Some of you really show your ignorance by blaming Amy McAlexander for being a reason the show is closing. There is so much unnecessary malice on this board. Some of you really know how to take the joy out of this.
Do you people realize that Amy McAlexander is real person with feelings who might read this board? GROW UP!
I posted this on another thread but it's pertinent to this one as well: "LITTLE WOMEN didn't find an audience because the production totally failed to capture the emotion and sentiment of the source material.The creative team assumed that everyone was familiar with the material and did nothing to draw the audience into the world of the play and its characters. The heartfelt relationships of Marmee and her brood are presented strictly by-the-numbers and without impact. The underlying pathos and contemporary resonance inherent in the story of a family struggling to survive while awaiting the return of a father from the war (the whole reason why the March girls are considered "little women") are sorely missing from the direction and the joyous Christmas homecoming of Mr. March has been eliminated altogether! Talk about bowdlerizing a classic! The cutting of Jo's hair is sabotaged by two pitiful wigs and "Astonishing" is astonishing only by virtue of its out-of-character American Idol narcissism. Finally, Beth's death, a notable and heartrending scene, is jettisoned in favor of yet another inconsequential ballad in a score which doesn't even BEGIN to suggest period, place or character but resorts to the most inappropriate and crushingly banal of pop idioms. The less said about the rest of the writing and the abysmal direction (i.e. the feminized casting of the male romantic leads, etc), the better. No, its failure is no surprise at all."
i saw this show yesterday. I enjoyed the show but it certainly seemed to have a limited audience appeal- and I dont think its because of the productions failures. im sure most people who think of little women think of the book, and reading it in school. The story shouldve been able to appeal to girls with a strong sense of family but it probably didnt reach them because of the school association as well as the marketing as already said...
If I may, I would like to pose another question regarding the show.
I saw it, thought it was medicore at best, yet from Beth's death on on was blubbering like a baby. Did this happen to anyone else that didn't come out loving the show? If so, why do you think something that you can clearly pick a part still hit you like that?
I want to write music. I want to sit down right now at my piano and write a song that people will listen to and remember and do the same thing every morning...for the rest of my life. - Jonathan Larson. Tick, Tick...BOOM!
In regards to Beth's death, yeah, it hit me like a ton of bricks. But then again, I know a little something about losing a sister to a long illness....
I have a sister, and I saw the show with my mother so I think that had something to do with it. I am very sensitive to begin with, so to watch someone lose their sister is very hard for me. I could not imagine how I would react if that happened to me, in fact, I don't even want to think about it. Even though my sister and I didn't get along for years (finally getting along now ) it is something I would not want to happen any time soon. Sisters just have this special bond that is hard to describe.
mikewood, I am sorry about your sister. Like I said, it has to be a pain thats indescribable.
I want to write music. I want to sit down right now at my piano and write a song that people will listen to and remember and do the same thing every morning...for the rest of my life. - Jonathan Larson. Tick, Tick...BOOM!
Ummm, thanks? I don't understand why this was posted here. We all read that article months ago.
I want to write music. I want to sit down right now at my piano and write a song that people will listen to and remember and do the same thing every morning...for the rest of my life. - Jonathan Larson. Tick, Tick...BOOM!
Going back to the question at hand, I must say that I saw this show in previews and was captivated by Sutton's performance. I had to go back and bring my family being one of 4 sisters myself, so I luckily scored great seats this week after they posted the closing notice.
I understand the book and music were lacking but I do believe that this show had a lot of heart. I agree that it may have done much better had it been for better marketing. Sutton, as well as the rest of the cast really carried this show.
I agree with a previous poster who said they were scared to see where the future of musicals is headed. I too am afraid that the classic musicals are dying out and that many theatergoers just want to see a spectacle or spoof. I really enjoyed Spamalot AND Little Women. I left both shows with a completely different feeling and take on life. Yet I, for one, more enjoy leaving the theater after seeing something meaningful. I enjoy seeing a show that stays with me and that leaves a lasting impression in my mind. This season, Little Women was that show. It's sad to see it go so soon. I just hope it doesn't make room for more 'non-classic' spectacles.
