HOW TO SUCCEED... Reviews- Page 5

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 5:54pm

I did not see this posted yet - LA Times Review.

"Radcliffe gets an A for effort, but he doesn’t have the theatrical stature to pull together this choppy production, which like Ashford’s last Broadway outing, “Promises, Promises,” rollicks in the “Mad Men” era as though it were a costume ball with a gray flannel theme. Nostalgia is unreal, and so too are the overcooked antics here. Everything is just a little too calculated. When a routine lands — and many still do — the strain shows."

Review

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 6:05pm

If 'some people only like this show because of Radcliffe's involvement,' isn't the opposite also possible? That some people resent this show because of Radcliffe's involvement? Is there some jealousy or feeling that he hasn't paid his dues?

Critics are not known for being kindly pushovers, and don't hesitate to pan something if they don't like it. They don't have a vested interest in whether Radcliffe's 'Succeeds' or not. Maybe Radcliffe didn't win over Brantley or Marks, but there were plenty of critics who thought he did a terrific job.

Bottom line: Don't want to see Radcliffe on Broadway? You don't have to. Interestingly enough, he got wonderful reviews for 'Equus' and had trouble filling the house; he does his first musical ever, and now he's selling out the Hirschfeld. We can debate this on BWW until the cows come home, but ultimately, the marketplace and the audiences decide what they want.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 6:27pm

The LA Times review is the second one posted.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 6:54pm

DOH! I swear I read the thread and did not recall seeing the LA Times. Early onset senility must be setting in!

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 10:32pm

If 'some people only like this show because of Radcliffe's involvement,' isn't the opposite also possible? That some people resent this show because of Radcliffe's involvement? Is there some jealousy or feeling that he hasn't paid his dues?

I have no doubt that some people will dislike the revival on principle because actual Broadway performers were passed over in favor of stunt-casting a movie star with discernibly subpar musical chops. That sentiment is neither new nor interesting, and, for the record, anyone who brings it up to criticize this revival is silly, especially when there's so much else to dislike about this show ... the choreography and "direction," for example.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 11:31pm

Well, we now know what Brantley will say about the choreography in next season's EVITA.

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/28/11 at 11:48pm

I will admit, I saw this for Radcliffe. I was offered a free ticket so that was even better. I have never cared for the score but I couldn't pass up seeing him live onstage. And as I have posted before, he did a good job. In my opinion, he is worth the price of the tickets. You can tell he is enjoying himself and giving it his all. I give him credit for taking this on. JMO

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/29/11 at 1:27am

The big problem is, if this succeeds, it drives another nail into the coffin of Broadway as we know it. Why hire Patti LuPone or Sutton Foster or Kristin Chenoweth when you can hire the latest winner from American Idol? Why spend years developing and training and grooming true Broadway stars when the star of the las Judd Apatow film is available?

Don't think half of the Broadway producers aren't thinking that already.

If I were Norbert Leo Buntz, I'd start sweating. I hear Zack Garaflakis can carry a tune....

[ReggieonBway]

Posted: 3/29/11 at 7:48pm

Okay, very few of you are being fair. Shows like Anything Goes and H2$ would never succeed as revivals unless they had big names in the title. Personally, I adored Daniel on stage - no, he isn't a big Broadway name, but he was a more than capable lead, and he clearly worked his ass off to 'succeed' in the role.

My point; see the show before you judge it based on principle. All the things that elitists hate (Stunt casting, Glee, etc.) are bringing audiences to Broadway, and honestly we still have plenty of quality shows with Broadway names headlining them.

[PitPro2004]

Posted: 3/29/11 at 11:08pm

The big problem is, if this succeeds, it drives another nail into the coffin of Broadway as we know it. Why hire Patti LuPone or Sutton Foster or Kristin Chenoweth when you can hire the latest winner from American Idol? Why spend years developing and training and grooming true Broadway stars when the star of the las Judd Apatow film is available?


Sad but true isn't it? Why bother going to college or cattle calls when you know the latest Frankenstein creation of Simon Cowell is just naturally going to be offered the plum roles?

Broadway stars are going to be a lost art form. So is the talent of being a triple threat.

[egghumor]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 12:10am

Yeah, ReggieonBroadway, that what posters like allofmylife and PitPro are saying... You talk about stars, but then you use Anything Goes as an example. That show stars Sutton Foster who became a star as a result of a group of producers, a director, and writers to take a risk on Sutton Foster, very much an unkown at the time... and of course, she on to when a Tony for her performance. A Broadway star was born. Unfortunately, these moments in recent theatrelore are far less frequent than they were 20+ years ago.
We want the possibility of discovering another unknown of Foster's and Norbert Leo Butz's skill and star quality, rather than almost always going with the popular film/TV star.
It certainly paid off for the 'Priscilla' to hold on to Tony Sheldon, and hopefully the producers of 'Catch Me' with Aaron Tveit, and maybe (just maybe) for the prods of 'Wonderland' with Janet Dacal (although she and Beth Leavel might have to wait til the "next one").
Montego Glover and Chad Kimball also come to mind as a well-taken risk.
These types of new star breakout performances are I think, much more exciting for true theater lovers.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 1:53am

Why can't Broadway be a home for BOTH rising stage actors AND TV/movie stars who want to play the Great White Way? We often cheer when we see Broadway actors make it big on TV or in the movies. Why not vice versa? And let's keep things in context.

