If "A Star Is Born" ever became a Broadway Show...who would play Vicki Lester?

[Tamerlano]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 7:58pm

I just watched the movie...again. I know its been tried/workshoped a few times but if it ever made it to Broadway..who would your Vicki Lester and Norman Maine be? I really think it could work...that fab Harold Arlen score....could be beefed up with a few of his other classics..a timeless story..what's not to like?

I would go for Kristin Chenoweth and George Clooney (or Jonathan Pryce if we can't afford George).

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 10/11/10 at 11:40pm

Vicki Lewis. Hands down.

[Donthatecongratulate]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 12:27am

a workshop was done in London. Beyonce has plans to star in it on Broadway. Sad but true.

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 7:58am

Back in the '90's, Lloyd-Webber supposedly had the rights to it and there was talk of Judy Kuhn and Christopher Cazenove starring.

[madbrian]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 8:03am

Rachel York and Harry Connick.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 8:35am

The workshop wasn't done in London. It was done here two summers ago. Idina Menzel played Esther opposite Norm Lewis as Norman.

The production was being developed for London because Kevin Spacey was attached to co-star and bring the show to the Old Vic, but he pulled out two weeks before the developmental work began.

[Brick]

Posted: 10/12/10 at 11:26am

Beyonce was eyeing a film remake, supposedly with Russell Crowe.

I also heard Audra was eyeing the stage project, hoping to make it her Bway return.

[random person 112]

Posted: 1/11/12 at 5:05pm

Donna Murphy would have been perfect twenty years ago.

Audra and Menzel are strange choices though. I mean Audra mit be perfect for some moments but i don't see her going through the whole score. And how many keys would be going up.... Updated On: 1/11/12 at 05:05 PM

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 1/11/12 at 10:50pm

I think Leigh Ann Larkin did a reading at some point. Much more age appropriate selection than the other names mentioned here.

[egghumor]

Posted: 1/11/12 at 10:54pm

Sutton Foster and Boyd Gaines

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/11/12 at 10:58pm

Who you cast depends heavily on WHICH version of "A Star Is Born," one of the most reimagined and rewritten movie musicals ever, the production is based on, or if it's an entirely new one.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/11/12 at 10:59pm

I would vote for that lady from the upcoming transfer of End of the Rainbow. I understand she doesn't so much play Judy as is Judy.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 1/11/12 at 11:16pm

TalkinLoud, Leigh Ann Larkin played a supporting role in the reading with Menzel and Lewis.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 8:35am

Anika Noni Rose to Ewan Mcgregor's Norman

[artscallion]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 8:51am

Elaine Stritch and Charlie Sheen.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 9:40am

Sutton Foster and Charles Edwards

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 9:56am

The big problem with A Star Is Born is that it has a major story flaw that ultimately makes it ponderous and virtually pointless.

The first part of the story (Act 1, if you will) is terrific. You have megastar Norman, a hostile, entitled, indulgent star with little to offer anyone other than "who he is," meeting young, fresh-faced Esther. The one thing that makes Norman human is his love and affection for Esther. He sees the potential, and he helps her every way he can. And we watch her star rise, and his fall. And it's a very compelling story, because we can see what's coming. She's going to make it big-time, and he's going to crash and burn. This part of the plot is classic. It works. It's great drama.

The second half (Act II, if you will) is where the major flaw comes in. Norman is at rock bottom. He can no longer help Esther, because he is physically incapable of it. And Esther doesn't need his help anymore. She's a huge star herself. So you have these two people feeling sorry for themselves. It's a giant, self-indulgent, bloated mess. She's weepy, he's morose and suicidal. And it goes on, and on, and on, ultimately undermining everything that came before it. At the end you have dead Norman and weepy Esther, holding her head high. It's a tepid ending to what started out as a very strong, powerful story. There is no moral, no glimmer of hope, no poetic perspective, no lesson to be learned. It's just people (privileged people, at that) feeling hugely sorry for themselves. Boo--Friggin'--Hoo.

The only version that ever stomped on this a bit and "woke it up" was the Gaynor/March adaptation in the '30s. The character of the grandma, played by May Robson (who is excellent). We see her at the beginning of the story, when Esther is poor and dreams of being a big star. Her family all laughs at her, except for Grandma. She believes in Esther. She gives her the money for a bus ticket to Hollywood to give it a shot. Then we have the classic tale unfold, and at the end---after Norman has died and Esther is crying for the 300th time (enough already!)---Grandma shows up again and slaps some sense into her. She "wakes her up" and puts things into perspective about life, love, career, and what is really important in the world. THAT's the perspective that is sorely lacking from the other self-indulgent, morose, bloated messy versions of this story.

