House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times

Here in Seattle, where Frankenstein is trying out, we have the same problem with The Paramount. A barn of a place with little intimacy (it used to be a movie house). I'm in row O first preview. Anything past the 10th row is pretty crappy. I've skipped many a show because of the awful sightlines.

While I think Isherwood goes too far in his negative anticipation of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN at the Hilton Theatre, I do think he makes a good point about theatres built in the 2nd half of the 20th Century. They are too big and they are "cold" in atmosphere. And they apparently have problems with their acoustics.

I was only at the then Ford Center once, to see RAGTIME. I was in the front balcony and I did feel like I was at the far end of a football field, looking toward the stage. I was also appalled at having to listen to the beautiful voice of Audra McDonald over-miked and distorted.

The theatre in which I see a play or musical does matter to me. I love the ornate architecture and murals and chandeliers of many of the old theatres: the Shubert, the Broadway, the Imperial, the Winter Garden, to name a few. These 4 happen to be owned by the Shubert Organization which in general takes good care of their theatres. The Al Hirschfeld is another beautiful theatre as was the gorgeous Mark Hellinger(now the Church of Times Square). For drama, I love the Lyceum with its elaborate facade and intimate interior. As for Mel Brooks choosing the Hilton over the handsome St. James, it seems to be a matter of the larger theatre potentially bringing in more money.

---

Updated On: 6/9/07 at 02:22 PM

Broadway isn't for experimental theatre. Broadway is way too expensive to be experimenting unfortunately. But off-Broadway has some good stuff.

---

I don't know why architects think wider is better!

Most people would rathe rbe close than far away, likely all! WHy not design theatres like the New Amsterdam? Yes, it's steep, but everyone is relatively close to the stage.

---

I too would rather see YF at the St James. I saw The Producers there from the last row of the balcony, and it was not half bad. Also many other shows: Tommy, The Secret Garden, Forum, from the orchestra. I love this house! The creepy ally ways and all. And it's right next to Angus.
What the hell is Mel Brooks thinking? Especially for a show like this. Also, it's only a difference of about 100 seats

Mel is thinking - bigger theater & bigger $$

---

uncageg - that's a beautiful theater. But I really enjoy the ornante details of older theaters.

(1) Isherwood isnt a reviewer. He's writing an opinion piece, pure and simple. Leave it at that, as I imagine most discerning theatregoers will.

(2) Size *does* matter on Broadway, and for that we can blame the sheer economics of the thing. You will *never* see small, experimental pieces, unless it's underwritten by someone like Bill Gates who has thirty million to throw away. Because of the sheer costs of these behemoths, you *have* to have larger venues if you want to recoup your investment.

(3) Fussy architecture costs money, and lots of it. Forget about *ever* seeing that again in a new space.

---

joniray:

Yes, but it was an op-ed piece. he reviewed the theatre and mentioned NOTHING about the content of YF at all. This is completely fair. It's the same as speculating on how Xanadu would fit into a 550 seat theatre. Nothing about the show itself.

And I completely agree with your second statement. If the show is small and experimental but of high quality, people will believe in it.

---

While I understand his ideas about how cold and empty the theater feels, the general public buying tickets to Young Frankenstein won't care where it's playing.

---

Have you looked at Wicked's grosses lately? Or Lion King's even in the Minskoff?

---

Isn't it nice? It feels a little more special, a little more like a treat that's just for you (and 1000 other people, but still...)

---