Interview about demise of Wonderland on Broadway — Page 2

While the book has always been a little .. off, the Broadway production has the unfortunate honor of being what this musical will be remembered for.

The old version was all about balancing being a mother, wife and worker/writer, none of that wanna-be Wizard of Oz/Wiz "I need to find home" stuff. Quite a shame, I think people would've liked earlier versions. Oh well, it's Broadway it's a gamble.

Dacal's strongest performance was this past January, when the role was "written for" her if you want to say that. It was designed to make her a crowd pleaser and it worked. Unfortunately new writers were hired and ...

Here's the thing: I'm from the Tampa Bay area...

So, curious- what's Fleming's reputation? As a writer/reporter/critic/whatever?

And since Shindle's first tweet about this was posted here I feel it appropriate that her follow-up tweet be also:
@42deeznutz says an explanation has been offered and accepted from @wonderlandbway. good to know. moving on. how was everyone's weekend?
http://twitter.com/kateshindle/status/88402218822279168

Updated On: 7/6/11 at 02:29 AM

"So, curious- what's Fleming's reputation? As a writer/reporter/critic/whatever?"

He's the "performing arts critic". Theatrical reviews don't really make up the bulk of his reviews- orchestral performance does. I suppose he would consider himself a music critic foremost, as he's heavily involved with the Music Critics Association of America. I never really thought much of his opinion regarding theatre, and I didn't know many people who did, either. So much of the performing arts in the Tampa Bay area relies heavily on subscriptions that it doesn't really matter what he thinks.

For something like Wonderland, it was in the best interest of everyone involved to be kind and encouraging with it.


As for Lisi- I have met and dealt with the woman. She's honestly a nice and usually tactful lady and her statements, although incredibly unwise (as I said), I do not think were intended to be malicious. I think she's knocked for a loop and on the defensive in order to salvage this Broadway Genesis thing (which is a hopeless cause, but whatever). She has proven herself savvy as a businesswoman in the arts before and I don't fully understand what exactly went wrong here. Perhaps she has a board of directors breathing down her neck. Maybe she has donors and potential donors that are now dubious of giving money. But I think it's apparent she was not yet ready for the Broadway producing game. I think she, as the newcomer, was easily appeased by others.

---

The show could not have lasted through the summer. It was losing money, its reviews were noxious, it had poor word-of-mouth, and it did not garner any awards momentum. Shindle, as great as she is, was the not the one risking anything.

---

Unprofessional conduct by a producer. I saw the show, and although it had its moments, there were lots of areas that were overlooked by people who should have known better. Don't blame the actors, and the part about Janet Dacal losing her focus is particularly loathsome. Shut up, Judy Lisi! You're giving producers a bad name.

---

I'm going to speak as someone who is incredibly biased here, being the biggest fan this show will ever have.

I think the article by Fleming was somewhat tweaked to make Lisi appear as a monster. I doubt she meant to be negative about Dacal and Ritchie's relationship, especially since (as it's been pointed out here) basically began in a recording studio way before rehearsals even started.

At any rate, I think some of those Tampa Bay-area investors are to blame for the sudden closing of the show. My sources tell me that at least one of them decided to pull all of his money when he saw that the show didn't do over 80% in box office sales one week. Really? Did these investors not know about the risks of Broadway? The week the show closed, there was talk that a new investor was going to put more money into the show so that it could run through the summer; the entire crew was put on standby and load-out was put on hold. Sadly, this investor didn't pony up the dough. Had the show run through the summer, I think it could have done well, especially considering its location right in Times Square. Tourists would have eaten the show up. And I still think a US tour (if it will actually happen) would do very well.

Nevertheless, the biggest group of people at fault here are the NY critics. They are responsible for the demise of many shows and, ultimately, for the downfall of Broadway. It's perfectly understandable that each critics has her or his own opinion about a show, and that's the beauty of free expression; however, there's really no reason to tear things apart. And, as has been expressed in this thread already, the NY critics have a major vendetta against Wildhorn and all of his shows. I bet that if WONDERLAND had been billed as a musical by Duncan Sheik, the critics would have been much kinder.

