House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times
House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/26/05
House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#1
Posted: 6/9/07 at 12:22pm
A ludicrous story from Charles Isherwood, damning the Hilton Theatre, and questioning it as the choice for Young Frankenstein. Now, I do wish they could overcome the sound problems in that theatre... but I think I would still rather see something in there any day over the Gershwin, Minskoff or Marquis. (And the failures of Hot Feet, Pirate Queen, Chitty and Jesus Christ Superstar were not the theatre's fault. Ragtime and 42nd Street also didn't recoup, but those shows would have been economically unworkable in ANY theatre on Broadway).
New York Times on Hilton Theatre
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#2
Posted: 6/9/07 at 12:45pmHere 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.
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#2
Posted: 6/9/07 at 1:06pm
Why bother to cast recognizable actors if nobody can see their faces?
I hate "supersized" theatres.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#3
Posted: 6/9/07 at 2:22pm
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.
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#4
Posted: 6/9/07 at 3:28pm
He makes a good point about the acting though. It's going to be hard to play a musical comedy in a HUGE theater. It can and probably will work, and I guess it works with Mel's style of comedy, but sublte wit will not be pickedup.
I really wish we had more "smaller" theaters on Broadway like the Helen Hayes so we could get more experimental theater.
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#5
Posted: 6/9/07 at 4:38pm
Broadway isn't for experimental theatre. Broadway is way too expensive to be experimenting unfortunately. But off-Broadway has some good stuff. 
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#6
Posted: 6/9/07 at 4:52pm
I saw "Hot Feet" at the Hilton. I grabbed a cheap seat and sat two rows from the very back in the balcony. I moved to the first row of the lower balcony after intermission. While I did feel a bit far away from the stage, I must say that being used to the Temple Buell here in Denver which seats 2,800 people, it wasn't that bad. However, it was a bit of a shock after seeing shows all week in smaller venues! But I agree, it is a bit of a cold feeling theatre. As big as the Buell is, it is a very nice theatre. The Ellie Caulkins Opera House here, where The Little Mermaid" will world premiere this summer, seats 2,225. It boasts good sightlines from every seat. I have yet to see a show there but will be seeing "Mermaid" in August. If I do get a chance to see "Young Frankenstein" (Which I plan to), I will make sure to sit center orchestra.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/05
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#7
Posted: 6/9/07 at 4:55pm
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.
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#8
Posted: 6/9/07 at 5:35pmMr. Belasco knew how to build an intimate 1,000 seat theatre, and that was more than 100 years ago.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#9
Posted: 6/9/07 at 6:13pm
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
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#10
Posted: 6/9/07 at 8:23pm
This is where "Mermaid" will be playing in Denver.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/17/03
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#11
Posted: 6/9/07 at 9:08pmMel is thinking - bigger theater & bigger $$
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/4/04
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#12
Posted: 6/9/07 at 11:50pm
Wow, that's almost as bad as the Mel Brooks' ego thread.
I heard that Mel screwed himself out of the St. James by not giving the Theatre owners a piece of the show.
They better hope Brantley reviews YUNG FRANK and not Isherwood.
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#13
Posted: 6/9/07 at 11:57pmuncageg - that's a beautiful theater. But I really enjoy the ornante details of older theaters.
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#14
Posted: 6/10/07 at 6:45amIs it usual practice at the New York Times to review shows before they've begun rehearsal?
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#15
Posted: 6/10/07 at 8:38am
(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.
Broadway Star Joined: 3/27/04
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#16
Posted: 6/10/07 at 11:09am
1. Although this article in particular was an op-ed piece, Isherwood is the second string reviewer for the times (behind Brantley).
2. Spring Awakening, Grey Gardens, Doyle's Company and Sweeney, Pillowman - I'd consider all of these from the past few seasons somewhat "small experimental pieces"
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#17
Posted: 6/10/07 at 11:14am
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.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/17/03
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#18
Posted: 6/10/07 at 11:15am
The theater, decor wise, is head & shoulders over those 2 barns - The Minskoff & The Gershwin
It is simply a big theater to fill
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#19
Posted: 6/10/07 at 11:21amWhile 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.
To Kill A Mockingbird
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#20
Posted: 6/10/07 at 11:26am
But if they build a monster theatre on Broadway for the primary purpose of making more money than the other houses... and then the shows that fill these "barns" flop, because of a lack of intimacy (aka "coldness") that everyone's describing here... who exactly is benefiting from a barn-sized theatre?
Nobody.
Greed makes it bigger, the people don't fill the seats, and everybody loses. Great strategy.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#21
Posted: 6/10/07 at 11:29amHave you looked at Wicked's grosses lately? Or Lion King's even in the Minskoff?
Swing Joined: 3/7/07
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#22
Posted: 6/10/07 at 11:49am
I actually just made my first trip to Broadway a couple of weeks ago, and I loved the smaller theaters! The theater I go to the most is the massive 3,000 seat Orange County Performing Arts Center... or the Pantages up in LA, so seeing shows in the more intimate theaters like the Helen Hayes and the Walter Kerr was a welcome change.
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#23
Posted: 6/10/07 at 11:52amIsn'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...)
Swing Joined: 3/7/07
re: House of Horrors for Mel's Monster - NY Times#24
Posted: 6/10/07 at 11:57amYeah, it was soooo nice. It threw me off a bit at first because my first show was Grey Gardens at the Walter Kerr, and I was like... "No lobby? You go straight into the theater?" It was disorienting just because I wasn't used to it, but now I just love those theaters. I saw a performance at the Orange County Performing Arts Center 2 days after I got back and I was like.... ugh....
Videos
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