LW crowd is more like the American Girl Store gang. maybe they should have partnered up. the whole mothers and daughters show idea should have been used better instead of the 2 second commercial of the logo. marketing was terrible. however their website and blog idea was great
LW crowd is more like the American Girl Store gang. maybe they should have partnered up. the whole mothers and daughters show idea should have been used better instead of the 2 second commercial of the logo. marketing was terrible. however their website and blog idea was great
I know that "Little Women" created much discussion on this board, but I just wanted to weigh in since I saw it last night (for the 3rd and last time.)
I agree with those of you who understood that LW was a show that relied on the "heart" rather than on the spectacle aspect of Broadway. I have been going to Broadway for over 30 years, and in the past few seasons, I am dismayed by the "circus" atmosphere of the productions and the audiences.
"Little Women" was a show for thinking audiences; specifically, the audiences had to look beyond the obvious to understand the relationships, the emotions, the challenges, and the decisions of the characters. I would agree that the score was not "astonishing," but it was better than mediocre. I think the score was meant to give us insight into the heart and minds of the characters, so it became a drama with music...much different than calling it "Little Women: the Musical."
As for the marketing...so many of you were correct...the marketing opportunities were missed...where were the press agents on this one??? I think had a song like "I'd Be Delighted" been performed at media events or group sales events (like the Broadway Festival at Town Hall in January) an audience would have been found. When "selling a show," I think you have to consider that tourists are a big part of the bottom line...tourists are generally not MT purists, so if you have an "up" song, it tends to bring 'em in.
The producers and artists were clearly going for the integrity of the story and the beauty that is the MT artform...BUT, in these days of kids not reading, parents not reading, MTV, video everything...a quiet piece of musical theatre is neither appreciated or attended. I believe that the prices of Broadway, coupled with the lazy minds of many audience members, will bode sadly for musical theatre.
I commend the LW company for trying to present a piece that did not "defy gravity," and I hope that the future of MT will become strong again when this country values the written and spoken word, rather than the "in your face" video flashes and sound bites.
Let's hope that LW will "play well in Peoria" and find its audiences across the country...we certainly need something to counteract the "American Idol" tours.
I read that it was closing this Sunday, so I went to the city last night to try and get rush seats. It's something that I wanted to see, and I wanted to see it to form my own opinion before it closed. Luckily, there were some decent rush tickets available, I sat 10th row for 30 bucks. Can't go wrong there. I really wanted to like this show. I have a tendancy to enjoy female actors and singers more than males, I don't know why. So, almost an entire show of females, I thought it would be great. Sadly, not so much. I mean, it wasn't the worst thing ever, but I was left saying, "eh." Sutton Foster is clearly talented, but she didn't do it for me here. I didn't get to see her in TMM, so this was my first time seeing her. Now, many people on this board hype her up to very high levels, but I just didn't see it. Maybe she was tired, sad her show is closing, who knows, but she wasn't that great. Talented and good, but nothing great. As much as Amy ANNOYED THE HELL OUT OF ME, I don't think the show is closing because of her. I don't understand how some truly bad actors get into Broadway shows (she should kiss that stage before she leaves it) but she couldn't have done all the damage alone. The book is off, the score was okay at best, and I can understand why it's closing. I hate to miss a show, so I'm glad I got to see it. If it stayed open, however, I wouldn't see it again. I wouldn't even suggest someone see it. Oh, well.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
I have a few quick thoughts. First of all, I had no idea that people found the book (the Louisa May Alcott book) so boring. I grew up loving it (of course, I grew up as a bit of a nerd, too!). Someone mentioned that there just aren't really literary adaptations anymore, and someone else mentioned that it was as if the show lost audience months ago, and just gave up. This brings me to my second thought: Light on the Piazza is a literary adaptation with the same type of feel as Little Women (or at least as Little Women could have--I haven't seen it). Light on the Piazza seems to have been building steam for a while, long before it opened. Perhaps broadway just wasn't ready for two classic-love-story-type shows in one season? Third, I don't think an annoying performance (whether it was a choice or not) would cause a show to close unless it was THE major player in the show. You had to be in the seats to see that Amy was annoying (again, whether as the character or actor is you're personal opinion), and it seems that the problem was not having people in the seats. I think marketing was not successful, but I do think the show will do well on tour, and will probably end up having a long life, as someone else said, in high schools and community theatres for years to come.
