Meet Me in St. Louis Broadway (1989)

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 2/10/22 at 12:51pm

Curious if anyone on the board ever got to see the short-lived Broadway production of MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS that ran from Nov 1989 - Jun 1990 at the Gershwin. Love watching this movie around the holiday and was interested to see if it had ever been adapted. And, wouldn't ya know it? Seems like it had some merit in that it was nominated for Tonys for Best Musical, Book (Hugh Wheeler) and Original Score. But, I'm assuming part of the reason it didn't last was that holiday-esque musicals don't tend to fare well off-season. 

I see, in recent years, it's been revived regionally. Wonder if it would ever work as a limited holiday engagement on Broadway. 

If anyone was around at the time and attended, would love to hear thoughts. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/10/22 at 1:09pm

I saw it at the Gershwin (then Uris) theatre.  It was the kind of production where I wanted to like / love it more than I did.  As I remember it was a pretty lavish production, based on the images that have returned to me.  I also remember that there were several good production numbers.

The problem with it was that the overall feeling upon leaving the theatre was one of modest enjoyment, and not really worth the time and expense associated with travelling in from the suburbs.

I do remember that the leading lady, whose name I cannot remember, just didn't have the chops to lead a Broadway musical, let alone play a role so associated with Judy Garland. 

It falls into the same category as the productions of Singing in the Rain and Gigi, which also played that theatre.  

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/10/22 at 1:15pm

I saw it at the Gershwin (then Uris) theatre.  It was the kind of production where I wanted to like / love it more than I did.  As I remember it was a pretty lavish production, based on the images that have returned to me.  I also remember that there were several good production numbers.

The problem with it was that the overall feeling upon leaving the theatre was one of modest enjoyment, and not really worth the time and expense associated with travelling in from the suburbs.

I do remember that the leading lady, whose name I cannot remember, just didn't have the chops to lead a Broadway musical, let alone play a role so associated with Judy Garland. 

It falls into the same category as the productions of Singing in the Rain and Gigi, which also played that theatre.  So much great material, but missing the sparks that better show have.  Interestingly, both those shows also had leading performers who were not up to the job.  The Singing lead was an excellent dancer, but did not have an ounce of stage presence.  The young woman who played Gigi was barely there.

Of the three, my favorite was Gigi, but all were disappointments.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 2/10/22 at 1:21pm

I have similar feelings as Jarethan.

It was certainly lavish, but being in that barn of a theater, it was difficult to pick up the detail of costumes and sets. There was a bit of a to do about the fact that there was live ice skating on stage for all of 2 minutes. The cast was serviceable and nothing more, though it was nice seeing Betty Garrett and Milo O'Shea on stage. George Hearn had this patriotic number towards the end of the show that seemed to go on forever...though not as long as that friggin' Banjos number given to Lon. John Truitt was non-threateningly sexy and Donna Kane as Esther was proficient. The intimacy of the movie, the beauty of its period detail and the deep relationships created within the Smith family simply didn't exist in this production. 

It also opened the same season as both City of Angels and Grand Hotel which made this show feel profoundly stale and out of step. 

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/10/22 at 1:27pm

I saw it shortly after it opened, and although I thought it was beautiful to look at, but the overall show was "meh" for me.  Huge cast, huge set, beautiful costumes. It lasted longer than I thought it would.

The Trolley Song was a bit of a mess.  I just remember the trolley constantly spinning in a circle.

There was a theatre publication (can't recall the name) that did a story about the search for the actress to play Esther.

On a side note, Rachel Bay Jones was in the ensemble.

Updated On: 2/10/22 at 01:27 PM

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 2/10/22 at 1:30pm

Thanks so much for both of your responses. Do either of you think this would work successfully today as a limited engagement around the holidays? Based on both of you, it sounds like there's promise, if it could be slightly reworked. I wonder if recent productions have attempted such revisions. 

Nostalgia is capital around the holidays and most of the holiday limited engagements are far from revolutionary but, rather, are largely pre-packaged fun. Perhaps in a smaller theatre it could work. 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 2/10/22 at 1:38pm

Here is some nice footage from the production...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsb30wnUAYs

[cliffordbradshaw2]

Posted: 2/10/22 at 1:39pm

 

 

[justoldbill]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 9:24pm

Well, it's not really a "Christmas" show, is it?  Christmas doesn't occur until near the end of the show, with the World's Fair finale actually happening the following Spring/Summer, and the one song involved ("Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" is somewhat melancholy.  There's really no over-all "Christmas-y" feeling to the show.  Or to the film, for all that.  If anything is emphasized in the film, it's Halloween.

And, yes, I actually saw opening night at the Uris- my friend, Bruce Pomahac was the musical director.

