Mary Poppins London & Broadway

[FutureAladdinOnB'Way]

Posted: 6/19/07 at 7:34pm

Sorry if this has been posted before, but can someone explain why Mary Poppins got really good reviews in London, while on Broadway it got lukewarm reviews; nothing huge was changed in its transfer?

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 6/19/07 at 7:36pm

I know this isn't 100% the reason, but the audiences in London react differently than American audiences. That could've contributed to the lukewarm reviews it got here.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 6/19/07 at 7:39pm

Because on B'way, the name "Disney" is like a curse word. They've cleaned up the streets and theaters, but man Broadway a little too family friendly.

[Julian2]

Posted: 6/19/07 at 8:11pm

I don't know, I know I thought it had humongous problems when I saw it on Broadway, and I was really looking foward to it.

[Laurhearts SA]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 2:15am

My American friend saw it in London and thought the show was OK and she thought that Mary was scary. So...I don't know. Mabey it's an American problem. :)

[The Scorpion]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 8:12am

There are a great many shows that received completely different reactions from the critics on different sides of the pond, but I think as far as Mary Poppins goes, the Broadway production simply doesn't seem to be as good as that in London.

In short, Cameron Mackintosh rules the London production, while it's mainly Disney who are in charge on Broadway (Poppins plays in a Mackintosh-owned house in London, whereas the New Amsterdam of course belongs to Disney). I think the London production received a lot of TLC from Cameron Mackintosh that seems to be absent on Broadway where the show comes across as stale.

The casting is a big factor -- notice how it's always Gavin Lee and no-one else who gets the raves on Broadway. The rest of the Broadway cast doesn't seem to sparkle, particularly Ashley Brown who really can't do an English accent to save her life. The original London cast (as well as subsequent casts) were pretty perfect in their roles, especially David Haig as Mr Banks. Mr Banks is the crux of the plot of the stage version -- if you don't get him right, then the whole show can drag.

Also the two productions seem to have been targeting completely different audiences (though that's not so much the case now). When it first opened in London, Poppins was marketed very differently as a musical for adults. Parents with children under the age of 7 or 8 were told to keep their children well clear of the theatre since this wasn't the sugary film on stage -- there were even slips inserted into the programmes reiterating this. The promotion was also done on adult TV culture programmes such as the late night The South Bank Show with emphasis on a return to the P. L. Travers books rather than appearances on kids' programmes with reprises of songs from the film. Even the logo and merchandising was very different to what it is now (and IMHO it's changed for the worse).

Disney obviously weren't very happy with this approach when box office receipts began to fall two years into the run, so the merchandising was completely changed and the logo for the London production is now the same as that for the Broadway production, which is evidently aimed at children and is much more family-friendly. Sadly I think the result is that the show comes across as another sanitised premeditated family-night-out in New York, which probably didn't appeal to the American critics.

I also think the different reactions are down to the two nations' conception of Mary Poppins. Most Americans know this character solely through the Disney film that has a very different feel from the books, and I don't think the fact that this wasn't a carbon copy of the film à la Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King really helped sell it. It's sad, really; the show really is one of the West End's gems, so it's a shame the Broadway production isn't regarded in the same way.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 8:18am

I have a feeling that CamMac is going to make some chanmges in NY come cast changing time. Mind you this is a FEELING, not a rumor.

As much as I enjoy this show, I do wish that they'd made it as dark as it was in London. I still think the show is great, but the way they advertise it makes it look cheap, and it's not.

For example, I think Jolly Holiday should have gone from the grey to PASTEL colors gradually. Start off with the grey, with the lights going green, and the space filling with colors (like in that restaurant on the Disney cruise). The people in the part should have had pastel oranges, purples, et cetra, no stiped and such. It would've made it more magical I think.

[[e-mail]]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 11:32am

Why do critics use the phrase "family friendly" as though it's a curse word. When you look at the history of Broadway Musicals up until JCS & Hair I would argue most of Broadway was in-fact family friendly. A feel-good event people could enjoy and come away with feelings of American Optimism and Happiness.

Am I the only person that longs for more of a R&H/Irving Berlin/Jule Styne touch on Broadway? It seems that we could really use that return.

