Missing The Woman in White...- Page 3

[Fabrizio2]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 5:06pm

chernjam

You can either call the Carlyle Hotel

or go to the website... i am too lazy to get it but google "carlyle hotel" click on "dining" and then click on cafe carlyle it will say something like calendar or performance schedule and then click on may and it will show Maria's name and all the info

Tickets are $75

[Fabrizio2]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 5:45pm

by the way does anyone know where i can get some costumes similar to The Woman in White style? My friend is doing All for Laura for a revue type show/talent show and I was wondering if I could find something like what they wear.

[logan0215]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 5:55pm

To be completely honest, when I left Lestat and was reminded of the WiW theater from seeing it, my friend and I both agreed that there are plenty of other shows on Broadway (including the one we had just seen) that deserved the axe before WiW.

I think once cut down from the UK Version, it had improved, and with time I feel it was getting better and better. I do feel like some time off was needed to re-work some of the book. My biggest problem was by the time you got to All For Laura, a very emotional song, you really didn't care about these characters. I'll explain.

When Fosco exits after "Get Away With Anything" he received a huge reception, which was because his character had built a repetoir with the audience through comedy and a song that people could connect with, and were therefore sad to see him go. With the love triangle, they fly so quickly from his arrival and the trite "I Hope You Like It Here," which in my mind made you dislike Marian more than anything else, to them basically all falling in love in the next scene! If Marian/Laura had a richer character history or explanation, I may have cared more about their feelings being hurt.

Well now that I've effectively re-written that show...

[NYLG]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 6:07pm

Marketing Shmarketing...nothing could have saved WIW. WIW simply wasn't a GREAT show. The subject matter was fairly dark, although with some comic relief, it didn't have mass appeal, and it wasn't being talked about among theatre-goers in general. To make matters worse, most of the publicity centered on the illnesses plaguing the cast. I'm not saying that any one of these elements necessarily kill a show. THE PRODUCERS made it even though Nathan Lane was out A LOT in the beginning of the run. SWEENEY is dark, but it is pure genius, so it works. BTW, SWEENEY was considered shocking and appalling by many when it first came out, and it ran only a little over a year. You get the point.

As far as marketing goes, WIW at least had the ALW name behind it...which methinks is quickly losing it's credibility AND marketability. Maybe Sir Andrew is so full of hubris that he thinks anything with his name doesn't need PR...who knows? Used to be that the ALW name carried some clout and the seats would be filled based on that. Not so anymore...not at $110 a pop. CATS was crap and look how long that lasted. Regardless...WIW had problems, which I won't rehash here. Add the medical complications and the show was pretty much doomed from the beginning.

DROWSY was pretty much an unknown entity without creative name recognition...good marketing was a necessity. Even though the show is an ensemble piece...Sutton Foster's name is being used much more than the others...I would guess for obvious reasons. Get them in and let word of mouth take care of the rest. In addition to the general ad campaign, I know several people who aren't on any subscription lists, yet still received flyers in the mail.

Additionally, the reaction to the DROWSY run in LA, by both the public and the press, was mostly favorable, as is the buzz in NY...and this after only one dress, and two previews. The reaction to WIW was mixed, at best. If the buzz for WIW had been half as positive as the buzz for DROWSY, then maybe the run would have lasted a bit longer, although I doubt it. Word of mouth is a powerful thing...and I fully believe that word of mouth will make DROWSY the sleeper hit of the season.

[Fabrizio2]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 6:10pm

Cats was absolutely C-R-A-P

[LilBwayLady]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 12:31am

I just think it is bizarre that "Cats" lasted for so long while some of the more memorable shows (such as WIW) seemed as though the came and went in seconds. It's ridiculous.

[Min2]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 2:53am

People usually love cats than rats.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:33am

I think most people thought the Rat was oen of the finer points of the show.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:50am

Cats lasted year and WIW and Bombay Dreams lasted 4 and 8 months. Makes no sense.

[tourboi]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 12:31pm

Last i heard, the tour was still happening...My hope is that they do it with a more traditional staging and set. I think the projections turned more people off than brought them in. And I think it might work better with a more traditional staging, anyway.

That said...I loved WiW, and miss it terribly, and sit in hope that Ms. Friedman, and Lloyd Webber both at least get noms.

[sharon1]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 2:07pm

In answer to the question I believe Michael Ball is feeling much better. He is in the studio working on a new album. Whether he has started singing again yet. I do not know. But hopefully he has fully recovered.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:41pm

i would totally go to see the show even without the projections, but probably i will miss them a lil bit.

