Posted: 7/9/19 at 6:37pm
Posted: 7/9/19 at 8:53pm
Posted: 7/9/19 at 9:15pm
Posted: 7/9/19 at 9:18pm
Posted: 7/9/19 at 9:34pm
Posted: 7/9/19 at 9:38pm
Expected something a little bit more inspired, but I am excited to see Alexandra Socha sing this score if this rumor proves true. This and Henry, Sweet Henry are my favorite 'bad book/catchy score' musicals.
Posted: 7/9/19 at 10:09pm
Posted: 7/9/19 at 10:27pm
PTChazman said: "Love that score. Still can’t understand how the original production was such a flop."
I can tell you. (I was the PA on a production directed by Ron Link that was mounted in Miami Beach and tried to fix what had gone wrong on Broadway. To little avail, I'm sorry to say, though Lucie Arnaz was a marvelous Mabel.)
As with most musical flops, the problem is the book (and the decision to be more or less true to the historical persons portrayed).
Act I is fine: Mack and Mabel meet, he makes her a star, they fall in love and then split up because he is commitment-phobic and obsessed with developing the new medium of film.
Act II is a disaster--despite what may be Herman's best ballad, "Time Heals Everything"--because Mack and Mabel have split up and book writer Michael Stewart resorts to the feeblest excuses to bring them together. For example, just before "Time Heals", Mack runs into Mabel on a boat dock. He asks what she is doing there and she replies, "I'm looking for my little red suitcase." The little red suitcase that is never mentioned again. It was a running joke among the cast: "WTF is in that little red suitcase? Maybe that's where she keeps her morphine!"
Of course, the historical Mabel was involved in a huge scandal that involved a murder and remains unsolved--IIRC--today. It is mentioned in the show, but it has nothing to do with Mack and nothing to do with his relationship with Mabel.
Mack visits Mabel on her (spoiler) deathbed (I don't know if that is historical, but I buy that he might do that), but that is the conclusion of the play. Herman has always blamed the failure on the sad ending, but the fact is Act II slowly unravels the show well before Mabel's demise.
Act I is MACK AND MABEL. Act II is MACK WITHOUT MABEL; MABEL WITHOUT MACK. Mack invents the Keystone Kops. Mabel makes art films; gets addicted to morphine; and has an affair with her director, who is murdered.
In our production (which also starred greats such as Tommy Tune, Marilyn Cooper and David Cryer as Mack), Ron Link tried to solve the ending by having Mack repeat a line from Act I: "What's the point of making movies if you can't reinvent life?" He then replayed the overture, but staged it as Mack's vision of a perfect marriage to Mabel. It was brilliant visually (sort of Busby Berkeley-esque), but the damage had already been done.
Still, the revised version--Michael Stewart threw his tickets for opening night at me and said, "Tell 'em I'm going back to Paris!"--was quite popular and sold out in both Fort Lauderdale and Miami Beach. But that doesn't mean it would have worked on Broadway; frankly I doubt it.
***
I also saw Douglas Sills play Mack for LA Reprise, over 15 years ago. He seemed to be playing the period more than the character. It was nothing special. They did go back to the original version, with predictably dim results. Sadly, Jane Krakowski as Mabel wasn't any better.
But the theme of M&M is the cheerful fantasy of movies v. the heartbreaking reality of life. Just making the show "happier" isn't going to fix it.
Updated On: 7/9/19 at 10:27 PM
Posted: 7/9/19 at 10:33pm
fashionguru_23 said: "Jack Virtel in his book talks about how we don't want to spend time with Mack, because he tells you negative things about movies, and then sings a song ("Movies Were Movies"
telling you how great the movies are."
"Movies Were Movies" is the opening number, so he can't sing it AFTER telling us anything. Unless Virtel means that Mack says something disparaging about talkies and then sings about how great silent films were. And, really, what else would we expect him to say? (He also acknowledges at various points that movies are a kind of film flam compared to real life, but I would hardly describe such remarks as "crabby" or any more negative than any other "life v. art" story.)
***
ETA to say I, too, would love to hear Alexandra Socha sing the score. I only know her from recordings but she has the most amazing voice, without sounding overly trained.
Updated On: 7/9/19 at 10:33 PM
Posted: 7/10/19 at 6:37am
Posted: 7/10/19 at 7:06am
Charley Kringas Inc said: "Because the book sorta sucks. Great tunes, but..."
