I love La Cage...but why again so soon?- Page 2

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/15/09 at 11:45am

I just realized I said the words "band on stage." People are bound to go into it hating it because of that.

[mallardo]

Posted: 9/15/09 at 11:46am

It's ridiculous to say that this production in any way reinvents the show. It reduces it to a much smaller and some would say more realistic presentation but that's all. To me it was decidedly NOT better than the recent Broadway revival but that may have been because, apart from Douglas Hodge who was indeed wonderful,the rest of the cast was thoroughly second rate. As it will be recast here this won't matter but in any case do not go expecting a revelation.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 9/15/09 at 1:16pm

Mallardo, I take it you missed Philip Quast? I think he's the best Georges I've seen. Bright-eyed, playful and full voiced.

I personally did not call this production a reinvention, though others on this thread did. But I'd agree that it is not a reinvention of the material a la the Donmar Cabaret or the National Theatre's Carousel. However, it's definitely the most enjoyable La Cage I've seen, due to performance, conception, direction and design. For all the glitz and skill of the original production, I found it a chilly, remote show. Even moreso with the revival, which was well-meaning, but dutiful, rather than inspired.

Ben Brantley, reviewing the London La Cage, remarked upon the difference in approach of the last Broadway revival and this one, saying the following:

"The season's other big cross-dressing musical is, uh, small. That's the surprisingly appealing revival of "La Cage aux Folles," Jerry Herman and Harvey Fierstein's 1983 musical ... I was in no hurry to see "La Cage" after the slick and empty Broadway revival of 2004. But this version, directed by Terry Johnson and imported from the Menier Chocolate Factory in the Southwark neighborhood, triumphs by being anti-slick...This "La Cage" is sweet, seedy and affectingly human. The nightclub of the title is presented as a run-down joint, and its 'girls' are very (very) obviously men beneath their feathers and bustiers. The discrepancy between aspiration and reality is always clear."

Updated On: 9/15/09 at 01:16 PM

[MamasDoin'Fine]

Posted: 9/15/09 at 1:20pm

The band are not really on stage in the same way as with 'Chicago', but in boxes either side of the stage partially out of most the audiences view.

[bertandrew2]

Posted: 9/15/09 at 1:55pm

It was NOTHING to revive Gypsy twice in five years. One production was bad. One production was worse.

Gypsy is my favorite musical, and I hope its a good long while till it comes back.

I still have bad dreams of how that hateful woman ruined this show for me.

[Weez]

Posted: 9/15/09 at 2:40pm

Really? Second-rate, mallardo? Was that Philip Quast, who is unchallenged in his brilliance, or Denis Lawson, who was more than equal to the task and whose 'Song on the Sand' had me weeping copiously into my programme? Perhaps if you got the understudy Jacob, I could understand, 'cos Nolan Frederick was AWFUL. But I've seen this production several times in both the Chocolate Factory and the Playhouse and I have yet to be disappointed by any other cast member.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/15/09 at 2:44pm

"What???"

A comma after "Cabaret" may have been helpful but Jonwo's intended meaning was clear.

[BumbleWumble]

Posted: 9/15/09 at 11:54pm

I've seen the YouTube clip of this guy doing the role, and I really don't get what everyone else is talking about. He seems terrible... Bryan Batt was 100 times better in the revival!

I really am over the simplistic-scaled-down-London-show-comes-to-Broadway-to-reinvent-the-wheel thing.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 2:37am

How come so many people have seen this play and it hasn't even opened on Bway?

[ljay889]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 2:38am

It's been playing in London.

[TIGGOSAURUS]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 6:00am

Does it really matter where this production originated? As long as it was well-reviewed, well-received and has great buzz about it, surely it deserves a chance to be seen by NY audiences, just as should be the case if it originated in Chicago (for example).

It may be scaled-down compared to the 2004 revival but it certainly isn't simplistic. This production has great heart and puts the touching relationship between Georges & Albin literally front and centre. It's just a shame you won't be getting the wonderful Philip Quast accompanying Douglas Hodge.

[MamasDoin'Fine]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 6:39am

Simplistic! -don't make me laugh!

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 7:24am

mallardo how can you have liked a shallow, empty, slick yet hollow production like the Broadway Revival and not the current london one?

I guess you must be in to spectacle

And as for the "im over the london scaled down blah blah blah"
I guess the UK are just better at reviving shows that dont rely on Spectacle, Huge Budget etc, instead they showcase the piece itself.
And yes La Cage is scaled down from the past 2 Broadway Production of La Cage but its now like its a bare bones production, there is still a lot happening on the stage

[mallardo]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 7:36am

For the record I didn't dislike the London La Cage,I just didn't think it was in any way better and I had been told that it was. I didn't see Philip Quast,I got Denis Lawson as Georges and he was not in the same class as Mr.Hodge so the relationship was unbalanced. The Broadway Revival had the marvelous Daniel Davis as Georges and he made the show for me.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 10:49am

I really am over the simplistic-scaled-down-London-show-comes-to-Broadway-to-reinvent-the-wheel thing.

