I love La Cage...but why again so soon? — Page 3

The revival was just Broadway spectacle for the masses and forgot that here was a small little 1970s French play under there.
That is now given room to breath in this glorious production that now sits in London and will soon knock Broadway for six.
The recent revival on Broadway was as cold as ice and deserved its fate.

The current London production has now ran almost twice as long as the original 1986 London Palladium production.

Updated On: 9/16/09 at 02:28 PM

AG2, I couldn't agree more AND they could have had Patrick Swayze back on Broadway.

The last revival was an extremely glossy, cruise ship esque treatment of this show. This seedy, darker treatment feels more fitting and appropriate for the couple at that point in gay history. I highly doubt that gay club owners were living in that much luxury when La Cage was written.

Zaks' production, while extremely well cast, was extremely flawed and lazy. Beach and Davis were tremendous but Zaks offered little thought or introspective to make his revival feel necessary.

This new treatment offers a new and appropriate perspective and a commanding star performance. I'm very excited to see this. It is one of my favorite Herman scores.

I think this revival would work better if they moved Gee, Officer Krupke to where it was in the film version.

I think Beach suffered from horrible direction or lack thereof. I think he was completely capable of turning in a riveting performance and I could tell he was trying very hard. I agree with Davis. He was sublime.

The original production of La Cage was great! I saw it just days after moving to NYC in the mid-'80s. Didn't see the first revival. It didn't look very good, just from the clips and numbers I saw.

A scaled-down revival sounds fine, too. But not for Broadway. Or not at Broadway prices. Put this small production in a small theatre, with their small cast and small sets, and charge small prices, and I'm all for it. Then everything is in proportion.

But if this production of a mainstream gay musical lacks the big spectacle and only has theatrical "impact," they can look at a really limited run on Broadway. Especially if the only economizing they're doing is on stage. Who is going to buy the tasty "petite appetizer" at full entree prices?

---

Matt, including airfare?

---

Broadway is so unpredictable that I think there are relatively few sure things (save for a show boasting a major Hollywood star). I think it still takes considerable gumption to move a show from an acclaimed regional production, Off-Broadway or London and it involves more acumen than simply writing a check.

Even with its rave reviews in Chicago, August: Osage County - with no known stars, a big cast, big set and a playwright making his Broadway debut - had to have producers with nerves of steel.

Night Music, as the first Broadway revival of a major Sondheim title and with two stars at the helm, is probably much less of a risk. Still, Sondheim musicals, new or revivals, don't tend to run for long and audiences often dry up after the core Sondheim fans flood the theatre for the first few months.

As for La Cage, I think it also takes some confidence to bring a revival here so soon after the last revival's failure and starring a British actor no one has heard of over here.

The amount of original work debuting on Broadway is relatively rare (though Race is a world premiere). Still, there's quite a bit of new (to Broadway) work coming, even if it may have debuted elsewhere: A Steady Rain, Superior Donuts, Memphis, In the Next Room, Race, After Miss Julie, Wishful Drinking, Fela!, Time Stands Still, plus a few more plays for the spring yet to be announced.

In the midst of a poor economy, it's quite something that both commercial producers and non-profits are not all taking the tried and true method. Incredibly, last season, with 43 productions, was the busiest Broadway season since 1982. 24 productions are confirmed for this season, with 11 more soon to be announced, and probably more that I don't know about yet. I miss the big Broadway musicals and exciting plays of the Broadway of my youth, but I still think Broadway is more robust than I ever expected it to be right now.

---

Smaxie---I agree with everything you said, with one exception.

Their risk is "financial" not "creative." Any show produced on Broadway is a huge risk, and it takes a bit of daring from its backers. I'm with you on that.

But it's far more daring when the risk is taken on something that hasn't been fully realized yet. When producers are asked to use their imaginations and instill their confidence and bank accounts in a "new work." They're putting their trust in artists, not in something they've already seen successfully produced elsewhere.

It's like paying a fashion designer for a custom-built suit he hasn't designed yet.

These producers (assumably) have already "seen the goods." They know exactly what they're getting in advance. So do many in the audience who have seen these "out of town" productions. No creative mysteries there. Oh, sure, the productions may get some minor tweaks and a little polish prior to opening night.

But this is far cry from investing in a brand new production for Broadway.

---

Updated On: 9/17/09 at 10:23 AM

I don't know if Broadway really needs to be such an expansive experimental playground. I sort of like the eclectic mix of new works, transfers, revivals, original works, adapted works and limited engagements. And transfers can be quite risky as well as recently illustrated by the revival of Desire Under the Elms. What works in one place could receive the opposite reception on Broadway. Look at at the fate of many a Broadway transfer to the West End. Seeing the end product before it opens on Broadway could still be as big a long shot as trying to open a show cold on Broadway. I'm not sure there is a clear advantage to a transfer unless its proven to be a smash hit runaway train like Billy Elliot or Mamma Mia. And some shows I had always hoped would transfer as I think they definitely were deserving of a Broadway production like Cameron Mackintosh's RNT revival of My Fair Lady which has only recently received a limited US tour. I just can't imagine refusing to produce something on Broadway like Art, The Beauty Queen of Leenane, The Light in the Piazza, Metamorphoses or August: Osage County simply because it already was a hit in another city with a more limited audience and in some cases, a very limited run at a repertory theatre which it simply may not get the attention or notoriety it deserves.

Considering how the Broadway demographic has drastically changed since the Golden Age, I'm afraid too many Broadway world premiers could financially ruin Broadway simply because the audiences of today will never be the audiences of the 40s, 50s, 60s or even the 70s. And now, even some of the riskier new works to open cold on Broadway are simply rejected by theatre enthusiasts before they even open for simply not being the "right sort of show". Look at the reactionary posts since the original announcement of Spider Man.

---

Well, if so many people are eager to see this show, I guess it's good that they are bringing it...

---

It's a real pity you couldn't see Quast and Allam because they were incredible. Quast makes me melt. See it if only for the Cagelles - I have watched Youtube videos of the American ones and they are so slow and limp comparatively to the UK's snappy, naughty, acrobatic ones!