Look at who's leading this season's new musicals:

* 'Baby, It's You': Beth Leavel
* 'Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson': Benjamin Walker
* 'The Book of Mormon': Andrew Rannells, Josh Gad
* 'Catch Me If You Can': Aaron Tveit
* 'Elf': Sebastian Arcelus
* 'People in the Picture': Donna Murphy
* 'Priscilla': Tony Sheldon, Will Swenson, Nick Adams
* 'The Scottsboro Boys': Joshua Henry
* 'Sister Act': Patina Miller
* 'Spider-Man': Reeve Carney, Jennifer Damiano
* 'Women on the Verge': Sherie Rene Scott
* 'Wonderland': Janet Dacal

And there's not a movie star among them. These are all stage pros (OK, Carney's a musician). But some of you are wringing your hands over ONE movie guy who's starring in a revival, Daniel Radcliffe? Clearly, film actors heading a Broadway musical are the exception, not the rule. There's no giant invasion from Hollywood. And from everything I've read, Radcliffe loves the stage. He did 'Equus' here and abroad. And for the past year or so, he's been taking singing and dancing lessons to prepare for 'How to Succeed.' He's dedicated. With the exception of some naysaying critics (and posters), Radcliffe has 'Succeed'-ed in winning over many reviewers AND selling out the Hirschfeld. That's quite a coup.

So welcome the guy who's keeping dozens of cast and crew members employed at 'How to Succeed' AND possibly helping grow the NEXT generation of Broadway theatergoers.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 2:05am

It isn't one guy.

Sean Hayes.

The exact same thing. Can't sing, barely dances, woefully miscast and in waaaaaay over his depth. I like Sean, I think he has talent. Not that talent.

I like Daniel Radcliffe. I think he has talent. I don't want him taking my appendix out. It really is the same thing.

The average gestation period for a doctor is a decade. The average period that Broadway stars kicked around the business (amateur, college, pro) is about the same length. Do they compare? No. Does that matter? No.

Just remember, the next time someone is about to perform surgery on you - ask him if he is listed on IBDB.

[egghumor]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 2:20am

In all postings I've made, especially in 'How to...' threads, I have never passed judgement on Radcliffe's performnace from the video, etc. I have little or no problem wiwth the fact that he's come out as well as he has, all things considering -- especially due to Ashford's "astute" direction. I think a Tony nom is a long shot for him, but it's not at all because I have my own opinion about his performance. That prediction is due to the critics and a number of responses from posters.
I thought I cited enough instances to address that unknowns are getting the chance to lead Broadway shows, but it's no longer the norm, and the problem is FAR greater in the casting of plays -- BENGAL TIGER being a perfect example. Posters that have seen the play have all mentioned that Robin Williams has an ensemble role, but to sell such a serious play they can hardly sell it on the names of the other actors -- or just the play alone (even a Pulitzer finalist).
That was usually not the case again several years ago.

[boardwalker2]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 9:46am

"Why can't Broadway be a home for BOTH rising stage actors AND TV/movie stars who want to play the Great White Way?"

Because it's a business, and producers will not in most circumstances choose rising stage actors without proven draw over TV/movie stars who are proven commodities. I don't blame the producers, they are after all looking to recoup their investments.

At the risk of sounding juvenille; it's an unfair playing field.

D. Radcliffe obviously loves theater and I love that this charming, determined young man with such drawing power will bring a new group of people to Broadway. Hopefully, a few will actually become as much in love with the theater as we on this board. But, I doubt it. Most are coming to see Harry Potter. As for the the young wizard; I think he tried a role that is; as yet, above his skill level, but I adore him for the effort.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 2:49pm

Allofmylife: It IS one guy. My posting was about THIS season. Hayes is from last season. And I specifically said 'Not one movie star among them.' Sean Hayes is a TV star, but NOT a movie star, certainly not on the level that Radcliffe is.

The world is changing. Look at the overnight sensations, like Justin Bieber, that have come from YouTube. They're not 'paying dues' playing in dingy clubs, waiting for years and years to be discovered. Or the overnight sensations from 'American Idol.' Audiences don't care how long you 'gestate.' If you have the goods, and people wanna pay for 'em, you're a star.

Boardwalker2: If you look at my list again, producers HAVE chosen rising stage stars over TV/movie stars. 'Book of Mormon' probably could've booked TV/movie stars; they didn't. Etc., etc. And let's face it: Many TV/movie stars probably don't WANT to make a one-year commitment to a Broadway show.

Movie stars have been coming to Broadway for decades. Sometimes, they succeed; sometimes, they don't. ... If you don't think Radcliffe pulled it off, so be it. But there are plenty of audiences, and even critics, who thought he did.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 2:56pm

boadrwalker2, I agree. Kudos must be given to Daniel Radcliffe for having the balls to take a lead role in a musical on Broadway and actually not suck.