I feel like that reason is mentioned everytime a show that flopped is brought up. Then again a musical with a good book and horrible music dies on stage and never gets a second life.
Posted: 7/10/19 at 8:44am
GavestonPS said: "fashionguru_23 said: "Jack Virtel in his book talks about how we don't want to spend time with Mack, because he tells you negative things about movies, and then sings a song ("Movies Were Movies" telling you how great the movies are."
"Movies Were Movies" is the opening number, so he can't sing it AFTER telling us anything. Unless Virtel means that Mack says something disparaging about talkies and then sings about how great silent films were. And, really, what else would we expect him to say? (He also acknowledges at various points that movies are a kind of film flam compared to real life, but I would hardly describe such remarks as "crabby" or any morenegative than any other "life v. art" story.)
***
ETA to say I, too, would love to hear Alexandra Socha sing the score. I only know her from recordings but she has the most amazing voice, without sounding overly trained."
After the overture, the first scene is Mack barging into the soundstage at three in the morning and harassing the night watchman about how modern studios make money “with the crap they grind out” and disparages them in comparison to Birth of a Nation and Chaplin, and then launches into his first song, the chorus of which is “but we were just makin’ a buck”. Viertel uses it as an example of how not to open a musical, because it makes it difficult to tell what Mack wants or thinks. And then the first scene after the prologue is Mack being an insufferable asshole on the set of a movie, where Mable literally stumbles in and has like four lines of dialogue before being “discovered”, which is a little bit bewildering. It’s like if Louise was discovered in the first scene of Gypsy, or if Dolly came down the stairs in scene two. Where do you go from there? Mack and Mabel can’t come up with a suitable answer.
Posted: 7/10/19 at 9:28am
Socha performing as Mabel during “Hey, Look Me Over!” was the highlight of that show for me and made me immediately want to see her play the role in its entirety. Hope this rumor turns out to be true!
Posted: 7/10/19 at 9:37am
L_Ash826 said: "Very excited to hear about Alexandra Socha! I didn’t see Hey Look me Over, but here’s a promotional clip where she sings a cut of “Look What Happened to Mabel” and I think I watched this 100 times.
https://youtu.be/782TjtCHnek
I just loooove her voice, love to watch her. She was such a standout in Fun Home at the Public (still prefer and play her recordings), and her performance of the song “Good Girl” in Head Over Heels was one of the highlights.
(Side note, I was really hoping for a cast album of HoH specifically for that track... if anyone happens to have or know of a recording, help a pal out!)"
‘Head Over Heels’ released their cast album last year while they were still open.
https://www.amazon.com/Head-Heels-Original-Broadway-Recording/dp/B07H5VVL5M
Single track:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?index=7&list=PLOTMMpgv9oBoT8pqbjIOFRzRlmYtuCE95&t=0s&v=oQRLCKQ3eX8
Updated On: 7/10/19 at 09:37 AM
Posted: 7/10/19 at 10:00am
Gosh, I hope these rumors are true. Hey, Look Me Over was an enjoyable night of theatre with Broadway star after star up on that stage. The Mack & Mabel highlights were, in my opinion, the strongest part of the whole revue. The buzz at intermission was incredible. Sills and Socha were quite talents in their section.
As the New York Times says here in December, when's it gonna happen?
Posted: 7/10/19 at 10:03am
Viertel's theory, like his book, is glib. And it's time for him to step down from his post as Encores! Artistic Director, too.
The reason why MACK AND MABEL doesn't work and never will work is because the book is terrible-- absolutely slapdash and amateurish. It's amazing that Jerry Herman got such a colorful, characterful score out of it. I think his songs for Mabel are among the finest of his career, and unlike Mr. Viertel, I think "Movies Were Movies" gets the job of establishing Mack's character with verve and specificity. The problem is the scene that comes before it. Herman is capable of writing mediocre stuff sometimes, but I have come to appreciate his work on MACK AND MABEL more and more recently after examining Stewart's terrible book.
Posted: 7/10/19 at 12:07pm
DoTheDood said: "Charley Kringas Inc said: "Because the book sorta sucks. Great tunes, but..."
I feel like that reason is mentioned everytime a show that flopped is brought up. Then again a musical with a good book and horrible music dies on stage and never gets a second life."
