HOW TO SUCCEED... Reviews- Page 3

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 3:12am

Radcliffe was great and the show wouldn't sell much without him . Despite the fact I found How To Succeed to be cute show, I also thought it was dated and way too long.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 3:18am

Fred Astaire, Bill Robinson, Gene Kelly, Alfred Drake, John Raitt, Howard Keele, Bob Fosse, Richard Kiley, Tommy Tune, Joel Gray, Greggory Hines.

If I am not mistaken, all but two of them are dead. Sadly Broadway doesn't produce stars anymore. The time when people cared enough about Broadway to make a star is also long dead. Now it seems you have to import a star from elsewhere to get a show off the ground. It is a sad thing, to lose all the stars and not have the real ability to create more.

That said, I don't quite count Radcliffe as stunt casting. After Equus, I would say he is quite the stage actor. He may end up with a better career on stage than on screen. He is too young and his list of accomplishments is too short to be a real stunt cast actor, He is just trying his hand at a new option.

To me stunt casting is putting C and D list celebrities into shows that have outlived their lives on Broadway, simply in an effort to keep the cash rolling in just enough to make it look justified. Casting an established actor hot off of a successful seven film contract, who has already turned out an incredible stage performance, doesn't quite fall into that category for me. It is more like star casting than stunt casting.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 5:06am

"Someone thinks this is better than Mormon? Seriously? "

More than one. Seriously.

Actually, I was very disappointed in this revival. I thought Ashord botched it completely, and that Radcliffe was in over his head. That said, though, as a show, it is so superior to that other thing that there really is no comparison.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 5:40am

jimmycurry1, you are correct. I was just bemoaning the fact that millions of dollars were thrown against the wall to mount a production starring a kid who, while quite loveable, is no Greggory Hines.

Many of the people on that list. Those were the great moments of my life.

When Greggory Hines came onstage to do his solos in "Sophisticated Ladies" there was an electric buzz in the air. And man, did he deliver. And I took a moment to check what else was running on Broadway at the time (1981) Nine, Dreamgirls, the wheezing revival of "My Fair Lady" (but with Rex Harrison, damnit) Camelot with Harris, who also couldn't really sing and dance I admit; The Pirates of Penzance with Kevin - he could do it all - Kline and 42nd Street with a whole cast who could sing and dance.

That was Broadway.
"How to Succeed" is theme park, brought to Broadway.

[egghumor]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 6:31am

In this and the other “How to Succeed...” thread, some posters are naturally taking delight that the naysayers were trumped by the number of positive/decent reviews for the production. OK, that's fine, but I'll wager that in the end, Mr. Ashford will not receive Tony nominations for either direction or choreography. There have been and likely will be before the season is over, much stronger contenders in those two Tony categories. I'll even go so far as to also predict no Best Actor in a Musical nomination for Radcliffe. There, I said it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 8:01am

Don't be silly.

Of course Daniel Radcliffe will get a nomination. The Tony nominating committee would NEVER snub a visiting film star--especially one this well-liked, by audiences as well as by his peers.

Whether he wins or not has more to do with the buzz that accrues to the other lead actors, like Tony Sheldon or Norbert.

But he absolutely will be nominated.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 8:14am

I'm still perplexed by how many posters are making pronouncements in both this and the choreography thread without actually having seen the production.

[boardwalker2]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 8:21am

I agree with Brantly to a degree.

IMO Ashford screwed this up with over aggressive choreography and miscasting. I felt like I was watching a group Floor Excersise competition at the Olympics. It seemed to me so heavily choreographed that the plot could never gain firm footing and the characters never connected. At least not for me.

Kudos and much respect to Radcliffe for thinking outside the box of movie star, and whom I thought was trying his best; but he is miscast IMO. He simply doesn't have the chops for this show. He hasn't a comedic bone in his body (a smile and a wink are not comedy), can't really hold a tune; (although I had read he had been working with a voice coach in preparation for this role), and his dancing is practically nil until Brotherhood of Man in which he is impressive. To make matters worse, he looks entirely too young to portray Finch. There's no maturity nor experience in the face. He looked like a twelve year old in a business suit and fedora. All I could think of was Alex Keaton from Family Ties.

It doesn't matter what I, Brantly or anyone else thinks - this show is critic proof because of Radcliffe. The night I attended, there were a group of screamers sitting a few rows behind me, and everytime Radcliffe moved his little finger they went off like bomb sirens. I feel sorry for whoever was sitting around them.

I think if we're honest, we know that another actor of Radcliff's limited theatrical skill and musical talents could never have won this role. It's all about Radcliffe and capitalizing on Potter's popularity.

And it's working.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 8:47am

Do any of you who've seen this production think he's just too young to be playing Finch right now? He's been criticized in several reviews (sometimes harshly), but I haven't seen anyone chalk it up to youth and inexperience (as a person not an actor).

Aside from being "vertically challenged," which doesn't help him in the age department, he reads about 16 in the video clips. And so many stage actors are playing teenagers when they're 21. Plus, I don't see Finch as 21, even if he did read his own age. I would put him in his mid to late 20s as ideal. Not someone who isn't out of his college years yet.

I wouldn't mind seeing what he could do with the role 10 years from now. It might make a world of difference. I'm sorry to see he's taken the brunt of the Times review, even more so than Ashford, who could have and should have helped his leading man out more with his direction and staging.

