Interview about demise of Wonderland on Broadway- Page 2

[trentsketch]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:08pm

My outrage isn't fake. I really liked Dacal in this (her character arc was terrible, going from anger to confusion to reluctant acceptance to...whatever happened in the Victorian Gentleman scene). I thought she did more than the script called for her to do. The problem was the character Alice being passive in the "and here's the next character, and here's the next character, and here's the next character, and here's the next character, and here's the intermission" structure of the show. Alice didn't drive the change, the other characters did. Janet did what the script called for her. Short of improvising onstage and possibly getting fired, I don't see how Janet could have done anything to fix that character. And I'm talking "there used to be a great song here, so here's this pointless scene instead" levels of improv, not change a line or note improv.

The problem with the show was the wretched book. I can live with the block set design and the scattered score. The story of Alice isn't exactly linear, but at least it makes sense. Wonderland did not make sense. It made my head hurt in Act II.

[philly03]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:19pm

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 ...

[Kad]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 1:46am

Here's the thing: I'm from the Tampa Bay area (I left before they renamed the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center the Straz Center or whatever it is now). It is not a theatrically rich area. They (Judy Lisi and the rest of the TBPAC people) had a lot riding on this thing. Why they didn't see this coming is anyone's guess- Lisi has been in the business for years and certainly could not have been unaware of Wildhorn's reputation. Lisi is the reason why Tampa got/gets first run tours of major shows. She is well-connected and in the loop.

I think Lisi and the rest of those in charge there got delusions of grandeur of making the arts center a potential out-of-town tryout spot and producer of major musicals. Their hearts were in the right place, perhaps, but anyone could see that a Wildhorn vehicle was the wrong damn choice for that. Tampa audiences are not NYC audiences and Tampa Bay critics treated the show with kid gloves.

But the failure of Wonderland pretty much kills their whole Broadway Genesis thing cold. Tampa was never gonna be a place that fostered that sort of thing. It just wasn't. It's not that sort of town. And having Wonderland be the flagship was just baaad.

As for Lisi's comments... while I think the statement was unwise, I think the reaction is melodramatic. I don't think the interview was "classless". Opinions being expressed here are far more severe and lacking of class. Lisi merely says that Dacal may have lost focus a bit- and maybe she did. That is hardly a throwing-under-the-bus, damning statement.

[Anakela]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 2:29am

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

[julesboogie]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 2:31am

I dont know Kad. What seemed classless to me was that it didnt seem like Lisi was taking any of this weight on her own shoulders. Its very "cut and run"/political to point the finger at all the problems. Its very responsible to point the finger and then say "And i did nothing to stop it." Thats what seems like this aritcle is missing.

Nothing could come out of her saying that Dacal "fell in love and got happy" other than a smudge on Dacal's working reputation.

And i know that Lisi is not responsible for the overall tone of the piece, but as a producer you just have to make sure stuff like this is pc before you agree to it. What i would love now is to see a rebuttal from Lisi saying she was misrepresented (while Darrens is nice... its not from the horses mouth.)

[Kad]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 1:31am

"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.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 1:46am

The producers and investors of this show lost everything. What I can't figure out is why they could not get it right during the out of town tryouts. I also think the show would have done well during the summer. Kate Shindle said in one of her interviews that the producers did not let this show get established and find an audience and that they closed it too soon. Part of me agrees with her, but the other part of me can't get over why they let this version of the show be the finished product.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 2:34am

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.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 2:45am

^ Very true.

[rubydoo]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 7:04am

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.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 8:38am

The only focus that was lost in this whole unfortunate enterprise was the most essential one of all: Alice in Wonderland.

It's supposed to be about a girl in Wonderland, not a grown woman with a child.

It's mindboggling to think that in three incarnations not one person in the creative or producing team realized this.

[luvwicked]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 8:41am

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.

[leefowler]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 9:09am

"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."

Though it is indeed a lousy musical, Spider-Man is, with all it's mishaps, a true event, probably the only show on Broadway now that is truly world famous. When I visit relatives out of town, Spider-Man is the musical they want to talk about.

By contrast, Wonderland was to most people (though not you, luvwicked, and you certainly have a right to your opinion) just another crummy, cheesy musical. At the end of the day, people were interested in seeing Spider-Man, and not Wonderland.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 2:34pm

"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.

[elphaba.scares.me]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 2:41pm

>>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.

True. But the same could have been said of "Baby, it's You", which has poured in enough money to stay alive and is now doing decent business. It probably won't last, but it's still going and making money through the summer.

The rookie investors were trigger-happy when it came to pulling their financial support. Regardless of quality, the show would have lasted through Labor Day or longer if the lead producers had a clue how to manage their investors.

They didn't have a significant enough war chest to stay open OR market the show (which, yes, could have been much better) during Tony season. Poorly-reviewed shows become critic-proof when producers are smart and strategic with their money.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 3:03pm

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.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 3:15pm

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.

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.

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

[luvwicked]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 4:11pm

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.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 4:45pm

OK, you and your friends didn't hate it. That (and 15,000 Facebook fans) still doesn't add up to enough people to make it run.

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but shows close because people don't buy tickets. I can say that I and the 20 or so people I know who saw it, thought it was among the worst shows ever seen, and all due to the writing (although some people also hated the design as well).

And I'll call your 60 Broadway shows over 20 years and raise to about 250 Broadway shows (not to mention Off Broadway and regional) over 35 years. It doesn't make me right, and I only cite it because you seem to think it conveys authority of some sort.

I don't really want to address your standing ovation comment, I don't see why anyone needs to because it's been said literally millions of times - the standing ovation means absolutely nothing in terms of the quality of a show. Citing it is just plain silly.

[philly03]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 6:28pm

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.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 11:02pm

I'm sorry, but to use the number of Facebook fans to gain a true sense of how popular something is seems a bit silly. Many Facebook users, especially teenagers, as I've witnessed recently as I've just "friended" my cousin's two teenage daughters, seem to click "Like" on pretty much anything that comes through their newsfeed. I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of those "fans" didn't buy tickets and never saw the show. It's a numbers game that means virtually nothing.