HOW TO SUCCEED Begins Previews Tonight! — Page 8
#177
Posted: 3/13/11 at 10:33am
What a great review, TimesSquared - I said much the same in an earlier post, but you put it much better!
Radcliffe commits the cardinal sin of theater: being dull. It's not that he underplays "I Believe In You," it's that he does nothing with it! He just sings it. As though we're supposed to be impressed that he can carry a tune. Yawn.
And Ashford seems far more concerned with showing off his dancers than in having the dances serve the story. I don't care how well they move, I care if the choreography helps the show. "The Company Way" was a choreographic disaster.
Radcliffe commits the cardinal sin of theater: being dull. It's not that he underplays "I Believe In You," it's that he does nothing with it! He just sings it. As though we're supposed to be impressed that he can carry a tune. Yawn.
And Ashford seems far more concerned with showing off his dancers than in having the dances serve the story. I don't care how well they move, I care if the choreography helps the show. "The Company Way" was a choreographic disaster.
Updated On: 3/13/11 at 10:33 AM
#178
Posted: 3/13/11 at 10:50am
Does anyone else think it's the ugliest looking show in memory?
#179
Posted: 3/13/11 at 10:51am
I really enjoyed the show. Could someone please explain to me what someone like Robert Morse or Broderick did with "I Believe in You" that Radcliffe did not?
#180
"Does anyone else think it's the ugliest looking show in memory?"
Certainly in recent memory.
"Bring Back Birdie" and "Baby" were also extremely ugly, but that's going back aways.
Posted: 3/13/11 at 11:02am
"Does anyone else think it's the ugliest looking show in memory?"
Certainly in recent memory.
"Bring Back Birdie" and "Baby" were also extremely ugly, but that's going back aways.
#181
Posted: 3/13/11 at 11:09am
Saw the show yesterday; and thanks to the producers for offering rush tickets! I recommend Saturdays for rush because there's two shows, so twice as much opportunity to get a seat, and I was rewarded with Row A for my two hours of waiting...although I'd forgotten from my previous experiences at this theater that the stage is unfortunately kind of high, especially from the side. There were enough empty second and third row center seats to move into after intermission and it was an amazing deal for $30.
Reading much of this thread, you'd never know how enjoyable a show this is! I'm too young to have seen the Bobby Morse version, but my parents did and I grew up listening to their LP and remembered and loved every word.
I have nothing to compare Radcliffe's take on the role with, yes the sets were very Promises Promises-ish and Tammy Blanchard did look exactly like Joan Holloway...
BUT I liked it, guys. I'm no musical theater authority and I'm sure there's ways it could have been better, but as it sits, it's an awful lot of fun and everyone around me was loving every minute of it, even the well-behaved little kids I saw. Brotherhood of Man and Old Ivy were terrific and Radcliffe worked for me. It's WAY better than a lot of recent revivals and is going to be one that parents are more comfortable taking their younger kids to see than Book of Mormon--which, don't get me wrong, is much better and will be a huge hit.
Even with whatever flaws you perceive, this show is gonna get a bunch of Tony noms and be a serious crowd-pleaser. More good news for this season on Broadway
Reading much of this thread, you'd never know how enjoyable a show this is! I'm too young to have seen the Bobby Morse version, but my parents did and I grew up listening to their LP and remembered and loved every word.
I have nothing to compare Radcliffe's take on the role with, yes the sets were very Promises Promises-ish and Tammy Blanchard did look exactly like Joan Holloway...
BUT I liked it, guys. I'm no musical theater authority and I'm sure there's ways it could have been better, but as it sits, it's an awful lot of fun and everyone around me was loving every minute of it, even the well-behaved little kids I saw. Brotherhood of Man and Old Ivy were terrific and Radcliffe worked for me. It's WAY better than a lot of recent revivals and is going to be one that parents are more comfortable taking their younger kids to see than Book of Mormon--which, don't get me wrong, is much better and will be a huge hit.
Even with whatever flaws you perceive, this show is gonna get a bunch of Tony noms and be a serious crowd-pleaser. More good news for this season on Broadway
#182
Posted: 3/13/11 at 12:03pm
"Could someone please explain to me what someone like Robert Morse or Broderick did with "I Believe in You" that Radcliffe did not?"
They did >something< with it. Daniel does nothing.
And for those who say they have nothing to compare this production with, the film has been available on DVD for years and does a great job of capturing both Morse's and Vallee's performances.
They did >something< with it. Daniel does nothing.
