Just watched the HOW TO SUCCEED preview video, and ...- Page 2

[ABB2357]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:26pm

Sssshh! Don't say anything! You'll spoil his master plan!

*does a bunch of incomprehensible stretches that have no relation to what's going on*

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:28pm

He and Kathleen are the best of the current crop.

Is either one of them capable of creating a Chicago or a Chorus Line? Probably not.

But they're all that Broadway's got.

In my lifetime, I saw Robbins and Bennett and Fosse and Champion and Michael Kidd and Onna White and Peter Genarro die. And there was a whole generation of choreographers after them who were lost to the plague without ever getting a chance to show us what they could do.

And this generation grew up without having that intermediate generation to teach them and mentor them.

Fosse would have told Rob Ashford "Too many steps. Keep it simple."

Bennett would have told Kathleen Marshall "Make the leading lady look good. Keep the kids behind her."

But they're gone and the ones in between are gone too. Kathleen and the Robs are what we've got.

And that's showbiz.

[morosco]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:29pm

His choreography for PROMISES and SUCCEED was/is perpetual motion machines of mediocrity and misguided ideas. I can't take another moment of female dancers doing spread eagles and somehow ending up with their legs wrapping the male dancer's heads in some variation of a vice grip hold. Or the retreaded kaleidoscopic merry go rounds of dancers making a big circle (again with the women doing #17...the spread eagle). His choreography would be more appropriate for WWE, cheerleading, and/or fitness competitions.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:36pm

I have yet to see this production, but i have to agree that is looks way too over-choreographed. A lot of the score stands on its own and doesn't need a row of dancers working on maintaining their physique behind the singers. I've never really ever thought of How to Succeed as a dance-heavy show.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:42pm

PJ, I agree with your assessment of today's "state of the union" with Broadway choreography.

But I can't believe there's not better ... no, wait ... I KNOW there's better choreography going on outside of NY than what I see with Ashford's or Marshall's on the boards. I think this is more of a political issue, because the stakes are so high financially on Broadway. They go with what they know because they're scared not to.

Producers aren't willing to try some stock or regional choreographer that is tearing the roof off regularly in another state.

And I still think Susan Stroman can be brilliant, if they want to go with the "known." I wish she would partner up with Scott Ellis again and focus on choreography. Let him direct. She's a potential "legend" in the making, and she understands how to build a number narratively, how to focus it, and how to make dancers "act" while they do steps. Her concepts evolve naturally out of the material, they don't fight it every (time) step of the way.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:43pm

I agree with your basic point PalJoey-

but what about Susan Stroman and Jerry Mitchell? With a few exceptions from Mitchell, I think both have managed to create some fantastic, original marks on choreography on Broadway. Stroman's work with Scottsboro Boys this year was pretty magnificent in its imagery, and I think she is notable in that she also directs and is able to put a damper on herself at the same time. She did the same with The Producers, winning the Tony for that. In fact, that's (in my opinion) one of the best modern examples of director/choreographer success in one. There were only about 3 or 4 'big' dance moments in the show, all completely memorable and unique.


ETA- haha, best12bars beat me to the Stroman love. X)

Updated On: 3/26/11 at 01:43 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:45pm

^ We're definitely on the same page, Katurian2!

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:49pm

As far as Jerry Mitchell, he's not as good as Stroman about choreographing "narratively" for characters---that back-and-forth dialogue in dance. But Mitchell's steps and staging don't interfere or overpower a song or dance. He has a good eye (and ear), and he can build a number very well with the music. And he has a sense of humor that shows up in his work.

That puts him light-years ahead of Ashford, though.

[TimesSquared]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 1:52pm

Ashford's dances, for all their intensity, never deliver a big payoff and they rarely have any real relationship to the scene at hand. Surely, dance is an abstract art form, but watching the dancers in "How to..." and "Promises, Promises" I kept asking myself "what the hell are they doing?".
I did see the show, by the way.
Best12, you are absolutely right, he's the M. Night Shamalan of Broadway. When will someone finally declare the emperor has no clothes?... I think that will happen when the reviews for this show come out.

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 2:19pm

I agree with the comments on the ridiculous added choreography. I additionally have to ask, did they change the lyrics to "How to"? I seem to recall the lyric being

"How to walk into a conference hall/
with an idea/
brilliant business idea"

and so forth as opposed to the awkward "ROOOOOM"

[egghumor]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 2:30pm

OMG, I'm so glad to read best12bars comments and I reacted to the video in the exact same way. The numbers are exhausting and they don't seem driven by character, especially Finch. The choreography seems like it was created after he was told how many choral numbers there would be, but before he actually heard any of the songs. Poor Daniel Radcliffe seems like he's trying desperately to keep up with the men instead of LEADING them. It doesn't appear either that Ashford has found a way to make “How to Succeed...” seem somewhat relevant today. When it premiered in 1961, people recognized these characters and their issues. The only irony I detected was when the mail room guy sings in “The Company Way,” “while others come and go, here I'll stay.” We all know that myth is no longer true. I can't see that theatergoers, especially younger ones, are going to “get” this piece, at least not from the way Ashford has handled (mishandled) it.

