Jerry Zaks brought on for Addams Family- Page 3

[orangedress]

Posted: 12/30/09 at 2:03am

Yes - Julie Taymor has done many beautiful staged productions and movies. Her KING STAGE toured the US 9 years ago, it was incredible. TITUS started out as a stage production. THe MAGIC FLUTE at the Met is a repeat success. She has a deep well of work, and is a serious director. The acting I have seen from her actors has been top notch and the stories solid and succinct as well - though I suppose these are all opinions of personal taste and not universal.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 12/30/09 at 5:14am

orangedress, I love Tony Walton's designs but a quick check of IBDB confirms he has never, ever directed on Broadway. I think what I was trying to say is that "The Adams Family" requires and deserves a specialist as director. A comedy specialist. Jerry Zaks or Mike Nichols come to mind readily and one of the two was hired.

When all is said and done, much like the work of Edward Gory, "Adams Family" already has a superb visual tone and language (which has readily been adopted from what I can see.) But to bring a 15 million dollar BOOK musical (not an extravaganza like Shockhead Peter or, yes, The Lion King) into New York and to face Ben Brantley, you better have one friggin' funny show, with a confident, HILARIOUS libretto and witty lyrics, or you will get slaughtered.

If I had invested in this show (and I am not an investor) I would have been alarmed at the choice of director (but then, I suppose, they were in from the beginning so what do I know?)

At any rate, I will take your advice and read up on the designer/directors and maye I'll learn a thing or two...

Thanx

[averagebwaynut]

Posted: 12/30/09 at 7:41am

I too recognize the experience of McDermott and Crouch but I also hear the point about giving this show over to "non-traditional" directors of their sort for a piece that no matter how unique it wants to be, still has to function as a somewhat traditional Broadway musical, fulfilling those expectations in addition to whatever surprises it may have in store.

The interesting thing that occurs to me, since Taymor was mentioned, is that the lead producer of this show is Stuart Oken, who was the day-to-day creative executive at Disney behind the development of "The Lion King" with Taymor. Now we all may think now "sure! of course! Julie Taymor is a natural for TLK!" But at the time, as I recall, it was not nearly as obvious a choice. The pageantry and puppetry that we all take for granted now as the perfect way to dramatize that story/movie existed solely in Taymor's head and was a revelation, of sorts, to the vast majority of the Broadway audience which was previously unfamiliar with her work.

I daresay Oken and Co. were probably chasing similar magic here. Yes, I agree that a healthy level of caution and skepticism might have been warranted if I had been approached to invest in the show, given the director/designers they were entrusting with the material. But were they have to come up with a treatment of TAF that was as inventive as TLK, we'd all be congratulating these producers on their willingness to take a risk, break new ground, go a less-traveled route. Hindsight is 20/20 but in the context of his own personal work experience, I think I understand why Oken et al went the way they did and on a certain level, I give them a great deal of credit for doing so, just as I give them credit for recognizing that at this point, they need some help from a more "traditional" sort of creative force.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/30/09 at 9:04am

On Lion King, Oken had the watchful eye of Thomas Schumacher and the protective umbrella of Disney Theatrical making sure Taymor's vision worked for Disney audiences. The synthesis of Taymor's vision and Disney's "magic"--plus the residual magic from the movie--made Lion King a lasting theatrical event.

The storyline they inherited from the movie was so strong that all Taymor had to do was add her brand of imaginative spectacle to the Circle of Life structure. The comedy is only comic relief. She added immeasurably to the movie experience, but had she gotten in the way of it, Disney and Schumacher would have swooped in and protected their franchise.

Here, Oken and the other producers were flying blind without a strong archtypal story. They had no Disney machinery or crowd-pleasing expectations. And they had no story structure at all to provide the show with a backbone. Sadly, there was no one protecting the Addams franchise, just Marshall Brickman, who had to create a story from scratch and clearly had no director with a sense of comic structure to help him.

The comic vision in any Addams Family adaptation is the PRIMARY quality. The original cartoons were brilliant, unique and genuinely macabre. The TV series was classic camp, and the movies were giddy fun.

For Oken to fail to recognize that it was ESSENTIAL for him to hire a director who is skilled at delivering COMEDY was a stupid mistake, potentially a $16-million-dollar mistake.

I'm not surprised Chicago audiences were enthusiastic. Audiences come to material like this with their past associations to the material, WANTING to like it. A Monty Python audience wants to see the spirit of the material they love. But to succeed in New York for a long run, the show has to be as much fun as the original material or the word of mouth will not be "Oh, ya gotta see it. It's so much fun"--it will be "Nah. Never mind. It's nit as good as the movie/TV series/original."

Here's to you, Jerry. Make it fun.

[orangedress]

Posted: 12/30/09 at 12:11pm

Tony Walton may have never directed on Broadway, but he has done some delightful work at the Goodspeed. (and I *believe* several of his shows were considered for transfers but, as you know, never did in actuality.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 12/30/09 at 1:38pm

I'm glad I'm not the only one shouting in the rain here. Thank you for the elloquent backup, guys. I hope Jerry Zaks yuks the show up greatly and tightens whatever is there because this piece has a name the public recognizes and, sadly, that may make it a marked beast on Broadway.

As for The Lion King, the other salient point, frankly, is that Disney produced the show. They simply opened up Scrooge McDuck's Money Depositry (Number 6 I believe) and siphoned off a few truckfulls. It's not exactly a giant risk for them. Doing the Lion King as an independent producer would have been much more of a risk and therefore IMHO a much greater accomplishment.