Does Chicago need to close?- Page 3

[BenjaminNicholas2]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 5:49pm

Close? Are you forgetting who's producing this show? This isn't going to close anytime soon, especially since their numbers are up and there's always another B-lister who's willing to step into one of the four leading roles.

What they NEED to do is fire most of the chorus: They sleepwalk through the show, have been around far longer than they should have been and aren't anywhere near the 'sexy' that Chicago was when it first opened.

Or, take a page from the West End production and bring back a truly WORTHY Roxie like Ruthie Henshall.



Chicago will remain. It's a staple. Get used to it.




BN

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 6:20pm

The whole argument about whether "Chicago" needs to close or should close seems to me to be missing the point. If the show is no longer profitable, then it will close. It's that simple.

As long as the show earns its keep, as it is apparently doing, it will run. And if it runs, and the show is tired, then the producers have an obligation to get the show back into shape-- if need be, to bring in fresh faces who will give the show the energy level it requires, and that the paying customers have a right to expect.

It's a great piece, when done right. Unfortunately, it's not now being done right. The producers should take notice.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 6:46pm

"And if it runs, and the show is tired, then the producers have an obligation to get the show back into shape"

Not that I agree with it but the Producers have absolutely ZERO obligation, in this request. To you or anyone else. Their obligation stops at selling tickets and making money!

Obviously I'm aware of the other 1,000 responsibilities but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say...

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 7:31pm

"Not that I agree with it but the Producers have absolutely ZERO obligation, in this request. To you or anyone else. Their obligation stops at selling tickets and making money!

Obviously I'm aware of the other 1,000 responsibilities but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say... "


I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't agree with you. Anyone who provides a service or product to a paying customer, whether it be a car, a refrigerator, or a Broadway show, has an obligation to make sure that the service or product is of sufficient quality to justify the expenditure.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 7:40pm

"has an obligation to make sure that the service or product is of sufficient quality to justify the expenditure."

LOL. According to the ticket sales and gross/income, they are certainly doing that.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 7:50pm

"LOL. According to the ticket sales and gross/income, they are certainly doing that."

They're not. That's the problem.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 8:35pm

According to you, they aren't.

Ticket sales tell differently. If EVERYONE believed what you believed, they wouldn't be doing so well for years and years... Sorry.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 9:11pm

"Ticket sales tell differently. If EVERYONE believed what you believed, they wouldn't be doing so well for years and years... Sorry."


I can't speak for what's been going on in past years, since I haven't attended this show on a yearly basis. But from what I saw last week, the producers are not presenting anywhere near the quality of what this show was when it opened. And the audience response was tepid, at best.

If, as you say, others still think it's being presented as well as it should be, then good for them. I felt ripped off, however.

Incidentally, the seats at the Ambassador are worn and frayed. Where does the "theatre restoration" fee go, and for what?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 11:19am

"husk_charmer, due keep in mind that A Chorus Line will always keep its status of of the longest running American musical on Broadway even if Chicago plays longer than it. Do keep in mind that this production of Chicago is a revival and not an original production."

That makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't matter if it is a revival or not, once it plays more performances, it will have run longer.

"Ticket sales tell differently. If EVERYONE believed what you believed, they wouldn't be doing so well for years and years... Sorry."

Nonsense. Chicago, Phantom, and Mamma Mia! are KNOWN brands, so people will find them to be a "safe" purchase. Chicago and Mamma Mia! play heavily to foreign tourists, and that is the key to their survival. Their ticket sales have nothing to do with quality. Most tourists buy tickets to those two shows (and Phantom, as well) because they have heard of these shows. If these shows were people, they would have been forced to retire years ago.

"Incidentally, the seats at the Ambassador are worn and frayed. Where does the "theatre restoration" fee go, and for what?"

That's actually the strike fund for the League. It goes to support the productions in case of a work stoppage. Restoration costs are almost always passed on to the next tenant of a theater.
Updated On: 12/16/09 at 11:19 AM

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 11:38am

Fosse, I'm not speaking to its quality...

My point was, rather, that ticket sales are telling us it doesn't NEED to close. Who cares who the audience is? Tourists count. They're buying the tickets and "Chicago" is still profitable - it's not about the actual quality.

I'm not saying that I support that sh!t hole of a production. But they have every right to keep the show as it currently is. It's kind of like their party and they'll cry if they want to, ya know? It's doing no harm to Broadway. Let the tourists and "Chicago" groupies enjoy it. Whatever.

[WestVillage]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 12:55pm

I have an acquaintance who has been in the cast for years, and openly admits to staying with the show because its a steady paycheck. This person is bored to death, dreads going to the theatre every night, but has vowed to stay in it until it closes or their contract is not renewed, whichever comes first.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 12:00am

"I have an acquaintance who has been in the cast for years, and openly admits to staying with the show because its a steady paycheck. This person is bored to death, dreads going to the theatre every night, but has vowed to stay in it until it closes or their contract is not renewed, whichever comes first."

That's some attitude your acquaintance has.

Deplorable in every respect.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 12:00am

And it's a common attitude.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 12:15am

To some people a job is a job. And I don't think there's anything inherently offensive about that.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 12:41am

I agree. You would be surprised with how many Broadway actors, both young and old, simply view it as a paycheck - and nothing more than that.

Some people have this euphoric belief that every day is a "dream come true" for these performers... Or that they're going through some crazy intense artistic masterpiece, hour after hour.

