Does Chicago need to close?

I saw Chicago last night--and I was SO excited to see it! I've seen it twice before (once in 2006 with Charlotte D'Amboise (sp?) and again in 2007 (with Robin Givens)). I don't know if it's the fact that there were I think 4 or 5 understudies in last night or what--but it just was not a very exciting show. I was sitting in the rear mezz for act 1, and it really sounded like the actors were whispering at times.

Ashlee Simpson was a surprisingly good dancer, I thought. I didn't think she'd be able to keep up at all, but she was pretty good! Not great, but good for my standards I have for Ashlee Simpson-Wentz!

Is it time for this show to close? I feel like the cast goes through ups and downs in energy levels--but last night was pretty bad at times, I thought. It just seemed tired compared to the exciting show I saw back in 2006.

---

I think it does.

Granted, that's coming from the "It's getting too close to running longer than A Chorus LIne and it shouldn't happen."

That and I don't wanna have to say "A Chorus Line is the longest running original Broadway musical" (Sorry, Phantom and Les Miz and Cats are all West End transfers)

---

Saw it again this past summer, and the energy was high.

Seriously, they could probably sell less than 50% and it would still be profitable.

While I wouldn't say it "needs to close," I agree with Parks. This production is tired.

Chicago has become something of an institution. It may be a stripped-down, bare-bones production, but it's profitable, memorable, and provides the myriad celebrities anxious to get onstage an appropriate venue to do so. After all, CHICAGO, both the show and the production, are about stunt casting.

The last few times I saw it it was a lumbering bore. No energy is an understatement. The entire cast was sleepwalking through the whole show.

This is the nature of Broadway. Long runs tend eventually to leave a show a distant relative of the original. In some ways, the old days, when a long run was 500 performances, was better for the shows themselves. But now, if the producers are still making $$$$, their opinion - the only one that really counts is "Thanks but, no."

---

I wouldn't say its time for the show to close. I have seen the show 3 times and the second time I saw it I was very disappointed. When I saw it back in january this year though I was extremely impressed. What I like about the show is that is focuses on the characters instead of spectacle. The only problem is that if one lead is not into or the chemistry isnt very strong it can make the whole show a downer and make the expierence not as powerful. The production is brilliant, it just focuses on the cast and characters which means the performers need to be spot on and full of energy

Yes it does need to close, and should have a long time ago.

And to think people criticize Ragtime for its sparse set design. Talk about a bare bones production (Chicago), and people are still paying to see that crap.

winston-
Right, but you have to add the word original to the statement for it to retain the title.

---

The last time I was at this show was to see Melora Harden in it. I had seen it before and I kind of like it. I will admit that as a theatre fan I feel like the only thing that might get me to go to this show is if they hire a famous person who I would like to see on stage. Usually for that I go to see how bad or good they are going to be.

I mean it's the Wessler's we're talking about. These are people who brought the touring production of the 1990's Grease revival to City Center while the Broadway production was going strong at the O'Neil Theatre.

---

No, it doesn't need to close. it's like POTO and Mamma Mia. It doesn't matter how crappy the quality of the shows get, they just belong there.