Funny Girl engagements in L.A. and Broadway postponed- Page 4

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/5/11 at 7:46am

I think that's a good point best12 and a good idea; though I seem to remember that Debbie Gibson tour folded after only a few stops due to poor ticket sales, Sosa you say, having the right star in the property does seem to be paramount in creating audience interest for this particular musical.

Perhaps a simpler alternative would be a staging at Encores or Reprise; if Ambrose is really exceptional, and the new book works. they'll create a buzz; if not its a low risk investment.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 11/5/11 at 12:30pm

There is no way in hell any revival of a musical especially Funny Girl should cost $12 million dollars.

For example: On a clear Day and Promises Promises cost 9 million.
Why should Funny Girl need more? It doesn't have more sets or
orchestra. They don't even have the star caliber of Harry Connick, Sean Hayes or Kirsten Chenowith involved in this Funny Girl. That's where the extra money usually goes.

I'm sure Anything Goes didn't cost 9 million.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 11/5/11 at 12:35pm

It really would have been smarter to limit this to Encores! at first. It be a low-risk investment and would take the pressure off if the new book and Ambrose fell flat, but if it succeeded, it would have lent the production the buzz and positive response needed for a Broadway engagement.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/5/11 at 2:25pm

What "new book"?

Did I miss something?

[TimesSquared]

Posted: 11/5/11 at 3:10pm

I don't think there was a new book. Press releases just quoted Sher saying he might tinker with the "troubled" second act and re-introduce some songs cut from the show.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 11/5/11 at 3:14pm

Thtas too bad. I was really looking forward to this revival. Certainly more than Godspell or JCS.
Hopefully when and if they do mount it they wont replace Ms. Ambrose with that shrill voice from Glee.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/5/11 at 10:34pm

I think the opposition to Lea Michele here is irrational. She actually does a pretty good job of making songs her own while singing Streisand's arrangements. Not many could do that.

Back when she was still a relatively big name, I worked on a production of FUNNY GIRL starring Carol Lawrence. So I can testify that a production with a merely competent Fanny isn't worth the bother. (This isn't a slam against Ambrose. I thought she might be terrific. And Michele is young, but obviously talented.)

***

I never heard anything about a "new book". I'm not sure how much the book could be changed unless they started grabbing songs willy nilly from Jule Styne's trunk.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/5/11 at 10:37pm

There were substantial changes planned for the book and there were a couple of songs they were exploring adding to the score from Styne's 'trunk' - including one song cut from the original Broadway production.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 11/6/11 at 1:32am

Twelve million seems like A LOT of money for a production of Funny Girl. I am very curious as to what the visual elements would have looked like, escpecially Yeargan's set... Maybe some day.

Updated On: 11/6/11 at 01:32 AM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 11/6/11 at 6:40am

Gavesto2, Michele's voice is not the problem. Her tone is far too colorless for my taste, but I'm sure she would meet the demands of the score just fine. The reason she could never pull off the show in a million years is because she's not. funny. The entire show rests on the fact that Fanny is a dynamite comedienne with a completely unique, heightened comedic presence. Michele may be a lot of things, but a comedienne is not one of them. At all. Ever. Even beyond that, she's also playing a high school student on television for a reason- she still reads as if she's a teenager. Streisand may have been 21 when she originated the role on Broadway, but she always read significantly older (probably because of her larger-than-life presence.) I wouldn't ever buy Michele as a woman who's lived "alotta years," as Fanny says.

This isn't the type of role that can be pulled off by a good voice with an interesting look. It requires a once-in-a-lifetime superstar. I think that has just as much to do with the show's struggle to break out of Streisand's shadow as the legend of her performance does- it's a tough task to have someone sing a song called "I'm The Greatest Star" and have an audience believe it. Just because she's a Jewish girl with success on a television series who likes to sing Streisand doesn't mean Michele could ever or should ever do this role. If she did, which she very well may, the results would be disastrous. Just watch her rendition of "Don't Rain On My Parade" from the Tonys as a perfect example. The key task required of this role is that the entire thing look absolutely effortless, and yet Michele is constantly making you aware of how hard she's working, no matter what she's performing. It's too much. It comes off just... bizarre.