Updated On: 3/28/11 at 08:47 AM

[PitPro2004]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 8:56am

"Of course Daniel Radcliffe will get a nomination. The Tony nominating committee would NEVER snub a visiting film star--especially one this well-liked, by audiences as well as by his peers."

Yup. Industry standard practice on Broadway just now, which reminds me...

Aren't we due for part two of that incredible Hunter Foster Facebook page "Give Broadway Back to the Theater Actors" or something like that? Given the current Hollywood gang in NYC, I think we are about due for a sequel.

I'm joking btw...

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 9:15am

I'm not seeing it until May, but, judging from the reviews, I think Tony Sheldon's chances of winning the Tony just moved up a notch or so. Let's see what happens with Tveit and Butz now.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 9:16am

I also wouldn't rule out Ben Walker.

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 9:30am

besty, I saw the show and really didn't have a problem with his age. He and Hanke coyld pass for the same age and Hanke's character was looking to move up so I found it all believable age wise. Radcliffe didn't look like a teen to me onstage. I really enjoyed the show. Yes, it is obvious that he is not a great singerdancer, but it is obvious that he took the challenge seriously and does a fine job. I would see this show again before "Priscilla" any day. JMO

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 9:39am

Interesting that they read roughly the same age to you, uncageg. I just looked it up and Hanke is 35. Radcliffe is 21. Ah, the illusion of theatre!

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 9:41am

'I'm still perplexed by how many posters are making pronouncements ... without having seen the production.'

I agree. But in the age of the Internet, everyone blurts out opinions anyway, based on gossip, postings or video clips. Making so-called Tony predictions is still early, considering a number of Broadway musicals, new and old, have yet to open.

'The Tony nominating committee would NEVER snub a visiting film star.'

Well, they did a couple of years ago, when Daniel Radcliffe made his Broadway debut in 'Equus,' and got pretty terrific reviews across the board (including Brantley).

Brantley and Marks' pans aside, the vast majority of 'How to Succeed's' reviews were far better than 'positive/decent.' Many of them are raves: New York magazine, AP, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, etc. They'll have plenty of quotes to choose from. But more to the point, whether you enjoy Radcliffe's performance or not, the audiences are LOVING him. They eat him up, and I've seldom seen mobs as giant as the ones outside the Hirschfeld stage door. As long as Radcliffe's in the show, it'll be a hit and make tons of money.

[rorschach37]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 9:44am

I honestly loved everything about the production. Mr. Brantley is entitled to his opinion, but I couldn't disagree with him more. Daniel Radcliffe is a very talented actor and really impressed me with this production. I wouldn't exactly say that his performance was Tony-worthy, but I think he might deserve a nomination. Also, having seen Priscilla I can tell you that Tony Sheldon's performance is definitely worthy of a Tony award.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 9:48am

Waymon...I was going to write the same thing about Radcliffe being overlooked for Equus (a nomination I thoroughly thought he deserved.)


It's going to be an uphill battle for Ben Walker to get a nomination from a show that will have been since early January. But a nomination I'd be rooting for.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 9:55am

Oh I think Walker is a lock for a nomination, especially since they have five in the acting catagories. The Tony nomination committee has always been very good about remembering shows and performances that that have already closed and I think Brantley (among others) is going to come to bat for him.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 9:56am

Dramamama611, I'm personally rooting for Benjamin Walker to get a Tony nomination, but you're right: It's gonna be an uphill battle. Best Actor in a Musical is a crowded field, and I suspect it'll also depend on the categories where some actors are placed. Will, for example, Larroquette and Butz, both top-billed, stay in Best Actor, or be bumped down to Featured? Will Rannells be bumped up to Lead Actor? Ultimately, decisions like that will help determine how many slots are available & where.

[CockeyedOptimist2]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 9:58am

[Still rooting for Joshua Henry to get a nomination!]

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 10:01am

Besty, numbers sometimes mean nothing. I know so many people who are much older than they look.....like me. :)

[bjh2114]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 10:25am

I think Daniel will be nominated in the Sean Hayes spot from last year. My guess is that the nominations will be Ben Walker, Tony Sheldon, Daniel Radcliffe, Aaron Tveit, Norbert Leo Butz (granted I haven't seen Catch Me If You Can yet). I think the Mormon guys are going to left out of this category. I will be shocked if Joshua Henry is remembered for a role that is really a featured part in an ensemble show that closed so long ago. At least Ben Walker was very much the lead in Bloody Bloody.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 10:34am

Of course Daniel Radcliffe will get a nomination. The Tony nominating committee would NEVER snub a visiting film star--especially one this well-liked, by audiences as well as by his peers.

Well he didn't get one for Equus, and he was quite good in that.

[CockeyedOptimist2]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 10:37am

"I will be shocked if Joshua Henry is remembered for a role that is really a featured part in an ensemble show that closed so long ago."

I won't be surprised if he isn't nominated, but I'm just holding out hope. I also think he would definitely be considered leading rather than featured. It was a strong ensemble piece, but Haywood was always singled out as the lead. He has more solos than anyone else and leads a number of the group numbers. I would definitely think he'd be leading over featured, though it's probably a moot point, unfortunately.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 10:51am

Seems like Best Actor in a Musical is a crowded category this year, but why on earth would you rule out the two leading men from "Mormon?" They both got terrific reviews.