I'm surprised also by the sentiment of people having found the Alcott book "boring." Perhaps that's because this generation doesn't have the attention span anymore? I read that book countless times - it was my favorite growing up and I know a lot of women who had the same experience.
Some good points have been made here about the marketing issues - that is really where the big ball was dropped - yes, it's not the best score ever, but God knows plenty of worse shows have lasted a good long time. What I liked about this show was that it did have heart. Most of the cast is very talented, although I would have liked Sutton to pull it back a bit and show more of a real person, not so much a "character." I'm sad it's closing so soon. I hope it does well on the road. Godspeed, Maureen!
Have I ever shown you my Shattered Dreams box? It's in my Disappointment Closet. - Marge Simpson
The notion that the reason the show failed is because a too- dumb audience couldn't appreciate the intelligence of "Little Women" -- a "thinking person's show" -- is bogus. There was no disernable message in this production; in fact, the proceedings barely made sense. Consider, in Jo's retelling of the Operatic Tragedy in the second act, in theory she made the story "better" in order to get it published. But what changed? Is the walk through the woods the improvement? We still hear the same "I defy you, let me by you" except now Maureen McGovern is dressed as a hag and Amy McAlexander -- in what could be the cruelest case of typecasting -- is a troll. The first telling of this opera was never finished in the first act, so how do we know what was improved?
Also, with respect to the characters, when one is presented with a cast of generic, formulaic characters who speak generic, forumlaic lines, what is there to think about? Beth and Jo's scene on the beach was nearly meaningless because Beth's character is so under-developed. Marmee's song to her husband in act one never comes full circle, because we never meet him and we barely know her.
Just because a show is based on literature doesn't make it thought-provoking, intellectual, or academic. I would suggest to you that the much-debated "Wicked," with all its gags and special effects, presents a story that is far more logically thematic, intelligently written, and policitcally and intellectually significant (the whole show is political commentary) than the rather one-dimensional "Little Women."
i didn't get to read every single post so forgive me if i'm repeating information.
1) a cast member told me that when they told them all they really had to say was "we couldn't find a good enough replacement for maureen"
2)the producers shouldn't have let the original composer and lyricist go (kim oler and alison hubbard) after they won the Richard Rogers award. if you EVER have a chance to read it or hear the score i would recommend it. it's brilliant!
3) i've read the book several times and performed Jo... and i loved the version that just closed but when you hold it up to what Louisa May Alcott intended... it's pretty lame. the book is bloody brilliant. especially to theatre minded people. when you break it down the truths in it smack you in the face.
4) i don't think sutton should win the tony. she plays a watered down, one level version of Jo. there's sooo much more to the character. but i did find her extremely entertaining.
I personally think that the show not striking a chord with so many who saw it is due more to the cast and direction than the music or book. Yes, the book is a little too expository at times, but this is Broadway. The dialogue was much better than how it was delivered (it seemed that everyone in the cast, thanks to the director, felt it was more important to punch consonants than to carry emotion and thought through every line). Not every song is money, but I think the score is far more good than bad. However, none of the male members of the cast (except maybe John Hickok) were at all believable in their roles or able to carry any kind of thought or real emotion into their singing. The music itself is much stronger than the lyrics, which do still need some serious work, but overall I really think the material is some of the better stuff to come around recently.
I do think it will have a long, healthy life in community theaters. It's simple enough, and could be done in different visual interpretations pretty easily.
I don't think it's a travesty that's it's left Broadway, I think it will probably be a better 'tour' show, but I hope they get the cast and direction right on the tour. A really good production of this show, I think, would unlock some gems hidden in its Broadway run.
) it is something I would not want to happen any time soon. Sisters just have this special bond that is hard to describe. 
