Did "THE PRODUCERS" Deserve the Tony's? — Page 4
#77
Posted: 5/30/07 at 6:43pm
I think it did. The show was truly an old-fashined good-time musical crowd pleaser in the best sense. And unlike Curtains (forgive me, Debra, my love) the jokes in The Producers are actually funny.
Also, the producers did something that vitally important to this city. It brought us real laughter and healthy discration from the horror visible everywhere from the 9-11 attacks.
The jokes about Hitler really made us laugh at those who promote horror. That empowered us. That helped us get through such catastophe. That is when theatre and entertainment are truly powerful.
Would it have fared as well in a stronger year for musicals? Perhaps not. But, I believe, it would have received just as many nominations and would have won a significant amount.
Also, the producers did something that vitally important to this city. It brought us real laughter and healthy discration from the horror visible everywhere from the 9-11 attacks.
The jokes about Hitler really made us laugh at those who promote horror. That empowered us. That helped us get through such catastophe. That is when theatre and entertainment are truly powerful.
Would it have fared as well in a stronger year for musicals? Perhaps not. But, I believe, it would have received just as many nominations and would have won a significant amount.
What great ones do the less will prattle of
#78
Posted: 5/30/07 at 7:22pm
I feel that Jane Eyre should have won Score, and probably some of the design awards as well. I saw my High School do it, and it was one of the most magical evenings of theatre I've ever seen.
I have several names, one is Julian2. I am also The Opps Girl. But cross me, and I become Bitch Dooku!
#79
Posted: 5/31/07 at 11:19am
Do you feel that the show really deserved three Featured Actor nominations?
#80
Posted: 5/31/07 at 12:21pm
Eyre should have won for lighting, no question about it. What Fisher did with that carousel projection rack was nothing short of gorgeous as well as innovative.
http://docandraider.com
#81
Posted: 5/31/07 at 1:47pm
Did it deserve some awards - yes
Did it deserve all of its awards - hell no.
Did it deserve all of its awards - hell no.
#82
Posted: 5/31/07 at 2:18pm
I think that The Producers breathed a new life into Broadway. People that weren't really inclined to go to theater, suddenly heard about this riotous production with two stars that had amazing chemistry together (for this show, anyway) and it became a huge case of supply and demand. I do believe that the "premium" ticket prices started with the "Producers". (thank-u very much, producers)
#83
Posted: 5/31/07 at 4:25pm
I'm not really buying the whole "it-brought-old-fashioned-musical-comedy-back-to-Broadway" thing. Yes, it is something of a pastische show that is reminiscent of the Golden Age scores, though I found the book to be far too crude and vulgar at times to equate it with the classier shows of the actual era. Personally, I felt shows like Crazy For You, City of Angels, and Will Rogers Follies, did it better and with more style and class.
I do think the unending buzz (since Mel Brooks announced the project) and the casting helped build the show up to an enormous reputation that preceded it and it became "the show to see" before it even began previews. Is it clever? Yes. Is it funny? Sometimes. Is it entertaining? Of course. Is it deserving of every Tony it won? I don't think so. And I think the sharp decline of the show once Matt and Natha left is a direct indication of that. The book and score simply aren't enough to make it the be-all end-all of musical comedy. I did find the score somewhat bland and the book too frenetic and at times too crude (and before you say, "but it's Mel Brooks!", save your breath, I know that already). By the time the show got to "Betrayed", I was exhausted, a bit annoyed, and I couldn't wait for it to end.
I do think the unending buzz (since Mel Brooks announced the project) and the casting helped build the show up to an enormous reputation that preceded it and it became "the show to see" before it even began previews. Is it clever? Yes. Is it funny? Sometimes. Is it entertaining? Of course. Is it deserving of every Tony it won? I don't think so. And I think the sharp decline of the show once Matt and Natha left is a direct indication of that. The book and score simply aren't enough to make it the be-all end-all of musical comedy. I did find the score somewhat bland and the book too frenetic and at times too crude (and before you say, "but it's Mel Brooks!", save your breath, I know that already). By the time the show got to "Betrayed", I was exhausted, a bit annoyed, and I couldn't wait for it to end.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#84
Posted: 5/31/07 at 4:31pm
Very well said, Mister Matt. I kick myself for paying full price in 2004. I was very underwhelmed by it all. That was one cast recording that was played one time and never saw the light of day after that.
