City of Angels - 1990- Page 2

[GottaHaveAGimmick]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 10:40am

 and I've had a gay-boy crush on Kay McClelland since her Florinda.  It's, to this day, the wittiest musical I've ever seen and the score is dazzling.  I imagine it's an expensive show to produce considering that whole switching back and forth between black & white and technicolor.
 "

 My first Broadway show! Went to college with Kay McClelland and couldn't believe how beautiful and awesome she was during her solo "With Every Breath I Take." Very entertaining show. Not many people did the stage door back then. I think she nearly tackled me out on the street when she came out of the theatre. Will never forget the show.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 10:48am

Agreed, Kad. That's why it is not very widely produced. So expensive and difficult. 

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 10:48am

She was so glamorous in that beaded gown...and those low notes?  Heaven! 

 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 12:10pm

One of my all-time favorite shows.  Book, music and lyrics are all stellar.  The biggest hurdle for any production will be the staging.  I'm curious to know how Donmar handled it.  One of the most striking elements of the original staging was the vertical and horizontal black panels the would constantly shift to "frame" scenes to look like a movie screen.  And there were loads of clever simple staging effects.  From scene to scene, I was constantly delighted and I didn't want the show to end.  I have been aching for a top-notch revival of it.  Although I know the choices are cliche, I can't help wanting to see Kelli O'Hara as Bobbi/Gabby, Audra McDonald as Donna/Oolie and Michael Cerveris as Stine.

[Jay94]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 1:07pm

I hear that there were CGI elements in the show. Is that true?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 1:23pm

The only time I can recall was in the number Look Out for Yourself.  There was a screen behind Stone that displayed the moving street as he walked (very cleverly used) and then showed the silhouettes of gangsters beating up Stone (which turns into dancing along with the tune as they are beating him).  

Oh, and probably the movie poster changing from B&W to color during the overture, which in 1990, was a VERY cool effect.  

Updated On: 4/8/15 at 01:23 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 1:29pm

I thought this show was a great delight, and saw it several times, with different casts.

I think it's not ever going to be a blockbuster because a) it has many characters and a somewhat complex plot/story, and b) the lyrics are dense, clever, and smart. The show requires more listening and thinking than most audiences enjoy doing.

I would be wary of a revival, merely because most revivals of less-than-classic shows are done on the cheap, and I'd hate to hear this score with a significantly smaller band than that envisioned by Cy Coleman.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 5:16pm

I saw a concert reading of it recently in Chicago. The score is great but the book is weak without the special effects. The songs dry up in act two as the murder mystery takes focus. Then the writer sings an overwrought song about his vague personal problems and we get a deux ex machina ending. The women get the best songs but the men's lower stakes problems consume the twisty plot.

http://threepanelmusicals.blogspot.com/2015/03/city-of-angels.html 

Updated On: 4/8/15 at 05:16 PM

[Emma MK]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 10:19am

Heres a few pics from the recent London revival -

http://www.theguardian.com/stage/gallery/2014/dec/19/donmar-city-of-angels-in-pictures

It is definitely one of my favourite shows that ive seen this year!

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 10:38am

Loved the original production of this show.  It all seemed so fresh back then.  An actual original musical (quite rare then, perhaps moreso than now), a throwback in its emphasis on full out comedy, so filled with so many interesting characters, and a great and quite varied score with wonderful jazz charm songs, torchy blues, comic showstoppers and soul-bearing dramatic soliloquys.

Updated On: 4/9/15 at 10:38 AM

[skies]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 11:22am

Saw it first with James Naughton and as others have mentioned, at the time it was fresh and different. 

Later saw Richard Kline (Larry of "3's Company" TV fame) in the run and he was very good in his role.  

I had to have been a baby when I saw it...LOL.

Updated On: 4/9/15 at 11:22 AM

[Movidude742]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 1:32pm

"I hear that there were CGI elements in the show. Is that true?"

 

I wouldn't call it CGI but There were some great effects with the same set being used as real life and the show within the show so it would flip from color to black and white or the reverse.

Also in Ev'rybody's Gotta Be Somewhere, Naughton either mimed walking (or possibly was on a moving walkway with a projection of storefronts scrolling past.  Then he turned towards the audience and the video shifted so the street was moving further behind him.

Those 2 effects blew my 17 year old mind.

 

 

[KnewItWhenIWasInFron]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 2:07pm

Loved it on Broadway (it may have been my first Broadway musical?) -- fantastic songs, hilarious book, great performances, inventive staging. I always assumed it hasn't been revived because it seems like it needs to be a huge, lavish production along the lines of the original, although I don't think that's true. And, while it has several swell roles, I don't know if they're exactly star roles.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 6:44pm

I really like the show except for the Quartet- sort of a bad "Manhattan Transfer".  The Soprano's voice was quite shrill... I remember that in fact, they wanted to get the Manhattan Transfer to do the show! 

[Keiichi2]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 6:45pm

So, was the original Broadway production successful?  Did it make a profit?

[#1CarrieFan]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 6:53pm

This show came into New York very quietly. I remember buying tickets few weeks prior to taking the metro liner from DC to Manhattan. We really didn't know what to expect from this show. Hands down it became our favorite Cy Coleman shows EVER! Talking about gay-crushes we fell in love Randy Graff, Greg Edelman, and James naughton few! This show as aforementioned was a refreshing relief from the mega British musical imports of that time. Dazzling sets, great jazzy score, just an all around great evening at the theater. This show is so beyond ripe for a revival just look at the ticket sales and reviews for on the 20th century are currently doing and that also was a show ready and waiting for its rivival. 

Updated On: 4/9/15 at 06:53 PM

[#1CarrieFan]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 6:57pm

Updated On: 4/9/15 at 06:57 PM

[jo]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 7:13pm

I  saw it, too, in its original staging on Broadway -- it was smart, witty, and different. It reminded me of old-time Hollywood movies about whodunits

Re filming possibilities -- Michael Riedel reported from way back that the late Larry Gelbart mentioned how he had tried to entice Hugh Jackman ( presumably portraying both male leads, unlike in show) to do the movie version, but the project did not work out.

 

http://nypost.com/2008/05/02/wish-hugh-were-here/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Updated On: 4/9/15 at 07:13 PM

[Fantod]

Posted: 4/9/15 at 7:19pm

The San Francisco Playhouse is doing it next season and they always do fantastic work. I'll see about it then.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 4/10/15 at 7:55am

From SomeoneinaTree2: "---The concept was genius, the music was gorgeous, and though others have called David Zippel's lyrics brilliant, my dissenting opinion was that they were simply too dense with internal rhymes to be understood on a first listen in the theater. I've learned to love them since, but that first exposure live onstage is what matters."

Thank YOU, SIAT! It's not just the internal rhymes, it's the tortured syntax:

Singer/Character: "Familiarity.
     And in your case we both know what that breeds."

Listener thinking: "(beat) (beat) Oh! 'Familiarity breeds contempt!' But then why only          in Stein's case?"

By which time Listener has missed 2 or 3 full lines and neither knows nor cares why Stein is being lectured for what seems the 23rd time.

The concept and the score and the performances (in LA) WERE wonderful! But to what end?