That will undoubtedly be the case with Tootsie...you don't leave a musical humming the jokes.
Posted: 7/10/19 at 12:12pm
Posted: 7/10/19 at 12:36pm
jv92 said: "Viertel's theory, like his book, is glib. And it's time for him to step down from his post as Encores! Artistic Director, too.
The reason why MACK AND MABEL doesn't work and never will work is because the book is terrible-- absolutely slapdash and amateurish. It's amazing that Jerry Herman got such a colorful, characterful score out of it. I think his songs for Mabel are among the finest of his career, and unlike Mr. Viertel, I think "Movies Were Movies" gets the job of establishing Mack's character with verve and specificity. The problem is the scene that comes before it. Herman is capable of writing mediocre stuff sometimes,but I have come to appreciate his work on MACK AND MABEL more and more recently after examining Stewart's terrible book."
I saw the show when it was originally on Broadway at the Majestic Theatre. I still remember the curtain call vividly...the audience could barely applaud, they hated the show so much. The show had a great score, choreography, excellent performances by the leads, excellent production values, and it was a flop from the beginning. Great numbers got tepid applause because the audience was so not into the show.
A key problem, beyond the terrible book, was that the audience expectation; they went in not really knowing anything about Mack and Mabel, other than the fact that he made a lot of funny movies and created the Keystone cops, and Mabel was his discovery who became a star (and they only knew that from the advanced press).
They remembered that Herman / Champion / Stewart had created Hello, Dolly, which was universally loved. They were expecting a joyous musical about making early talkies, with a love story thrown in. They got a show that ended with the female lead dying of a drug overdose. I don't think they showed her actual death scene, but they did show her lying on a bed when Mack visited her...there may have been a number after he told the audience that she died (as I remember), but it was too late. With the best book in the world, the show was going to be a downer, based on the story Stewart had to work with.
I once wondered whether the show would have been better had it been shown in non-chronological order, a la Pulp Fiction, but realized that that would've put too much of a burden on the audience a mere 3-4 years after Follies closed. And it was still a downer (as was Follies, which I loved). The only way that show could ever succeed is if ...no, I don't think it will ever succeed with that story. Jerry Herman wrote his IMO greatest score to support a story that was never going to work as a big lavish, Broadway musical in a huge theatre.
The contrast between the huge production numbers and actual story was consistently jarring. Maybe a John Doyle type-production, in which the big numbers were minimized (focus on the music, not the 30 people in the number), with changes incorporated into the book (and maybe some time jiggling) could work, in a theatre no larger than the Music Box.
Audiences would certainly expect a totally different show than they got in 1975.
Posted: 7/10/19 at 12:38pm
jv92 said: "Viertel's theory, like his book, is glib. And it's time for him to step down from his post as Encores! Artistic Director, too.
The reason why MACK AND MABEL doesn't work and never will work is because the book is terrible-- absolutely slapdash and amateurish. It's amazing that Jerry Herman got such a colorful, characterful score out of it. I think his songs for Mabel are among the finest of his career, and unlike Mr. Viertel, I think "Movies Were Movies" gets the job of establishing Mack's character with verve and specificity. The problem is the scene that comes before it. Herman is capable of writing mediocre stuff sometimes,but I have come to appreciate his work on MACK AND MABEL more and more recently after examining Stewart's terrible book."
I mean, I don't think Mack saying "you guys are just in it for the money" and then immediately singing "back then we just wanted to make money" literally dooms the show, but it's a pretty good example of how to immediately throw an audience off and frustrate their first-ten-minutes epiphany about the show's thesis.
And the point he's making is that the first scene and the first song don't jibe, so yes, the problem is the scene that comes before the song. You agree with his point!
Posted: 7/10/19 at 12:48pm
Posted: 7/10/19 at 12:48pm
If the casting is true it does not surprise me, however it seems rather early to cast it given all of the things that life brings to people on a moments notice..
Posted: 7/10/19 at 12:55pm
Very excited about this. Still fondly remember Sills blowing the roof off NYCC during Hey, Look me Over!
Posted: 7/10/19 at 9:20pm
suzycat said: "Does it bother anyone that Sills & Socha are 30 years apart in age?"
Robert Preston was 30 years older than Bernadette Peters.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