If you are referring to Sweeney Todd, Company and Sunday in the Park With George, this is nothing like those. This is a fully staged production with orchestra. It's just a smaller version that puts the focus on the story in a more believable setting. If what you loved about La Cage was the excess in costume/scenic design, then this might not be the show for you. If what you loved is the book/score, then give it a shot. I always liked the book and score, but I never cared for the absurdly unrealistic setting that was created on stage. This production just brings the story closer down to earth.

For me, La Cage did not have the old-fashioned musical comedy sensibility that is enhanced by elaborate staging such as Crazy for You, The Producers or 42nd Street. The more elaborate the sets and costumes, the more the show is distanced from the audience. The more the show is distanced from the audience, the more comfortable they are with associating the characters and their relationships with a fantasy conveniently well-removed from a relatable or identifiable reality. They can walk away with the warm fuzzy feeling that its all such a pretty and glitzy fictional world with cute, sympathetic characters. To me, this production brings the audience more face-to-face with characters and their emotions that could easily exist in Greenwich Village, London's Soho or the Reeperbahn in Hamburg. I picked up on it and connected with the show in a way that I had never experienced before. This production is not a reinvention in the telling of the story. It is a reimagining of the perspective without the use of gimmicky avant-garde or minimalistic conceptualization.

In a rather crude analogy, imagine one of those MySpace pages that you liked to frequent because you loved the content, but the user kept adding every application available with scrolling flashing banners, thirty animated icons, bright cursive fonts against a colorful floral background. It's sort of pretty, but hard to read. Remove 75% of the icons, use a normal font, make the banner static and bold, and make the background opaque, but still slightly visible. You can still have the beauty and flair, but your page is much more easily read and the content is more accessible. It's sort of like that.

I guess the UK are just better at reviving shows that dont rely on Spectacle, Huge Budget etc, instead they showcase the piece itself.

And then there's My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, Oliver, etc. But I dearly loved both Oliver and My Fair Lady. London has its fair share of overblown spectacle revivals, but as with Broadway, some are better than others. Look at what the US did with Chicago.

Updated On: 9/16/09 at 10:49 AM

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 11:03am

I'm surprised that with this recession, so many Americans were able to travel to London and have seen the show.

mallardo, did you get to see Robert Goulet? I am thrilled I got to see his last Broadway show, he was a true legend, wonderful and graceful. Gary Beach was fantastic too. I loved that revival so much, such a fun time! I laughed a lot the 1st time I saw it.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 11:33am

For me, the recession worked in my favor since there were amazing travel deals and fares off-season. I've spent a lot of time in London, but when I saw La Cage, I had a brief window of opportunity at a great price.

[TIGGOSAURUS]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 11:36am

Great post Mister Matt, very well-expressed.

Muscle - what makes you think the majority of people on this thread who've seen the London La Cage are Americans? Many Brits post on here (and a lot of us make regular trips to Broadway, so I'll admit it always gladdens my heart to hear of the reverse happening).

Updated On: 9/16/09 at 11:36 AM

[AnythingGoes2]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 12:04pm

This revival is superb and overshadows the recent revival which was a disaster. Why not do it again if it didn't work last time. It shouldn't have won Best Revival in the Tony's at all - as it should win Best Revival for the next Tonys.

The show dosen't feel downsized at all as its not done minamilistic or anything - it feels like a big show (because of the great choregraphy and staging and of course Jerrys big tunes) and yet becuase it is in fact done in a small venue/stage it feel inimate and the story is really highlighted - which is great as La Cage has a great book and heart.

This really is worthy of a Broadway transfer and deserved of its West End success.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 12:23pm

I'm really happy about the transfer. I was just surprised after the last revival that they would find anyone willing to bring the London production over so soon. I honestly did not think it would happen. I just hope the buzz from across the pond and an intelligent marketing blitz will get some butts in the seats. They will have to work twice as hard to get those who saw the Broadway revival to revisit the show. The London production had the benefit of La Cage's long absence from the West End.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 12:35pm

I'm quite interested to hear who will be cast as Georges.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 1:14pm

I have to agree with SADM2 that the UK is better at staging revivals although I agree that Oliver! is overblown although I enjoyed it. Guys and Dolls is a good example as is Cabaret.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 1:26pm

Matt, how much is it to go to London? I have been wanting to go, but all the "packages" that are supposed to be cheap are about a 1000 bucks!?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 1:29pm

And Broadway had hits with Guys and Dolls (1992), Annie Get Your Gun, Nine, A Chorus Line, Pajama Game and South Pacific. Hair and West Side Story will most likely prove to be hits as well. And though they weren't financial successes, there was much praise for How to Succeed, The King and I, Damn Yankees, Forum and others. Lately, London certainly has had a fair share of strong revivals, but I think over the past decade or so, it's been pretty even.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 1:32pm

Also, I hear that even a can of soda is like 3 dollars...or something like that.