Hey Dottie!
Did your colleagues enjoy the cake even though your cat decided to sit on it? ~GuyfromGermany
#85
Posted: 5/31/07 at 7:31pm
Had I seen Nathan Lane and Mathew Broderick in THE PRODUCERS, I probably would have liked it. As it was, I was very disappointed in the show because my expectations were so high. Did the show deserve so many Tony Awards? In a stronger season, probably not.
Let's Look Back to the Golden Age during a Strong Season:
In 1960, the contenders for best musical were GYPSY, FIORELLO!, ONCE UPON A MATTRESS, TAKE ME ALONG, and THE SOUND OF MUSIC. The Winners for Best Musical were FIORELLO! and THE SOUND OF MUSIC in a tie. THE SOUND OF MUSIC went on to win most of the awards for a musical, even best conductor and musical director, a category that no longer exists, unfortunately. FIORELLO! tied with THE SOUND OF MUSIC in the categories of Best Authors of a Musical, Best Producers of a Musical, and Best Composer of a Musical.In 1960, there was no category for best Lyricist and no separate category for Best Score. Amazing!
In 1960, Arthur Laurents was not nominated for Best Author, Jule Styne was not nominated for best composer, Stephen Sondheim was in a category that didn't exist, and Jerome Robbins was not nominated for best choreographer. GYPSY did receive nominations for all of the other categories. When Ethel Merman lost to Mary Martin for The Sound of Music she gave the retort, "How can you buck a nun?" In the end, GYPSY, perhaps the greatest musical ever, did not win one Tony!!!
Do the Tony Awards really honor excellence in the theatre?
Let's Look Back to the Golden Age during a Strong Season:
In 1960, the contenders for best musical were GYPSY, FIORELLO!, ONCE UPON A MATTRESS, TAKE ME ALONG, and THE SOUND OF MUSIC. The Winners for Best Musical were FIORELLO! and THE SOUND OF MUSIC in a tie. THE SOUND OF MUSIC went on to win most of the awards for a musical, even best conductor and musical director, a category that no longer exists, unfortunately. FIORELLO! tied with THE SOUND OF MUSIC in the categories of Best Authors of a Musical, Best Producers of a Musical, and Best Composer of a Musical.In 1960, there was no category for best Lyricist and no separate category for Best Score. Amazing!
In 1960, Arthur Laurents was not nominated for Best Author, Jule Styne was not nominated for best composer, Stephen Sondheim was in a category that didn't exist, and Jerome Robbins was not nominated for best choreographer. GYPSY did receive nominations for all of the other categories. When Ethel Merman lost to Mary Martin for The Sound of Music she gave the retort, "How can you buck a nun?" In the end, GYPSY, perhaps the greatest musical ever, did not win one Tony!!!
Do the Tony Awards really honor excellence in the theatre?
"Madam Rose...and her daughter...Gypsy!"
#86
Posted: 5/31/07 at 8:26pm
Yazbek's score for Full Monty is certainly not as good as Dirty Rotten Scoundrel's score, but I enjoyed Things Could Be Better 'Round Here, A Woman's World, Big Black Man and You Gotta Love that Man. Big Ass Rock is an amusing song that goes on too long and Let It Go, while tuneful, repeats itself too much. Brooks deserved score though.
#87
Posted: 6/1/07 at 1:25am
I simply disagree!
Producers is an amazing show.
Producers is an amazing show.
#88
Posted: 6/1/07 at 1:36am
I disagree, jv. I think Yazbek's score for The Full Monty is actually more enjoyable than his score for Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. I found Scoundrels to be pretty tame and generic and sometimes even boring, whereas The Full Monty had a distinct voice. I never tire of listening to that cast recording. Each song is wonderful and hilarious and perfect for the show. I have yet to listen to The Producers in full since I bought the CD six years ago. The Full Monty most definitely should have won the Tony for score over The Producers.
