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

[TIGGOSAURUS]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 1:42pm

I can categorically state that I have never been charged 3 dollars for a can of soda in London.

[MamasDoin'Fine]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 2:28pm

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

[AnythingGoes2]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 2:29pm

Guys and Dolls was a great revival - why they didn't transfer that version over to Broadway insted of the titanic awful production they did, I will never know. Worst decision ever!

Oliver! is slightly over-blown, but it works for the UK Audiences, we love Oliver! - And I think this revival is fantasticly produced to take full advantage of the Drury Lane stage - which is really lovely to see.

[MamasDoin'Fine]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 2:48pm

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

[Jonwo]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 2:51pm

I can understand why the original production of La Cage Aux Folles was quite a grand and spectular piece because it needed to appeal to a mainstream audience. I understand that Arthur Laurent does not like the new London revival but then again, he's just directed a mediocre production of West Side Story.

The Donmar/ATG production of Guys and Dolls was great and it had a fantastic cast including Douglas Hodge.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 2:54pm

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.

[MamasDoin'Fine]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 3:13pm

I have never seen a gay man so uncomfortable in a dress as the awful, awful Gary Beach in that dreadful production.
He killed it dead. Mr Davis was, on the other hand, sublime.
Bring him to London or even this new production for its New York opening!

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 3:19pm

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

[MamasDoin'Fine]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 3:22pm

Song On The Sand replaced by America!

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 3:24pm

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.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 3:24pm

I hope they don't bring over Hannah Waddingham for this - I think she's too young for the role.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 4:37pm

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?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 4:55pm

besty - They've been doing it for years! Smaller shows have won acclaim and turned a profit. This isn't minimalist nor does it come off as a small-budget reduced production. It just appears more realistic and authentic. I felt it was more worthy of Broadway than the recent revivals of Company or West Side Story. It may look like an appetizer, but it fills you up like an entree. Looks like a soup, eats like a meal. Whatever.

muscle - Last February, I got a British Airways special for round-trip airfare for $550 plus one night hotel free including breakfast. Yes, London is expensive and you will pay more than you'd expect for food and other items, though as a general rule, you can get theatre tickets cheaper than Broadway prices. But you can do London on a smaller budget. My last visit to London was MUCH cheaper than my last trip to NYC for the exact same amount of days.

Updated On: 9/16/09 at 04:55 PM

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 6:12pm

Matt, including airfare?

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/16/09 at 7:48pm

Mister Matt--LOL!

"Looks like a soup, eats like a meal."

I think I've truly been poisoned by today's insane ticket prices. I'm sure these shows have turned a profit, because they're so economical to produce. They take an inexpensive but hugely successful show that has already been produced either out of town (August Osage) or abroad (Night Music, La Cage) and bring it to Broadway. They can recoup in a few months, so it's a minimal risk.

Broadway isn't the "original" playground anymore. It's a reflection of the commercial successes from other places.

T'aint what it used to be.

*whittles and spits*

But Georgie, how I long for the old view ...

[Smaxie]

Posted: 9/17/09 at 8:51am

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.

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 9/17/09 at 10:13am

I bet Tommy Tune isn't happy about La Cage coming back.

For he is the one who said in an interview, that "Broadway houses shouldn't be filled with revivals, because they don't allow new productions to grow".

I went with a friend to see the late Robert Goulet in the recent revival of La Cage, and it was so brilliant. It's a shame it couldn't last longer. I think Mr. Goulet, was the best part of the production.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/17/09 at 10:23am

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

[Smaxie]

Posted: 9/17/09 at 11:18am

I agree that it is a far greater risk to put your money behind something new for Broadway. But the success of a London, Off-Broadway or regional transfer - even of a "safe" title - can also reap other future dividends, allowing those producers to gain the confidence of their investors toward future work - which sometimes includes exciting new work for Broadway.

The success of August: Osage County has emboldened lead producer Jeffrey Richards and his frequent co-producers and investors. He's now responsible for most of the big new plays and play revivals on Broadway, including this season's Superior Donuts and David Mamet's Race, both new to Broadway. (Last season, he produced Reasons to be Pretty, Speed-the-Plow, Desire Under the Elms, Hair, Blithe Spirit and You're Welcome America).

Sonia Friedman, who is lead producer for the La Cage revival, has previously brought over Tom Stoppard's Rock 'n' Roll, the Royal Court's The Seagull and the Old Vic's Norman Conquests, as well as Boeing Boeing and The Woman in White - all of which, I think were risky ventures for Broadway. Should La Cage be a hit, it will make it easier for her to fund Jez Butterworth's acclaimed new play, Jerusalem, which she has said she wants to produce here as well as the acclaimed production of Tom Stoppard's Arcadia, with which she had a critical and commercial hit in the West End.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/17/09 at 12:07pm

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.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 9/17/09 at 12:57pm

Also too, the route that some shows take to get to Broadway has changed over the past couple of decades from the heyday of Broadway's Golden Age.

While some commercial musicals still do the out-of-town tryout thing, Broadway producers have found a safer route to provide enhancement money for regional or London shows, with an eye toward a future Broadway commercial life for the production, if all goes well.

Or, sometimes a regional theatre or non-profit is happy to provide a home for a commercial production that is seeking a place to try itself out. Their subscribers get a show "pre-Broadway," the producers get a place to see their show on its feet with a built-in audience and the regional theatre gets the imprimatur of being the birthplace of a Broadway success, should the show become a hit.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 9/20/09 at 5:40pm

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

[fosca3]

Posted: 9/21/09 at 2:14pm

I'm VERY excited to see it

I tried every which way to come up with the money to see Philip Quast and Roger Allam in London, but couldn't swing it

I'm just glad it's coming to NYC, and I wouldn't miss it for the world

[frapperia]

Posted: 9/23/09 at 11:09pm

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!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 9/24/09 at 12:36am

"I love La Cage, but I think that photo of Douglas Hodge on the announcement page is hideous."

Ditto.

And the full shot doesn't make him look any better.

Why can't they find someone who is not a "man in a dress" to play the part? ZaZa IS supposed to be the star of the show!


Get James Beaman in there...