And for those who say they have nothing to compare this production with, the film has been available on DVD for years and does a great job of capturing both Morse's and Vallee's performances.
#183
Posted: 3/14/11 at 12:43pm
I loved the show. Thought it was a good old fashioned musical.
I didn't really think there was a weak link. I had a really good time.
The show definitely belongs to Daniel Radcliffe and Mary Faber. They are both brilliant. I think they will be the two acting nominations for the Tonys.
I didn't really think there was a weak link. I had a really good time.
The show definitely belongs to Daniel Radcliffe and Mary Faber. They are both brilliant. I think they will be the two acting nominations for the Tonys.
#184
Posted: 3/14/11 at 7:19pm
"Could someone please explain to me what someone like Robert Morse or Broderick did with "I Believe in You" that Radcliffe did not?"
Well to begin with, they sang the song properly.
They are both consummate Broadway pros and they hit the notes on time, not ahead, not behind. They PRO-NOUN-CED the words clearly, not slurred or rushed as in "What the hell do I do next, oh, right, smile and nod AND sing the lines" and they told a story during the song.
They told the story of J. Pierrepont Finch, convincing himself (using the same bulls**t techniques he used on others) that he CAN overcome all those sharks that are out to tear his throat out in the upcoming boardroom scene. This is the final play of the game, and Finch realizes he has no other option than bravado. He know that one slip, one false step and he's chum to those sharks, so he sings a song of ultimate bs and confidence to psych himself up.
Radcliff sings the song with no character, no fear, no false bravery, nothing. He just sings the song (and let's face it, he's no Robert Morse, a three-time Tony winner by that point in his career.)
I guess I bemoan bringing in "stars" and building shows around them when they aren't really Broadway caliber. Sure they sell tickets to the fans, but at $100.00 plus a ticket, I want Fred Astaire or Greggory Hines.
I really like Anna Pacquin on "True Blood"; that doesn't mean I'd cast her in "Guys and Dolls" (although, interestingly, Jessica Biel did about 75-80% of what is required for the role when she appeared out here this summer.
I am horrified to imagine what Christie Brinkley is going to do to Roxie Hart.
Well to begin with, they sang the song properly.
They are both consummate Broadway pros and they hit the notes on time, not ahead, not behind. They PRO-NOUN-CED the words clearly, not slurred or rushed as in "What the hell do I do next, oh, right, smile and nod AND sing the lines" and they told a story during the song.
They told the story of J. Pierrepont Finch, convincing himself (using the same bulls**t techniques he used on others) that he CAN overcome all those sharks that are out to tear his throat out in the upcoming boardroom scene. This is the final play of the game, and Finch realizes he has no other option than bravado. He know that one slip, one false step and he's chum to those sharks, so he sings a song of ultimate bs and confidence to psych himself up.
Radcliff sings the song with no character, no fear, no false bravery, nothing. He just sings the song (and let's face it, he's no Robert Morse, a three-time Tony winner by that point in his career.)
I guess I bemoan bringing in "stars" and building shows around them when they aren't really Broadway caliber. Sure they sell tickets to the fans, but at $100.00 plus a ticket, I want Fred Astaire or Greggory Hines.
I really like Anna Pacquin on "True Blood"; that doesn't mean I'd cast her in "Guys and Dolls" (although, interestingly, Jessica Biel did about 75-80% of what is required for the role when she appeared out here this summer.
I am horrified to imagine what Christie Brinkley is going to do to Roxie Hart.
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=972787#3631451
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=963561#3533883
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=955158#3440952
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=954269#3427915
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=955012#3441622
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=954344#3428699
#185
Posted: 3/14/11 at 7:36pm
and let's face it, he's no Robert Morse, a three-time Tony winner by that point in his career
Um... what Robert Morse are you thinking of? Robert Morse only won 2 Tonys, and How to Succeed was his first one.
Um... what Robert Morse are you thinking of? Robert Morse only won 2 Tonys, and How to Succeed was his first one.
#186
Radcliff sings the song with no character, no fear, no false bravery, nothing. He just sings the song (and let's face it, he's no Robert Morse, a three-time Tony winner by that point in his career.)
That was exactly my problem with Daniel Radcliffe. His characterization was appropriate for the first act. However, had I not known the plot, I wouldn't have realized that Finch was in trouble in the second act, based on Radcliffe's lack of acting.
Posted: 3/14/11 at 8:46pm
Radcliff sings the song with no character, no fear, no false bravery, nothing. He just sings the song (and let's face it, he's no Robert Morse, a three-time Tony winner by that point in his career.)