That being said, I bemoan the fact that Broadway has changed so much that the only way to guarantee success is to put a name and a face on the poster that the audience recognizes.

It used to be the composer and lyricist who sold the show, or the originality of the production or the power of the staging.

Nobody went to see The King and I for the chorus, they went to see (1) the work of Rodgers and Hammerstein who had an amazing track record (including many flops like Chi Chi, a musical about castration) and (2) Gertrude Lawrence, a woman who had less musical talent than Daniel Radcliffe (she couldn't sing on key) but was a beloved musical theater star, having been in the business and in the leads in shows for 30 years by the time King and it opened.

I'll just bet some producer is trying to figure out how to do "Funny Girl" with Emma Watson even as I write this.

And I can hardly wait for April 4 when Christie Brinkley fills Gwen Verdon's shoes in Chicago, because when I think of Broadway, I think of Brinkley!

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 2:56pm

Finally caught HOW TO SUCCEED last night, and have to say on this one I have to side with Brantley. In truth, most of my issues were really with Ashford's choices, but it was a painful evening for me.

Radcliffe, who gives it a good college try, is still a performer I find myself rooting for. He's in over his head here for this role in a Broadway production, but I hope he keeps coming back to the playground.

[madbrian]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 3:10pm

The Broadway musical has survived non-musical movie stars in musical roles for at least 50 years or so. I think it can survive he-who-must-not-be-named (anielday adclifferay). While my intent is not to compare him to those I am about to mention, would we have bashed the likes of Bacall, Burton, and Harrison taking musical roles away from deserving Broadway stars? Perhaps, but even so, Broadway seems to have survived.

[WestVillage]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 3:49pm

I wouldn't compare someone who has starred in Harry Potter movies and one Broadway play to the likes of Burton, Bacall and Harrison. Radcliffe is a movie star for playing one character in a series of films since he was a kid. The others are Hollywood royalty, and all brilliant actors.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 3:56pm

Agreed, WestVillage - there's no comparison. Bacall, Burton, and Harrison all had extensive live theatre training and experience before assaying their first Broadway musical. Radcliffe is cute and charming, but a lightweight on stage (at this point in his career).

A more apt analogy would have been something like Jan Michael Vincent starring in a 1973 revival of Kiss Me Kate, or Sandra Dee in a 1962 revival of Lady In The Dark.

Sadly, those productions are entirely imaginary...

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/30/11 at 7:41pm

I saw Burton in Camelot and he was fantastic. First of all, he could sing a great deal better than he is given credit for. He was fabulous in the dramatic parts (his soliloquy at the end of act one still reverberates in my mind and I was a mere child when I saw it.) Burton held his own with Julie Andrews and Robert Goulet. Must be the Welsh thing.

I saw Bacall in "Applause" and she was a Broadway star. She too, could deliver a song with gusto and perfect timing. Sure, she was no Patti LuPone (although I don't think Lupone sings much better) but she absolutely held the damn stage in her two hands and shook it. She was old time entertainment royalty - she'd been a superstar for 25 years by then and she did the role with a great deal of confidence.

I saw Harrison late in his life, somewhat frail and basically no sign of the "Sexy Rexy" of old - until he opened his mouth and bellowed. He could obviously do the limited singing in My Fair Lady in his sleep by then.

These three were long-careered superstars when the made their Broadway debuts (Harrison had been on stage for 30 years as a star by then) and it made sense to cast them in lead roles.

Daniel Radcliffe's onstage talent might grow, but so far, he's stunt casting that should be in regional theater in the hinterland.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/31/11 at 9:27am

Thinking about it, I would like to add that a real star does roles that are created for him/her; most of the celebs today that come crawling to Broadway seem too terrified to do that, relying on the safety of an already proven vehicle.
Updated On: 3/31/11 at 09:27 AM

[madbrian]

Posted: 3/31/11 at 9:52am

"Thinking about it, I would like to add that a real star does roles that's created for him/her; most of the celebs today that come crawling to Broadway seem too terrified to do that, relying on the safety of an already proven vehicle."

Actually, I think that statement is better directed at producers than the stars. Based on that statement, one could argue that LuPone and Peters are not Broadway stars. Women on the Verge was LuPone first original musical role on Broadway since Evita, and Peters hasn't originated a role since Into the Woods.

[Patash]

Posted: 3/31/11 at 10:15am

"Thinking about it, I would like to add that a real star does roles that's created for him/her; most of the celebs today that come crawling to Broadway seem too terrified to do that, relying on the safety of an already proven vehicle."

I guess, we need to define celebrity and star -- not easy to do.

What about Megan Mullally in Young Frankenstein, Hugh Jackman in Boy from Oz, Robin Williams in Bengal Tiger, Christopher Walken in A Behanding in Spokane, Brendon Fraser in Elling, Sienna Miller in After Miss Julie, Marcia Gay Harden and James Ganolfini in God of Carnage. More?