Updated On: 2/11/22 at 09:24 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/11/22 at 9:58pm

It does feature “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” but it cycles through other holidays as well and there are other popular musicals such as Annie which are set around Christmas and that show is not just performed around Christmas time. I don’t think the holiday aspect really had anything to do with it.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 2/12/22 at 3:50pm

Thanks, FOAnatic, for asking about ''Meet Me in St. Louis'' (1989)! I had a fun and wonderful time at this show, and saw this loving salute to the 1944 MGM classic more than a couple of times. I felt bad that it had to play the Uris, an awful, humongous barn of a theater, but I enjoyed the cheery and charming cast, led by Donna Kane. Of course, she was no Judy Garland, but is there anyone who could've lived up to that comparison? Kane was still delightful and dynamite in her own way. I first recalled seeing her in an Off-Broadway revival of ''Dames at Sea,'' which earned her a Theatre World Award. And Jason Workman, who played John Truitt, her handsome leading man, won a Theatre World Award for HIS work in ''St. Louis.''

Awards-wise, ''St. Louis'' also landed 4 Tony nominations, including Best Musical, and Best Score, for Hugh Martin and Ralph Blane, who wrote the original timeless tunes (like the Oscar-nominated ''The Trolley Song'' and ''Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas'' ). And I believe they contributed a few new ones, too.

In a season alongside ''City of Angels'' and ''Grand Hotel,'' most critics were bound to sneer at a show as old-fashioned as ''St. Louis.'' One of its best reviews came from Howard Kissel at the N.Y. Daily News, and I remember editing it and putting the headline on his rave: ''Hello, Trolley!'' Other critics were not so kind, and I wrote a defense of the show as a letter to the editor in TheaterWeek magazine.

So imagine my surprise to get a classy thank-you note in the mail:

''Dear Mr. Wong: I took your address out of the NYC phone directory, so if there is more than one Wayman Wong, I'm in trouble! If, however, you are the gentleman who wrote that gratifying letter to TheatreWeek about 'Meet Me in St. Louis,' then I really must thank you personally for the things you said. ... We got a bad shake from the magazine, and most especially from Frank Rich at the Times, but there were many other critiques that I treasure, notably Rex Reed in the N.Y. Observer.

''And I very definitely treasure your letter. How very thoughtful of you to have taken the time to write it. It encouraged me greatly, and I have a strong hunch that it warmed the hearts of many of the cast, staff and crew of our little opus.

''With grateful thoughts, Hugh Martin''

Updated On: 2/12/22 at 03:50 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/12/22 at 9:28pm

Big, lavish, not in any way an embarrassment, but just ... unnecessary. The film is perfection, with one of the most memorable casts in MGM history. The decision to create a stage show from a film with such a wisp of a story -- it just doesn't have a driving, character-driven plot that a theater piece sorely needs -- was wrongheaded. But everyone involved was game, it was lovely, but un-ambitious artistically, and in every way understandable as an expensive flop.

[Bill Snibson]

Posted: 2/12/22 at 10:14pm

100% agree. It was big and beautiful but the only conflict is that they are moving. Haha. Lots of production numbers about different holidays. Skeletons dancing for Halloween, an Irish number for St. Patricks Day, the ice skating couple and “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas”. It was cloyingly sweet. 

[Dollypop]

Posted: 2/12/22 at 10:45pm

I saw the show and found it to be lifeless. It replicated the movie meticulously and never found it's own footing. During the show I found myself thinking: "Why didn't they just show the movie?"

[George in DC]

Posted: 2/12/22 at 10:51pm

^ 100% agree. Unless there is a reason to redo a movie musical onstage, it should not be done. Just redoing a movie is not a good reason.

[Bill Snibson]

Posted: 2/13/22 at 1:11am

I think the producers were trying to capitalize on a family friendly title with a big broadway budget but, sadly, it just failed. 

[Bill Snibson]

Posted: 2/13/22 at 1:11am

I think the producers were trying to capitalize on a family friendly title with a big broadway budget but, sadly, it just failed. 

[markypoo]

Posted: 2/13/22 at 9:31am

In July 1982, I saw a summer production starring Andrea McArdle; at the Milwaukee Melody Top.

I enjoyed the perfect-for-stock rendition; not knowing - of course - that in seven years, it would land on Broadway.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 2/13/22 at 10:06am

I worked on a production some years ago that tinkered with the book and score quite a bit. Off the top of my head, Warren Sheffield was rewritten into a new character who's name I can't even remember and then that character and Rose were given a duet that I recall the director saying had been used in a very early stage version done at the Muny like in the 50s or 60s. A few other songs were cut, like the ice skating song, and "The Trolley Song" was moved to be the Act II opener, Act 1 ended with a very simple moment between just Mr. and Mrs. Smith that was surprisingly effective. The re-ordering also meant that Act 2 was pretty much just Christmas and then the Fair.