One poster defending Rob Ashford's work, commented that if Ashford were so bad then why would audiences be flocking to his shows? Easy answer: Daniel Radcliffe, Sean Hayes, Kristin Chenoweth. Also, keep in mind that the producers were very confident about “Promises,” until “La Cage” open and won raves. They assumed that show was their biggest competition for the Best Revival Tony Award, but in the end “Promises” didn't even garner a nomination. If “Promises” was much like what this “Succeed” video looks like, I can understand why.

Susan Stroman wants her dancers to think of themselves more as actors, and well, we see the results.

Ashford's group just screams: "We're dancers -- ONLY!"

[americanboy99]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 2:59pm

Though I think it's a bit ridiculous that many of you are judging the choreography so much without having SEEN the show and the numbers in their context, I do have to agree with a few of your remarks.

I, however, thought "Grand Old Ivy" was a definite highlight when I saw the show.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 3:07pm

"I was disheartened to read that several younger posters here said they didn't think the score was all that good when they saw the show. Or it wasn't memorable, etc"

That'd be me. LOL!

[Trish2]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 3:17pm

PALJOEY- you really hit the nail on the head with your comments. There was no one of any merit to train with for these up and coming choreographers. Most just graduated from the chorus, or from assistant and dance captain positions right to choreographer.

I would also add Stroman to your list for the sheer inventiveness of her work. Mitchell not so much as i feel his work is merely serviceable and never really inspired. "Safe" is the word that comes to mind.

I also had better hopes for Gattelli and Blankenbeuler, though i can't just yet add them to that pool.

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 3:37pm

Yeah, my first thought when watching the video was "why is there so much going on in the choreography?" It's nice to look at, but what's the point?
I don't fancy myself an expert on choreography, but I thought Stroman's work in Oklahoma! (particularly the Dream Ballet) and Kathleen Marshall's work in KM,K (especially Too Darn Hot) was brilliant.

[Patash]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 3:40pm

Well I won't see the show until May, but I did just watch the video. Who likes that choreography? Well, probably people like me who aren't dancers, aren't choreographers, don't know one step's name from another, but like splashy and fun choreography. What I saw I really liked -- particularly the clever Coffee Break number building up to the climbing the coffee machine to get that last cup. And the silliness of the chorus line (particularly joining hands and stepping over arms) in Brotherhood of Man.

Grinding in the background? hmmm. I was in high school in the early 60's (OK, yes you can dismiss me now since I'm probably too old to have anything intelligent to say) but I vividly remember doing some of those same moves at the sock hops. Perhaps the idea was to base some of the moves on popular dances of the day???

And did someone mention Cry Baby? What a mess of a show from beginning to end, but the only saving grace in it for me was the outstanding and fun splashy staging/choreography! The dancing on license plates almost saved the show for me!

Again, what do I know? I'm just a typical constant theatre goer, not a dancer or a choreographer. I only know what works for the masses seeing a musical and I think this show is going to succeed there from what I see in the preview video.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 3:42pm

If you put out a 13 min video with huge chunks of "choreography", I don't see why people are being chastised for commenting on them. That video shows right from the begining of the HOW TO... number that the dancers are not even a part of the number, they seem to be trying to keep their balance while doing strange things with their arms. And as some have stated the dancing seems to be winding Daniel and others in the cast. And the comment about Hanke's Frump being sexy says so much about how badly this role (and Smitty) have been cast. Why the hell isn't Tyler Maynard playing Frump? I mean, he is Frump (the name Frump alone tells you Hanke is dead wrong.).
I shutter to think what Ashford will do with Evita's choreography, Argentinian soccer players will dance to DON'T CRY FOR ME...
I'm not surprised that LEAP OF FAITH is BASICALLY DEAD mostly due to Ashford's poor showing in LA.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 3:50pm

H2$ is from the ’95 revival. Can we not use that acronym for the current production?

“And is it me or is the dude playing bud frump one of the sexiest I've seen. woof.”

No, it’s not just you. It’s very distracting with the short sleeves and the obviously toned gym arms.

[Patash]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 4:37pm

I do agree about Frump. He's a Frump? Didn't they get that?
Reminds me of seeing The Full Monty in London with a bunch of really buff, good looking guys. Even the guy playing the "fat one" seemed to only have some minor love handles and maybe a 35 inch waist. Is there some aversion to casting people who look like their characters when they aren't supposed to be gorgeous?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 4:47pm

You shouldn't want to fcuk Frump.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 5:34pm

LOL

Considering the original was played by Charles Nelson Reilly, who won a Tony for his performance, I'd say they're off the beaten path here.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 7:59pm

Am I the only one who thinks the choreography looks incredibly sexual?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 8:09pm

yes

[Overkill]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 8:36pm

You shouldn't want to fcuk Finch either. He's supposed to be charming. Not good looking. Robert Morse wasn't a pretty boy, but he was so damn charming! Matthew could pass with his charm and you weren't so distracted by looks. With Daniel, he just looks so young and pretty. Very strange casting IMO.

I think that the Frump is more distracting in looks character wise, though. Frump should be more like Roger Bart, Mark Price, Jesse Tyler Ferguson....lanky and not HOT. Of course, I'm sure his performance is just fine.

Went back and watched the video and found things in it that were worse than I remembered. Especially Coffee Break. Brotherhood of Men seems to work just fine. Better than most of them, anyway.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/26/11 at 10:08pm

Mr. Radcliff looks like a child next to all of the men.