[sharon1]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:55pm

I would see the show without projections also. But.....I really enjoyed them. I know that they froze up on ocassion but heck, it's live theatre, expect the unexpected. That's what makes theatre THEATRE. Was anyone else there during Christmas week when Maria had to stop the show because someone in the mezzanine passed out and they had to call the medics. Apparently it all ended well.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:59pm

that's so weird...i wish i had seen this show more than just twice...ugh.

[tabbynyc]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:01pm

You just can't put Andrew Lloyd Weber's name on a show & expect it to be a hit. The marketing for this show was so poor, if I was one of the actors I would have felt cheated. Word of mouth is fine, but it is a slow process. You need to give the show a chance.

The music was beautiful and after I got into the story, I enjoyed it; except for the set.

The projection set is not for me. I had a hard time concentrating because I was getting so dizzy & at times nauseous trying to watch it while it was moving so quickly. I have no idea how expensive it was to use that type of set, but I hope other shows don't follow with it.

[EganFan2]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 1:18pm

>>Was anyone else there during Christmas week when Maria had to stop the show because someone in the mezzanine passed out and they had to call the medics. Apparently it all ended well.

No, but that reminds me of an incident I heard about. Apparently a group of elderly folks got together to see PHANTOM. One of the women I guess had so much downward momentum when she was going down the stairs to get to her seat in the balcony area that she kept going and flipped right over the railing. There was a safety net that caught her, but she broke her arm. I am not sure if the show was stopped, or delayed. Good thing that net was there. Would've been a pretty nasty accident otherwise.

[sharon1]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 2:23pm

Not one to trifle with one's infermities, but I really don't get how the sets could cause nausea. I get car sick and sea sick. But I loved the sets and the projections. I saw the show from the front and middle of the theatre and I just really don't understand. I liked the way the actors could walk from one scene right into the next. And the projections I believe added to the story telling and atmosphere. I really loved the scene where Marion stands on the precipice outside Glydes pool room and listens to he and Fosco plot. I thought it was very effective. But like I said I really don't understand and don't want to start an argument.

[NYLG]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 2:37pm

Seems to me the use of projected sets was just a money saving scheme. Although I don't believe that actual sets or marketing could have saved this show...the word "cheap" does come to mind. One can only wonder what might have been...

[chernjam]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 2:46pm

the sets as a money saver? Don't think so - the capitalization was something like $8.5 million. It wasn't a "cheap" show to produce. I agree the marketing left a lot to be desired... but in defence of the producers (who we've beat up a lot on) - Friedman and Ball were both really the leads (or rather, "stars") of the show and they were pretty much out of commission from doing interviews and talk shows as they both battled there illnesses while trying to do 8 shows a week.

As for the projections, I'm with sharon1 on this - I was afraid I wasn't going to like them since the critics in London had dismissed them so quick and people had picked up on the mantra that they made you dizzy and nauseaus. I found them effective and helped move the story along. could it have been staged differently? Sure. And hopefully it will have other incarnations that we can compare this with. The beauty of that score deserves it...

Jim

[sharon1]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 4:24pm

I agree with Jim. The score of this show deserves more. Much more. I can actually visualize this being done in concert. Like Sunset Boulevard or others that have been successfully arranged to that format. I don't feel there was anything "cheap" about this show at all. The costuming, set, lighting, and everything else was topnotch. I also feel, that it had the best group of voices performing on Broadway.

[Christopher Gough]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 6:56pm

I miss it too - even though I'm in London where it ran for 19 months. I read an interview with Lloyd Webber recently where he criticised the production of the piece - which his Really Useful Group had very little to do with. The projections weren't his 'cup of tea' either. I liked the original London production more than the revamped version which introduced some pathetic scenery (did you get those wierd trees?) and cut one of the best songs - 'If Not For Me For Her'. There was no wedding scene at the end either - just Marian alone on the stage as the curved walls closed around her. We knew that Walter and Laura were going to go off and have a happy life - we didn't need to see a hurried wedding scene and cardboard gravestone to remind us that Anne was 'six feet under'! It was just one of those shows that people loved or hated - and not enough loved it. I think the score is one of Lloyd Webber's best - shame the production wasn't good enough to match it.

[Fabrizio2]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 7:06pm

I like this poster...I wonder if this would have drawn more people in

[logan0215]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 8:59pm

It just wasn't advertised well in the sense that you had no clue what it was about until you were in the audience. My only draw to seeing it was a friend in town buying the ticket and knowing that Lisa Brescia was on as understudy.

There was nothing out there to tell you what it was about. Marketing it as a mystery musical or something of that nature it may have drawn more people. I think the only draw was curiosity of what it may have been about or the ALW name.

P.s Is that poster from the London production?

[Fabrizio2]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:05pm

yeah

[sharon1]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 9:19pm

I am glad this thread was started. I love this show and it will always hold a special place in my heart. I can't wait until I have an opportunity to see it again. Sometime Somewhere.