That was exactly my problem with Daniel Radcliffe. His characterization was appropriate for the first act. However, had I not known the plot, I wouldn't have realized that Finch was in trouble in the second act, based on Radcliffe's lack of acting.
#187
Posted: 3/14/11 at 10:55pm
Spot on, allofmylife - I was saying to my boyfriend last night, "When I go to see a show on Broadway, I don't expect to see a lead who belongs in dinner theater in Duluth."
Radcliffe had no star quality at all - I'm not impressed that he can sing, dance and memorize lines. I want a Performance!
Radcliffe had no star quality at all - I'm not impressed that he can sing, dance and memorize lines. I want a Performance!
#188
Posted: 3/14/11 at 11:07pm
Bth2114, um... you are correct. I meant to say "He had been nominated for three Tonys" but even that was wrong. He had been nominated twice for "Say Darling" and "Take Me Along" before he won for "How To Succeed...."
I pulled those facts out of my butt (and my foggy memory of the time) but I should have checked with IBDB. You are correct to point this out.
Just as I believe I am right to suggest that a Broadway show should be lead by Broadway-caliber performers.
I pulled those facts out of my butt (and my foggy memory of the time) but I should have checked with IBDB. You are correct to point this out.
Just as I believe I am right to suggest that a Broadway show should be lead by Broadway-caliber performers.
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=972787#3631451
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=963561#3533883
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=955158#3440952
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=954269#3427915
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=955012#3441622
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=954344#3428699
#189
Posted: 3/14/11 at 11:16pm
I think the person who said it was 3:05 saw probably the first preview. I just saw it and it is down to like 2:45, perhaps slightly less.
#190
Posted: 3/14/11 at 11:35pm
Not going to lie... I loved Daniel. In fact, he was the only thing I liked about the production, which I found to be incredibly misguided. Daniel played the part with so much charisma. He had the audience eating out of his hand. He is literally the only good thing about the show (along with the occasional scene with Mary Faber).
#191
Posted: 3/14/11 at 11:39pm
How does this compare with Ashford's work on Promises, Promises? I ended up really liking Promises despite the bad buzz.
"Art, in itself, is an attempt to bring order out of chaos."-Stephen Sondheim
#192
Posted: 3/15/11 at 1:43am
"How does this compare with Ashford's work on Promises, Promises? I ended up really liking Promises despite the bad buzz."
I'd say he ruined both shows, this one more egregiously.
But this is a good show in its own right, and since you enjoyed "Promises, Promises," maybe you'll enjoy this one too.
I'd say he ruined both shows, this one more egregiously.
But this is a good show in its own right, and since you enjoyed "Promises, Promises," maybe you'll enjoy this one too.
#193
Posted: 3/15/11 at 2:21am
I really enjoyed the show. Could someone please explain to me what someone like Robert Morse or Broderick did with "I Believe in You" that Radcliffe did not?
As though the criteria for a successful stage performance can be reduced to whether the actor knows his lines, knows his blocking and fits in the costume.
Radcliffe is very likable in interviews, but in those clips as Finch he looks pretty dull. Very hard working,yes, but dull.
As though the criteria for a successful stage performance can be reduced to whether the actor knows his lines, knows his blocking and fits in the costume.
Radcliffe is very likable in interviews, but in those clips as Finch he looks pretty dull. Very hard working,yes, but dull.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. - Eleanor Roosevelt
Updated On: 3/15/11 at 02:21 AM
#194
Posted: 3/15/11 at 1:47pm
It's the difference between a consummate professional and a talented amateur. Daniel Radcliff is a very successful motion picture actor (the jury is out as to whether he can make the leap into adult stardom; look at the cast of the Lords of the Rings films) but he has less experience in musical comedy than many small town theater society "stars."
Yet he gets the lead role in a Broadway show, mainly because his name will pull people in and his performance won't frighten the horses.
That's just sad. Entertainment is one of the few business where the phrase "talented newcomer" has any significance.
Daniel or Emma or Ron could probably pull off playing a young doctor in a film.
Doesn't mean I'd let them take out my appendix.
Yet he gets the lead role in a Broadway show, mainly because his name will pull people in and his performance won't frighten the horses.
That's just sad. Entertainment is one of the few business where the phrase "talented newcomer" has any significance.
Daniel or Emma or Ron could probably pull off playing a young doctor in a film.
Doesn't mean I'd let them take out my appendix.
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=972787#3631451
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=963561#3533883
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=955158#3440952
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=954269#3427915
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=955012#3441622
http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=954344#3428699
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95