I also find it pretty hilarious how emphatically Michele has been claiming to have been a devoted worshiper of Streisand her entire life in the press lately. When Glee first started, I distinctly remember a contest they had where the winner got to attend a screening of the FUNNY GIRL film with Michele and Ryan Murphy. Murphy spoke about how the whole thing came up because he was shocked to learn while filming that pilot that Michele had never seen the movie. Now yes, she could have always loved Streisand's voice and never seen the film (though that would be hard to believe for someone who loves Streisand as much as she claims to,) but the hero-worship she now professes and the reason she continues to sing Streisand song after Streisand song is a complete social construction by Ryan Murphy. He wanted to "create" the next Barbra. In the process, he created a monster.

Updated On: 11/6/11 at 06:40 AM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/6/11 at 2:49pm

somethingwicked, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. But in my view, it's FUNNY GIRL that removes the comedy from Fanny Brice, not the actress who plays the part. I'm not saying Barbra Streisand can't be amusing (I happen to think WHAT'S UP, DOC? is a classic), but after the mid-point of Act I, she wasn't required to be. Instead, they built a show around Streisand's rep as a singer.

And as for showing effort, which Streisand are you watching? Yes, her recent PBS special showing her return to the Village Vanguard was pretty relaxed. (I think I nodded off halfway through.) But in her heyday, Streisand made Michelle look tranquilized.

As for your view of Murphy and how he creates personae for his young actors, you'll get no argument from me.

****

Michael Bennett, thank you for the inside info. I hadn't heard any of that. I do remember that the original Broadway production was famous for the number songs tried and discarded during the pre-Broadway try out. So now that I think of it, there probably IS a trunk full of songs written expressly for the musical's story. (Of course, each and every one was dropped for a reason.)

[Copperfield2]

Posted: 11/7/11 at 12:04am

This new production was going to have a 23 piece orchestra!

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 2:16am

Gaveston, I respectfully (and passionately) disagree about Streisand and Michele's performance styles ever being remotely similar. While Streisand was certainly always ferocious in the commitment with which she attacked her material, she was never anywhere near the histrionic level Michele is always operating on.

Streisand's entire career has been made on just how effortless she makes what she does appear to be. The (iconic) video below at 21 is perfect proof of that. She's commanding the stage simply by standing there, feeling the lyric, and conveying it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE9X8cYglfA

Compare that to the video below of Michele at a similar age performing similar material. The context is different, yes, but it's all there in the difference. One is trying hard to prove she can. The other is barely trying because she doesn't have to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNHVwwIIJXc

Updated On: 11/8/11 at 02:16 AM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 7:40am

Thank you for the clips, somethingwicked, because I enjoyed both very much. (I'd seen them before, of course, but in the case of the Streisand, not for decades.)

But I think you have inadvertently "rigged the evidence" by choosing a Streisand clip that is particularly laid back (probably to appeal to the vanilla tastes of a mass TV audience).

It's easy to forget now that we are so used to her, but while certainly precocious, Streisand was seen as mannered to the point of affectation when most of us first became aware of her. I still remember laughing myself silly when she first opened her mouth in the film of HELLO, DOLLY! (my first exposure). But of course her phenomenal voice (and sheer determination) eventually wore down the resistance of almost everyone.

But the link you provided is much subdued relative to the way Streisand performed the same songs on the OBC album and in the 1969 film version. In fact, both of those renditions are much closer to Lea Michelle at the Tony Awards (who, to her credit, chose to sing "...Parade" not as a pop song, but as it is usually sung to conclude Act I of the show).

I'd go see Michelle in the role in a minute. But then I was very much looking forward to seeing Ambrose.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 5:34pm

After I posted the above it occurred to me I had neglected to point out that Streisand belts "Don't Rain on My Parade" so fiercely on the OBC recording, her voice actually cracks quite obviously before the final note.

Thankfully, they used the recording anyway, but there's nothing "effortless" about it!

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 11:27am

"While Streisand was certainly always ferocious in the commitment with which she attacked her material, she was never anywhere near the histrionic level Michele is always operating on."