Take off the shades, folks.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 7:15am

"To some people a job is a job. And I don't think there's anything inherently offensive about that."

I think it's offensive if one is not doing the job the way it should be done.



"I agree. You would be surprised with how many Broadway actors, both young and old, simply view it as a paycheck - and nothing more than that.

Some people have this euphoric belief that every day is a "dream come true" for these performers... Or that they're going through some crazy intense artistic masterpiece, hour after hour.

Take off the shades, folks."


I'm not wearing shades. If someone is bored to tears and dreads going to the theatre to do the job he's getting paid to do, then that person should damn well suck it up and find a way to earn his keep, and give the members of the audience the level of professionalism they paid for and have a right to expect. There are plenty of out-of-work actors who would love to be so bored to death, and would probably give a hell of a lot better performance.

That's what distinguishes the people who are committed to their craft from those who shouldn't be practicing it. Judy Holliday, a brilliant actress who could give a great performance any night without even trying, was still working on improving her performance at the closing night of "Bells Are Ringing." It's depressing that others don't follow her example.

[trombonist]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 7:46am

Nonsense. Chicago, Phantom, and Mamma Mia! are KNOWN brands, so people will find them to be a "safe" purchase. Chicago and Mamma Mia! play heavily to foreign tourists, and that is the key to their survival.

Exactly - especially on the foreign tourists thing. I was going down the street one night to meet up with a friend who had seen 33 Variations and happened to hit it as Chicago was letting out, and I swear I heard NO English at all but was lost in a sea of foreign languages.

And I'm sorry, but if that's true about the "theater restoration fee" they really should call it what it is. There's a little thing called truth in advertising...
Updated On: 12/17/09 at 07:46 AM

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 10:03am

"There's a little thing called truth in advertising..."

When was the last time that happened? LOL

[TreyKenyon]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 11:02am

While apathetic actors can certainly hurt the quality of a show, it is not exclusive to Chicago. I'm sure there are cast members of just about every show on Broadway that don't always give it their all or view the show as just a paycheck. Chicago does not need to close, but it certainly could benfefit from better stage managing and perhaps replacing those apathetic cast members.

And I don't think the foreign tourist argument holds much water. They keep on coming to the show, so they obviously must like something about it. And I find it hard to believe that people want Chicago to close so that no more foriegn tourists are taken advantage of.

[trombonist]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 11:13am

Well snob, at least it's usually not as deceptive as indicating that something is going to a building when actually it's (allegedly) setting up funding to pay people in the event of a strike. I'm sorry...the public doesn't fund MY union's strike fund should a strike be necessary. Why should I fund someone else's? That type of funding should come from a) dues which are mandatory and automatically deducted and/or b) something like the UFT Cope fund where we elect to participate and contribute $5 pre-tax per check to fund things like this as well as political action.

I deal with the union thing because I don't have an option since this isn't a right-to-work state. I'm not happy about it.

I certainly don't like knowing I've been deceived into funding someone else's as well under the guise of "theater restoration". Updated On: 12/17/09 at 11:13 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 11:16am

I disagree with the thread title and most of the opinions expressed herein.

I saw Chiacgo two months simply to see Brent Barrett's Billy Flynn (which is superb), and I was delighted to see that the cast was exciting and engaged and completely upholding the Fosse legacy.

The show was tight as a chorus boy's butt.

The cast is committed enough to have created a Gypsy of the Year sketch that WON the competition last week, beating out all the other Broadway shows:

===

Actors from the long-running Broadway production of Chicago won the Gypsy of the Year's Best Stage Presentation award with a gay-themed interpretation of the West Side Story song "I Have a Love," titled "9th Avenue Story," and featuring Ryan Lowe performing the Anita part in a startlingly powerful falsetto that brought down the house.







Chicago Wins Gypsy of the Year

Updated On: 12/17/09 at 11:16 AM

[fgreene1938]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 12:30pm

The only time a show "needs" to close is when it stops making money. The original poster thought the show was tired and poorly performed. I saw it in 1999 and thought it was terrific. But I also saw the original "Chorus Line" in 1980 (5 years into the run) and thought most of the cast was lifeless. By that point, I think they'd run through just about every "dancer-who-can-sing-and-act" in NY, so many of the parts were undersung and poorly acted. Yet, it ran another 10 years. Long runs ebb and flow over time.

[mallardo]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 12:58pm

Like all shows Chicago depends on a good cast to keep it alive and fresh. Every once in a while it gets that cast. In London right now you can see Ruthie Henshall as Roxie and Terra C. McLeod as Velma. As a consequence it's terrific.

[nealb1]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 2:20pm

No, "Chicago" does not need to close, or any show for that matter.

Think of the ripple effect of when a show closes. Actors, crew, musicians, box office/usher staff are unemployed. Taxis, limos, cafes and restaurants won't get that money from customers.

You're right........"needing" a show to close is much more important than people spending money, keeping artists employed, and enjoying themselves in this down economy.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/17/09 at 2:31pm

You would be surprised with how many Broadway actors, both young and old, simply view it as a paycheck - and nothing more than that.

I'm certainly not surprised by that. But when they start to convey their apathy and boredom to the audience, then they aren't doing their job, but it's the Stage Manager, Director and/or Producers who should be apprised of this and manage the company accordingly. If the actor is letting the audience know they are only there for a check, then they should probably be let go. Surprisingly, there is more to performing than simply going through the motions.