All in all, as others have said, it's a decent enough piece for nostalgia purposes, and thus a great choice in a summer theatre line up, but there's little reason for it to have existed on Broadway and I would be surprised if any company or producers ever did try again.

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 2/15/22 at 10:53am

This all makes sense.

Meet Me in St Louis is one of those classic films that when you put it on paper, it doesn’t have much, and especially in this day and age to audiences they would wonder why do we care that this upper middle class family is sad about moving to New York when we are seeing this production IN New York?

It’s a lightning in a bottle film cause the family has a beautiful chemistry with each other, it’s gorgeous, Judy Garland is electric, Margaret O Brien is perfect. It’s a classic that couldn’t be elevated in any other way be it remake or stage version.

What makes the Trolly song so thrilling is that was the only take Judy did after a tumultuous day for her- and it’s perfection and specific and fabulous.

Updated On: 2/15/22 at 10:53 AM

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 2/15/22 at 2:24pm

rattleNwoolypenguin said: "This all makes sense.

Meet Me in St Louis is one of those classic films that when you put it on paper, it doesn’t have much, and especially in this day and age to audiences they would wonder why do we care that this upper middle class family is sad about moving to New York when we are seeing this production IN New York?

It’s a lightning in a bottle film cause the family has a beautiful chemistry with each other, it’s gorgeous, Judy Garland is electric, Margaret O Brien is perfect. It’s a classic that couldn’t be elevated in any other way be it remake or stage version.

What makes the Trolly song so thrilling is that was the only take Judy did after a tumultuous day for her- and it’s perfection and specific and fabulous."

Another aspect of the film that putting it on stage lacks is the true nostalgia factor. In 1944 when the film was released you had a good chunk of the viewing audience who were alive for the 1904 World's Fair and the years following it, so the film was trading on the nostalgia of an era that they remembered or at least had heard about from first hand sources. The stage version had to rely on nostalgia for the movie, which is obviously a lot more specific, and thus was always going to come up short, especially considering the slightness of the source material.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 2/15/22 at 6:39pm

rattleNwoolypenguin said: "This all makes sense.

Meet Me in St Louis is one of those classic films that when you put it on paper, it doesn’t have much, and especially in this day and age to audiences they would wonder why do we care that this upper middle class family is sad about moving to New York when we are seeing this production IN New York?

It’s a lightning in a bottle film cause the family has a beautiful chemistry with each other, it’s gorgeous, Judy Garland is electric, Margaret O Brien is perfect. It’s a classic that couldn’t be elevated in any other way be it remake or stage version.

What makes the Trolly song so thrilling is that was the only take Judy did after a tumultuous day for her- and it’s perfection and specific and fabulous."

 

Margaret O'Brien makes me nervous

[Demitri2]

Posted: 2/15/22 at 7:07pm

I saw a production back in 1991 that played the Orange County Performing Arts Center. Debby Boone was the star and actually delivered a line identifying herself as a teenager. The audience chuckled including her parents who were seated in my row. A younger actress playing Esther would've been preferable but Boone was appealing in the role if not believable. The show was mildly entertaining and nothing more than I expected. As others have mentioned, it was similar to seeing a staged version of "Singing In The Rain." Fun but no need for a return visit.

However, the show was apparently worked on according to the L.A.Times review: "It has been revamped since the New York staging, with new choreography by Donald Saddler."

[pmensky]

Posted: 2/15/22 at 7:17pm

I saw the tour of this with Debby Boone as well. I wasn’t expecting to like it as I love the movie so much, but I thought the show was wonderful. I remember the girl who played Tootie was particularly charming and much more likable than Margaret O’Brien.

[FilembarEliJeevan]

Posted: 2/16/22 at 4:59am

In any case, Judy Garland isn't coming back and the original ''Meet Me in St. Louis'' is available on videocassette. So what's the mission of the stage replica at the Gershwin Theater? To spread the good will earned by the overture, I guess. And that task, if not a lot else, is accomplished by this lavish show despite such obstacles as insipid acting, an inane book and a complete lack of originality. While it's not high praise to say so, ''Meet Me in St. Louis'' is superior to the other latter-day Broadway adaptations of M-G-M musicals, ''Seven Brides for Seven Brothers'' and ''Singin' in the Rain.'' Unlike its predecessors, this show respects its source and knows its audience. It also benefits from the fact that the original material - Sally Benson's stories of domestic bliss and teen-age romance on the eve of the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition - is too Kensington Avenue-bound to insist upon cinematic chatrandom sweep.