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

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

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

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.

"What???"

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

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

---

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.

---

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

---

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

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.

---

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.

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

---

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!?

---

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

---