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 1:04pm

I hate the new Poppoins logo! Very Disney park and not top level theatre. The original with the Cherry Tree Lane house and cascading flowers was class.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 1:09pm

i was working in the West End in another show when Poppins first opened there and i remember thinking "this show is gonna get great reviews and kick the arse of all the other west end shows" but it didn't

Yes it had some good reviews but it also had a lot of luke warm reviews to like it did on broadway, they were a lot of praise for the design and cast but the book and score got a beating from some reviewers .

It isn't a MASSIVE success here in the UK , its a big success but not to the extent a lot of americans think, after all the show has just posted its closing notice after only a few years!!!

[Julian2]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 4:47pm

I think because these days, family friendly now means sugar coated sh*t, and not just the whole family can watch it. Part of it has to do with the misconception that you can bring TINY children into a full length Broadway show. 9 year olds can go see 110 in the Shade, but the 4 year old won't be entertained, so that's not family friendly! And since they're bringing TINY children, it has to be scrubbed clean of anything interesting (esp in today's PC culture). So today, family friendly means "bring your three year old" and not "lack of explicit material".

[Julian2]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 4:48pm

P.S. When I saw it, I wasn't expecting the movie, just a coherent well told plot.

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 4:53pm

It wasn't all family friendly before. Are we forgetting "I get no kick from cocaine..." as well as the other themes in Anything Goes? I mean, besides the Asian stereotypes. That kind of thing was (sadly) a little commonplace back then.

I also wouldn't classify West Side Story as family friendly.

[Julian2]

Posted: 6/20/07 at 4:56pm

I would take my 8 year old brother to West Side Story, that's plenty family friendly to me. Heaven forbid we start employing babysitters again.

[winston89]

Posted: 6/22/07 at 3:15pm

I do think that the reason why Poppins is treated differently here has already been said. In London it was Camron's show and Disney was piggybacking on it. but on Broadway it is Disney's show and Camron is piggybacking on it this time around. Also, there is a slew of disney shows on broadway. I don't think that disney is a curs word on broadway at all. I do think that it is the hardcore theatre fans that think this to be true. I feel that there is just a more virity of family orented shows to see so people might over look Poppins. I however, like the show a lot. I have yet to see the movie so that might have added to how I feell about Poppins.

[Clara's Pony]

Posted: 6/22/07 at 3:22pm

Scorpion, I agree with everything you wrote - nothing else to add!

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 6/22/07 at 4:18pm

Again i say the show did not receive universal praise in the UK , a lot of the critics agreed its sets etc were fantastic but the book and score were weak.

Also like i said the show is closing here so its hardly been a run away success

[winston89]

Posted: 6/22/07 at 4:18pm

As much as I think Disney weanted to make this another family musical I do feel that this was a bad idea. I do think that they could have slighty changed their reputation for musicals that weren't always family friendly. I mean I have seen young kids get the crap scared out of them during temper temper and some of the kids don't get why Poppins acts strict during points of the show. I do feel that if they hadn't targarted it strictly as a musical for kuids and families then there wouldn't be as many firghtend kids in the theatre.

However, if disney ever broke their tradatioal style of family orented musicals then there would be a theatre that would house the hunchback of notre dame. That was the only reason why the show has yet to play in NYC because the show isn't as family friendly as beauty or lion king or tarzan. I do feel that If disney has changedd this outlook on thier shows then they can get a wider audiences. I do stronlgy fell however that the idea of disney being a curs word on broadway is only one that exists between hardcore theatre fans and no one else. However, that is just me and how I feel.

[Clara's Pony]

Posted: 6/22/07 at 4:22pm

"Again i say the show did not receive universal praise in the UK , a lot of the critics agreed its sets etc were fantastic but the book and score were weak."

I agree that the reviews were hardly rave, they were pretty positive though! Julian Fellowes is regarded as a national treasure here in the UK, most of the critics had nothing but good things to say about his book from what I remember.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 6/22/07 at 4:24pm

Disney's treatment of Mary Poppins only confirms for me, at the least, that they have no other agenda than to make money. They're too afraid that they won't make money that they tamper with great material to be "safe". Thankfully, I think this show survives through the ludicrous tampers (I love it, so I obviously think this).

I don't blame them for wanting to make money. However, they could be even more successful critical wise if they tried to open more avenues for themselves.