Is Michael Greif today’s Hal Prince? — Page 2

SouthernCakes said: "Be curious to know why Greif’s staging of DEH did It for you! To me it felt like a show designed for an off Broadway house and not a big Broadway musical - which it is exactly that. The sets move on from wing to wing and the band is in a loft which makes sense for its off Broadway house but doesn’t make much sense given its current home. And the staging just felt lacking to me. So be curious to hear your views.

Besides his brilliant use of social media projections (which could have been too much but was completely on point) the show just moved. And in Act Two, where I would argue all three writers just basically gave up (they were way more interested in the Act One plot machinations, the dialogue and especially the songs) he kept the show on a it's forward momentum. If not for him, Act Two would have melted into complete melodrama in its last thirty minutes, but somehow he was able to make the second half almost as vital as the first (and somehow control it's predictable plot denouement) and turn that show into the hit it is. Not that we always saw his hand, sometimes he just sat back and let the power of the actor and/or song simply do the work. The contrast between the busy and the quiet moments--that's how you direct a show!

Updated On: 8/27/21 at 01:32 PM

Late entering, but i think the premise is stupid. Hal Prince became Hal Prince based not just on the quality, but on the brilliance of his works. Every time you turned around, there was another Hal Prince work of genius. If you add his producing credits, it is mind-boggling; his output sets the bar so high, in terms of both quality and quantity, that none of the people mentioned -- as talented as they are -- is ready for such a comparison.

The other thing /i would add is that, at least in the case of Grief, his direction was not the reason for the success of the shows's successes. Would the original Follies be the legend it is without his direction? The answer can be found in looking at any subsequent production of the show. Phantom? Evita? Candide? Even with a flop like Grind, the only thing I remember being remotely impressed with was his direction.

Maybe with X more years, Y more shows, and Z more of those being great ones, there will be viability in suggesting a comparison. Until then, no.

Michael Greif is today's Michael Greif - and that is why he is so successful.

Never be anyone but your best self! PERIOD.

And some people call the line cook at the greasy spoon down the corner a legend for how they can fry up one burger after another without quite turning any to charcoal.



binau said: "Now Michael Greif has a string of other shows coming such as the Alicia Keys musical coming and the Notebook. I can’t help but double down that this man is becoming a legend."

Michael Grief had a specific style right out of the gate as a director that he's more or less kept to. The blocking is tightly controlled and actors move back and forth and up and down the stage grid. Which he does nicely and there is a thematic sense that the characters are under the pressure of societal control so it works on multiple levels. The control over the blocking/choreography is also well suited to musicals as it can be "danced" as a production with the pacing picked up or slackened but little dead air time is allowed which most audiences appreciate. The one drawback of his style I'd say is that it tends to be presentational and 2D with actors mostly facing and playing to the audience and a bit overdetermined with actors being moved back and forth on invisible gliders by some unseen authority.

Harold Prince came from a period in American theater that has very little to do with the Fine Arts degree to Nonprofit to Commercial theater trajectory of Grief's career. Prince was a great commercial showman and could wow an audience but he was also capable of adjusting and expanding his directorial style and vocabulary to suit whatever new work he was tackling. He was prodigiously versatile and adventurous as a director and had what you would call in singers a remarkable vocal range.

Updated On: 10/7/23 at 10:12 AM

No.

But Prince was also dealing with shows of a much higher caliber - to me - than Greif - for the most part. I mean, Candide, Follies, Evita, etc. But then you can debate, how much of their success was tied to his influence and guidance?

For the most recent, I think Greif did decent work on The Noteboo, and he employed all the right elements - lighting, etc - but I think the overall concept of the 3 couples playing through time wasn't totally realized or sucsessful. Now, does that fall on his shoulders? Or the book writers?