~Steven
~Steven
#89
Posted: 6/1/07 at 7:56am
Why Yazbek's score for The Full Monty is better than Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is because it actually has some substance and has quite a few character driven songs. Anything that's considered crude in The Full Monty (and there's nothing that shocking in the lyrics) is fine because it's completely in the tone of the character. With Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, while a decent score, sometimes the lyrics are vulgar when they don't need to be.
What I love about the score is that every song is in the right place and is needed. For those who say that the lyrics in the finale repeat themselves, I don't see how that's a problem. The song isn't about the lyrics, it's about the music and the dance. The lyrics are serviceable and I wouldn't have it any other way. If Yazbek went out of his way to write clever lyrics for the song it would detract from the purpose of it. He can write some great lyrics, as almost every other song proves.
Yazbek wrote a pretty great score for The Full Monty, proving he can write just about anything in musical theatre and still keep it true. He can write a showtopper (Big Black Man), an incredible Act Finale (Michael Jordan's Ball), moving ballads (Breeze Off the River and You Walk With Me), a perfect and unique "I want" song (Man), and so much more. Whenever comparing a song from The Producers with one from The Full Monty, The Full Monty always shines more. At least for me.
What I love about the score is that every song is in the right place and is needed. For those who say that the lyrics in the finale repeat themselves, I don't see how that's a problem. The song isn't about the lyrics, it's about the music and the dance. The lyrics are serviceable and I wouldn't have it any other way. If Yazbek went out of his way to write clever lyrics for the song it would detract from the purpose of it. He can write some great lyrics, as almost every other song proves.
Yazbek wrote a pretty great score for The Full Monty, proving he can write just about anything in musical theatre and still keep it true. He can write a showtopper (Big Black Man), an incredible Act Finale (Michael Jordan's Ball), moving ballads (Breeze Off the River and You Walk With Me), a perfect and unique "I want" song (Man), and so much more. Whenever comparing a song from The Producers with one from The Full Monty, The Full Monty always shines more. At least for me.
"Sing the words, Patti!!!!" Stephen Sondheim to Patti LuPone.
#90
Posted: 6/1/07 at 12:52pm
It deserved them all except score, orchestrations and featured actress.
Yes, we do need a third vampire musical.--Little Sally, Gypsy of the Year 2005.
#91
Posted: 6/1/07 at 1:29pm
wickedfan - I totally agree.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#92
Posted: 6/1/07 at 4:23pm
When speaking of "musical comedy" and the original essence of what musicals are, I for one was talking pre-R&H. Now I do not think that a group of young children running for their lives from Nazis or a ruthless Siam king are comedic musicals. I was thinking of the light-hearted Gilbert and Sullivan operettas or Cole Porter's 1930s toe-tapping helluva good time shows.
The whole basis of Mel Brooks' work is crude. If you don't like his film output, why on earth did you go and see the show simply to criticise it? He has created enough parodies for anyone to realise that his venture into theatre would be no different.
As for the whole Nathan/Matthew debate. Yes they made the roles their own, but to say that it was rubbish once they left is absurd. I never saw the show with those two staring (with the exception of the movie), and I thoroughly enjoyed it each time. I last saw it a couple of weeks ago with Cory English and John Gordon Sinclair in Manchester and they were fantastic. I actually enjoyed Cory more than I did Nathan in the movie- he was fantastic!
Also, whoever grudges Mel for not being able to read/write musical notation is slightly pretentious and snobbish. If he can create songs, lyrics and melodies then who should grudge him the cudos he deserves (rightly, IMO), whether or not he can actually write music. Lionel Bart couldn't write music either, but no-one can argue Oliver! doesn't deserve the praise it does, for capturing the spirit of cockney London at a time when the old way of life was disappearing. This is a zeitgeist, achieved regardless of whether the creator actually wrote or simply dictated his ideas and his baby on manuscript paper.
S.
