Posted: 10/20/20 at 4:01pm
Unlike what they had said, Henry Goodman was great as Max Bialystock!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npejuVRAo9Y
Posted: 10/20/20 at 4:47pm
These are highlights of his musical numbers. Of course he pulled these off. Unfortunately, THE PRODUCERS is a heavy book show and he did not land the laughs and his line readings didn’t suit the rhythm of the play, hence why he was let go a month into his run. A British actor trying to play Mel Brooks’ humor was not a good fit. Performing a musical number is one thing. Performing a heavy dialogue comic scene is another thing. Either you land it or you don’t. He never did.
Posted: 10/22/20 at 4:32pm
"A British actor trying to play Mel Brooks’ humor was not a good fit."
Two words. Marty Feldman.
Posted: 10/22/20 at 4:50pm
Posted: 10/28/20 at 8:14am
Posted: 10/29/20 at 4:57pm
I saw Harry Goodman several times. He was an excellent performer, and was great in the role - the only problem was that he was not Nathan Lane.
Brad Oscar would definitely have been a better choice, given that they wanted a Lane copy.
Posted: 11/1/20 at 9:55am
I saw Goodman in the role. He was good. He probably would have gotten even better if he'd been given time to grow into the role. As others have already said, Goodman wasn't going to give anyone a carbon copy of Nathan Lane's performance -- and that is what the production wanted. If Goodman had been a replacement several years into the show, it might not have been a big deal. But the people coming to see THE PRODUCERS wanted a Nathan Lane performance even if it wasn't actually Nathan Lane up on stage.
I never really understood, though, why a British actor with very little name recognition in the States was tapped as a first replacement.
Posted: 11/1/20 at 10:02am
AC126748 said: "I saw Goodman in the role. He was good. He probably would have gotten even better if he'd been given time to grow into the role. As others have already said, Goodman wasn't going to give anyone a carbon copy of Nathan Lane's performance -- and that is what the production wanted. If Goodman had been a replacement several years into the show, it might not have been a big deal. But the people coming to see THE PRODUCERS wanted a Nathan Lane performance even if it wasn't actually Nathan Lane up on stage.
I never really understood, though, why a British actor with very little name recognition in the States was tapped as a first replacement."
I'd put my chips on the fact they would eventually look at a West End transfer and if they had a British actor at the ready, that would help with casting since transferring Lane and Broderick might have cost a pretty penny. (Though they did initially tap Richard Dreyfuss for the Lane role before he was let go and Lane stepped in)
Posted: 11/1/20 at 10:06am
quizking101 said: "AC126748 said: "I saw Goodman in the role. He was good. He probably would have gotten even better if he'd been given time to grow into the role. As others have already said, Goodman wasn't going to give anyone a carbon copy of Nathan Lane's performance -- and that is what the production wanted. If Goodman had been a replacement several years into the show, it might not have been a big deal. But the people coming to see THE PRODUCERS wanted a Nathan Lane performance even if it wasn't actually Nathan Lane up on stage.
I never really understood, though, why a British actor with very little name recognition in the States was tapped as a first replacement."
I'd put my chips on the fact they would eventually look at a West End transfer and if they had a British actor at the ready, that would help with casting since transferring Lane and Broderick might have cost a pretty penny. (Though they did initially tap Richard Dreyfuss for the Lane role before he was let go and Lane stepped in)"
That is exactly why he was hired. He's a very well known West End performer, and the assumption was that if he did well on Broadway, he would open the London production, where he has name recognition.