I love the Garland adaptation, but even Judy and an excellent James Mason can't overcome the flaws in the plot and character development (or lack thereof in the second half). Too much crying and feeling sorry for oneself kills it, and trivializes everything that comes before.

Bring "Grandma" back into the mix, or a character that serves the same purpose. There has to be perspective and focus on this story, or it just doesn't work well at all.

[GottaHaveAGimmick]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 11:09am

Charles Busch (as Vicky) and Cheyenne Jackson (as Norman). Done!

[chickfila]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 11:11am

Best, doesn't Jimmy in the Garland version take Grandmother's place in terms of getting her back into the world after Norman's death?

[followspot]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 11:14am

David Turner.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 11:36am

Best, doesn't Jimmy in the Garland version take Grandmother's place in terms of getting her back into the world after Norman's death?

He tries, but it doesn't have the same impact at all. Maybe it's just the writing of that scene. Or maybe it's because Jimmy's character isn't "naturally" the logical choice to tell her such things. He was with her when she was struggling to become a star, but not before. He's too jaded himself. He's a barroom piano player made good. But he wasn't there when she was first trying to figure out what she wanted out of life. Maybe if Jimmy had grown up with her in the same small town. Or if he were her brother and moved to Hollywood with her. That could work.

It just didn't resonate with me in the Garland version. But you're right, they tried to make him work as that "voice of reason," taking her back to what is really important. It didn't work. It felt false. Plus, she cried through the whole thing, which ruined the scene. More self-indulgence and self-pity.

Granny comes in and all but slaps here ala Cher and says, "SNAP OUT OF IT." She basically tells her (unsympathetically) to stop feeling sorry for herself. That there were no guarantees and no "free rides" to success.

That's what it needs.


EDIT: And that scene is essential. Without it, the entire last half of the film has no point. Actually, the story itself has no point without it.

Updated On: 1/12/12 at 11:36 AM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 1:16pm

I want to not only say Best12 is right, of course, but add that the problem would be even worse on stage without camera work, including close ups, to distract us.

I know some people find characters who drink themselves to death emotionally moving, but I find them indulgent and ultimately tedious. And, yes, I mean Nicholas Cage in LEAVING LAS VEGAS. *yawn*

The only fix I see is if someone were to rewrite the story so that Norman's decline took up Act I (end with the disruption at the Academy Awards) and then Act II followed his attempt at a comeback with Vicky/Esther's help. The comeback can fail, but until it does it will need some sort of obstacle other than Norman's love of the bottle. IMHO, anyway.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 1:44pm

I definitely think you can have sad, depressing, gut-wrenching stories ... including the love of a bottle, which is only the vice for whatever the real problem is.

But I think there needs to be a point to the whole mess, in order for it to be powerful and work as a play/movie.

If the point to A Star Is Born is just that Vicki can hold her head high at an awards tribute for her late husband ... that's pretty damn shallow. We need to know that she is starting to put her life into perspective. She's beginning to understand what is really important in the world. Not crying through a tribute to her dead husband, either. That's NOT the point, and it's a weak ending without the stronger message of perspective. Why did he die? He lost perspective. She has a chance to find hers again, but she has to go all the way back to her roots to do that.

Think about West Side Story or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (random examples) Both end in devastation, but there is a glimmer of hope at the very end of each. A poetic perspective on what has just happened. That's the reason for the play.

A Star Is Born lacks that reason. And again, it's a shame because the first part of the story is so strong and appealing. It's the last act that falls apart completely by the end.

I wouldn't mind seeing it adapted again .. but with some major fixes to the storyline to make it relevant.

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 2:12pm

I agree on the necessity of changes to it.

It's a story that always survived less on its own merits than on diva worship. The Judy film lives on not so much for the story, or even for her acting, as for her performances of some great songs, and a chance for Judy to do that thing with her hands- I'm sure you know the one.

Streissand's version, similarly, lives on Barbra and Barbra's songs as much as it does on the story. If you don't have an instant diva, and I'd almost be willing to go the extra step and say an instant gay-appeal diva to hang the music and the glamorous tragedy on, the show will seem not tragic, but camp. It's the DIVA, not the actress or the role, that makes "A Star Is Born."

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/12 at 2:14pm

The Diva aspect, for sure. Plus, the first part of the story is great. Both exciting and powerful.