The whole basis of Mel Brooks' work is crude. If you don't like his film output, why on earth did you go and see the show simply to criticise it? He has created enough parodies for anyone to realise that his venture into theatre would be no different.
As for the whole Nathan/Matthew debate. Yes they made the roles their own, but to say that it was rubbish once they left is absurd. I never saw the show with those two staring (with the exception of the movie), and I thoroughly enjoyed it each time. I last saw it a couple of weeks ago with Cory English and John Gordon Sinclair in Manchester and they were fantastic. I actually enjoyed Cory more than I did Nathan in the movie- he was fantastic!
Also, whoever grudges Mel for not being able to read/write musical notation is slightly pretentious and snobbish. If he can create songs, lyrics and melodies then who should grudge him the cudos he deserves (rightly, IMO), whether or not he can actually write music. Lionel Bart couldn't write music either, but no-one can argue Oliver! doesn't deserve the praise it does, for capturing the spirit of cockney London at a time when the old way of life was disappearing. This is a zeitgeist, achieved regardless of whether the creator actually wrote or simply dictated his ideas and his baby on manuscript paper.
S.
#94
Posted: 6/9/07 at 11:25am
Yes. The Producers was a shot in the arm for Broadway. It was a love letter to Broadway. The staging was amazing, and well done.
The roles of Max and to a lesser extent that of Leo were phyisically demanding.
The score was written by Mel Brooks, who by the way can't read music. He had to expess the song to someone that could read music.
Also, it was the The Producers that changed the pricing of tickets for Broadway shows to over $100.00 for orchestra seats.
The roles of Max and to a lesser extent that of Leo were phyisically demanding.
The score was written by Mel Brooks, who by the way can't read music. He had to expess the song to someone that could read music.
Also, it was the The Producers that changed the pricing of tickets for Broadway shows to over $100.00 for orchestra seats.
#95
Posted: 6/9/07 at 12:10pm
Lionel Bart couldn't read music either. You know what he created? The score for Oliver! The "he can't read music" line isn't a solid argument for saying Brooks did or didn't deserve the Tony. The fact that the score is serviceable with some good moments is the reason why I think it didn't deserve the Tony.
"Sing the words, Patti!!!!" Stephen Sondheim to Patti LuPone.
#96
Posted: 6/9/07 at 12:29pm
Every. Last. One.
"Hurry up and get into your conga clothes - we've got to do something to save this show!"
#97
Posted: 6/9/07 at 12:45pm
wickedfan:
The score to The Producers was much better, and more memorable that the score to the Fully Monty. Which is why It deserved the Tony. The fact that Mel Brooks can't read music just adds to why the score deserved the Tony.
The score to The Producers was much better, and more memorable that the score to the Fully Monty. Which is why It deserved the Tony. The fact that Mel Brooks can't read music just adds to why the score deserved the Tony.
#98
Posted: 6/9/07 at 1:00pm
The fact that he can't read music just makes for a better story. It adds nothing to him deserving it more. And I'll reiterate that I think wholeheartedly that The Full Monty's score was leagues above that of The Producers. The Producers has a decent score, some hummable songs, some cute lyrics. But the best number is the one that was in the original movie: Springtime for Hitler. You're entitled to your opinion, I disagree, but whatever. But Brooks not being able to read music does not add a f*cking thing to him "deserving" that award.
"Sing the words, Patti!!!!" Stephen Sondheim to Patti LuPone.
#99
Posted: 6/9/07 at 11:01pm
It's been said before, but I'll throw in my agreement:
Most. Overrated. Show. Ever.
Ever!
Most. Overrated. Show. Ever.
Ever!
It's just a message board. Let's not take it too seriously.
#100
Posted: 10/21/09 at 1:28pm
I like The Producers a lot but frankly, The Full Monty deserved those Tonys way more (with a win for Marla Schaffel for Best Actress, the ONLY category that was safe from The Producers).
Butters, go buy World of Warcraft, install it on your computer, and join the online sensation before we all murder you.
--Cartman: South Park
ATTENTION FANS: I will be played by James Barbour in the upcoming musical, "BroadwayWorld: The Musical."
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95