I will never understand why a show like SPIDER-MAN (which, of course, was critically-bashed...twice!) gets reincarnated and survives between two seasons and a show like WONDERLAND (or THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS or BLOODY BLOODY ANDREW JACKSON, both of which I sadly missed this past season) gets be thrown to the side.

"They are responsible for the demise of many shows and, ultimately, for the downfall of Broadway"

That's a bit melodramatic. Critics have gone hand-in-hand with theatre since its inception, Broadway included. Two of the shows you mentioned, Scottsboro and Bloody Bloody, were critically well-received and still flopped. Critically lukewarm shows like Wicked and Mary Poppins thrive.

Wonderland was receiving bad word of mouth before the critics ever got to it. Not just from audiences but from people in the Broadway community.

---

Producing is a gamble. Baby, It's You! is doing better business than it did, but can no way survive past Labor Day- its average ticket price is the second lowest of all Broadway musicals (if you count Rain. If not, then it is indeed the lowest). Wonderland was in a huge house and was a far larger show. It was already suffering from bad marketing, plus a very clear separation from Alice in Wonderland despite being based on it- it was very obviously NOT the story or the movie. All Baby, It's You! has to do is say "LOOK, THE SHIRELLES! YOU KNOW THESE SONGS!" and it's going to sell something.

Wonderland was going to lose money- it was just a question of how much it was going to lose. It was a small fry in a season full of better shows that had popular opinion on their side. The theatre owners were probably none too happy about housing a show that could barely make rent, either.

---

Having seen well over 60 Broadway shows over a period of nearly 20 years, I can safely say (this time without bias) that I've seen far worse shows than WONDERLAND.

"Honestly, to state that the simply terrible Wonderland died because of a cabal of evil critics is naive to the point of foolishness. And to pretend that running in the summer rather than any other time of year would have helped is just self-deception. There are herds of tourists here at every time of year, not just in summer."

The critical bashing is certainly one of the key factors in the closing of many shows, WONDERLAND included. The summer time is when most tourist groups come into the city; school is out of session (in most areas) and families come to town to see shows, among other things. Yes, tourists also come throughout the year - particularly tourists from outside the US - but the post-Memorial-Day-pre-Labor-Day period of time is an especially important time for Broadway.

"Wonderland is a stupid, incoherent, unappealing mess. Not enough people liked it to generate word of mouth, and the neophyte producers were too stupid and inexperienced to capitalize it sufficiently to run it as long as the two or three fans would have liked."

Actually, there are more than "two or three fans". The one Facebook fan page has over 2,000 and the official Facebook page has almost 15,000. Sadly, that doesn't mean much now.

"And that's it - audiences didn't like it, didn't buy tickets, and the show ran out of money. Move on."

Actually, audiences did like it. Quite a few of my friends saw the show at my urging or on their own accord. I asked for their honest opinions and, although some weren't as thrilled about it as others, they all said it was worth seeing. None of them hated it. Many of them loved it. Some of them liked it. The show got a standing ovation at every performance I attended.

The saddest part of all this is that the show didn't get a real chance to live for more than two months on Broadway. I think it deserved more of a life than that. I really hope a tour is mounted...or, as Judy Lisi mentioned, European productions of the show are staged.

17000 fans isn't a very good judge for a show that had to sell what, 12-13000 a week to sell out.


Even as I shameless plugged that show over the past 3 years, I can't even understand how people liked the Broadway production. It was SOOO bad and had nothing to do with the previous incarnations of it.

Off-topic: The show got a standing ovation just once (out of the several times I was there) and that was at the closing performance. I think the awkward Kate Shindle aka villain applause spoke enough to what kind of show this was and what people were there to see.