I'm curious Somethingwicked, have you ever seen The Owl and The Pussycat?

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 1:53pm

I have, henrikegerman, and I would argue that my point still stands. Streisand has a finesse of interpretation that Michele simply doesn't. But we can agree to disagree.

While someone like Lillias White could obviously never play the role because of how crucial ethnicity is the story, this is what FUNNY GIRL needs to ever have a shot at success without Streisand- a bold, dynamic, charismatic performer who is willing to make strong, unique choices that are completely fresh and new, both in the book scenes and the song interpretation. And the vocals are obviously just stunning, and yet completely their own. I love the audible gasps you hear from the audience at 3:55 over the sheer ferocity of power with which White is attacking the song. You never think of Barbra once the entire time, which proves that it can indeed be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxnkpw1f2Q

Updated On: 11/9/11 at 01:53 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 2:39pm

I think thats a good point SomethingWicked and I agree, though of course the question does have to be asked, is it really worth spending $12 million on a revival mandating a star role, so unique to one performer (Streisand) playing another (Brice) who is (outside of FUNNY GIRL) not much remembered anymore?

My point being if we have a unique Streisand-level talent today, wouldn't she be better served by having a new musical crafted specifically for her talents instead?

If Lauren Ambrose is indeed talented enough to pull off FUNNY GIRL, imagine what she could do if someone wrote a show specifically for her gifts.

[ggersten]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 4:01pm

"Funny Woman" - the story of Carol Burnett?
"Mary" - the story of Mary Tyler Moore?
"You're So Vain" - the story of a young woman who has failed relationships with rich guys, each of whom get a song written about them, as she takes Broadway by storm in an incredible one person show.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 4:17pm

Michael Bennett, I completely agree, but I think you can argue that the legend of Streisand gives FUNNY GIRL the same cultural relevance that the legend of Fanny Brice did when the original was produced, even though the latter is no longer as prominent within mainstream culture.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 6:22pm

I'm not sure it's possible to play Fanny Brice in FUNNY GIRL and make a lot of unique vocal and acting choices. Fanny Brice as a character was pretty much discarded as the show developed and rewritten as if Barbra Streisand were the central character as well as the actress. (I've directed the show in stock and it's very hard for an actress playing the part not to become Streisand-like in the process.)

And given the continued popularity of the film and CD, I'm not sure audiences would be happy if someone DID find a new approach to the role.

I suspect Michael Bennett is probably right: give Ambrose her own, new show.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 6:26pm

I agree that those limitations are totally viable factors, Gaveston, but I think the video of what White does with the scene and score negate the fact that it can't be successfully interpreted outside of the Streisand mold.

The audience was clearly on board with (and thrilled by) her radically different interpretation of the material, even if some of them were probably inclined to enjoy it given the precipice under which the evening took place.

Updated On: 11/9/11 at 06:26 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 7:02pm

I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw from the White clip, other than that she's a terrific singer and thank you for linking to her.

But when she lets even a little bit of "Henry Street" creep into her dialogue, that audience howls with laughter. That obviously isn't a model for an actual production of FUNNY GIRL.

As you pointed out above, our cultural reference point for the material is no longer Fanny Brice, but Barbra Streisand herself. (As I'm sure you know, despite not being Jewish Mimi Hines actually played the role much closer to Brice herself, but she was playing to audiences who remembered Brice. I'm not sure that would work today.)

***

What's really odd in this entire discussion is that we have at least a dozen singers singing a song that is--let's be frank--not very good. It's a testament to Styne's infinite gift for melody that women are still singing those dreadful lyrics.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 7:39pm

"Streisand has a finesse of interpretation that Michele simply doesn't. But we can agree to disagree."

Somethingwicked, we completely agree on that. Where I disagree with you was that Streisand has never given a histrionic performance. There are few performances I know as histrionic as Barbra's in The Owl and The Pussycat. It's a performance, I know many, including Pauline Kael, loved. Perhaps you do as well. If so I, on the one hand, and you and the late great Ms. K., on the other, can agree to disagree on that.

[ThatBitc]

Posted: 12/15/11 at 1:07pm

n/m