Ritz Theatre (now the Walter Kerr) and the only other theatre on that stretch was the Longacre, a theatre I have always liked a lot, but which was empty most of the time. Were it not for Mamma Leone's, it would have been a ghost street. (Minor reason, but a contributing factor).

So in the final analysis, IMO it came down to two things: the show got rotten reviews and Verdon was not a box office attraction.