#26
Posted: 3/10/06 at 1:25pm
The one problem is that Johnny Cash Jr. helped to select some of the songs, including "Look at The Beans!"
Munk's RING OF FIRE remarks — Page 2
#27
Posted: 3/10/06 at 5:17pm
That's not a problem at all, I would hope that his family had some sort of control.
The problem is the delusional director.
The problem is the delusional director.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#28
Posted: 3/10/06 at 8:39pm
Munk, I'm completely intrigued. I really know nothing about this show except that it has Johnny Cash's music in it. Is it supposed to be a bio, a jukebox musical, a straight musical, or what? In what way is the director delusional? What is it - a group of songs marginally strung together by events in Cash's life?
"And the postman sighed as he scratched his head, you really rather thought she ought to be dead..."
#29
Posted: 3/10/06 at 9:04pm
It's a concert of Cash's music, Broadway-ized. It's got no real story, just a series of vignettes. TAKING IT FOR WHAT IT IS, it was a good show. I had fun.
And to answer everyone's next question, I've seen pretty much most of the current shows that are playing.
And to answer everyone's next question, I've seen pretty much most of the current shows that are playing.
#30
Posted: 3/11/06 at 3:15am
Grizz: It's not supposed to be a jukebox musical, according to it's brilliant director. According to Maltby, the show has a story. Well, I haven't talked to anyone that's picked up on this story line yet - and I sure as hell didn't see any sort of comprehensible story. It's a giant piece of trash.
The director is delusional because, first and foremost, he dismissed the notion that this show is a jukebox musical. He claims that the term jukebox musicals refer only to the shows that take a pre-existing body of music and throw them together to form a musical. He insists that this is not what RING OF FIRE is. However, that's exactly what it is. And no, the show has nothing to do with Johnny Cash, other than the use of his music. It is in no way autobiographical - which probably would have been a better route to take if this musical absolutely MUST have happened.
Yankee: Yes, it's a concert. What's infuriating is that isn't not a Broadway musical. Hell, even CONTACT, FOSSE, and SMOKEY JOE'S CAFE were more of a "musical" than this garbage. And that's fine. But the director INSISTS that it's more than a concert. When clearly, it's absolutely not.
I took it for what it is. I tried to enjoy it. I like the majority of Cash's music, but this show is literally like watching the Country Bears Jamboree at Disney World with real people instead of animatronic bears - which, frankly, is more enjoyable.
It was a good show? Are you on drugs, or just that easy of an audience member? I don't see how you saying you've seen "pretty much most" of the current shows playing gives any sort of weight to your statement that the show is good. You enjoyed it, and that's fabulous - but to say it's good is like saying the Holocaust was a riot.
The director is delusional because, first and foremost, he dismissed the notion that this show is a jukebox musical. He claims that the term jukebox musicals refer only to the shows that take a pre-existing body of music and throw them together to form a musical. He insists that this is not what RING OF FIRE is. However, that's exactly what it is. And no, the show has nothing to do with Johnny Cash, other than the use of his music. It is in no way autobiographical - which probably would have been a better route to take if this musical absolutely MUST have happened.
Yankee: Yes, it's a concert. What's infuriating is that isn't not a Broadway musical. Hell, even CONTACT, FOSSE, and SMOKEY JOE'S CAFE were more of a "musical" than this garbage. And that's fine. But the director INSISTS that it's more than a concert. When clearly, it's absolutely not.
I took it for what it is. I tried to enjoy it. I like the majority of Cash's music, but this show is literally like watching the Country Bears Jamboree at Disney World with real people instead of animatronic bears - which, frankly, is more enjoyable.
It was a good show? Are you on drugs, or just that easy of an audience member? I don't see how you saying you've seen "pretty much most" of the current shows playing gives any sort of weight to your statement that the show is good. You enjoyed it, and that's fabulous - but to say it's good is like saying the Holocaust was a riot.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#31
Posted: 3/11/06 at 4:07am
I don't know if I have any sort of point here, but when examining only the current Broadway seasons (shows past and present), we've had our usual mixture of the basic "It's a big crowd pleaser, but the shows sucks," all the way down to "Avoid this show like the plague." I have, with my utter boredom and insomnia (not to be mistaken with self-importnce) caterogized them as I see fit. Does this give us any sort of glimpse into what's to come during the last leg of this Tony year?
EXCEPTIONAL
Jersey Boys
Sweeney Todd
Primo
Seascape
Rabbit Hole
GENERALLY ENJOYABLE, BUT GREATLY LACKING
A Naked Girl on the Appian Way
A Touch of the Poet
Absurd Person Singular
Barefoot in the Park
Chita Rivera: The Dancer's Life
The Color Purple
AVOID THESE LIKE THE PLAGUE, THEY'RE HORRENDOUS
The Blonde in the Thunderbird
In My Life
Latinologues
Lennon
The Odd Couple
Souvenir
The Woman in White
Ring of Fire
Well
(I purposely omitted THE PAJAMA GAME and BRIDGE AND TUNNEL, as I haven't seen them yet.)
So really, with more than half of the season being over, there are only about 5 new shows that really demand your attention - and two of them have closed.
What's to come? I'm scared.
EXCEPTIONAL
Jersey Boys
Sweeney Todd
Primo
Seascape
Rabbit Hole
GENERALLY ENJOYABLE, BUT GREATLY LACKING
A Naked Girl on the Appian Way
A Touch of the Poet
Absurd Person Singular
Barefoot in the Park
Chita Rivera: The Dancer's Life
The Color Purple
AVOID THESE LIKE THE PLAGUE, THEY'RE HORRENDOUS
The Blonde in the Thunderbird
In My Life
Latinologues
Lennon
The Odd Couple
Souvenir
The Woman in White
Ring of Fire
Well
(I purposely omitted THE PAJAMA GAME and BRIDGE AND TUNNEL, as I haven't seen them yet.)
So really, with more than half of the season being over, there are only about 5 new shows that really demand your attention - and two of them have closed.
What's to come? I'm scared.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#32
Posted: 3/11/06 at 8:46am
We did like
Chita
Woman in White
In My Life
Touch of the Poet
Jersey Boys was indeed great. Seascape was OK but to me one of Albees minor works
Seeing Barefoot for free.My brother in law had originally bought tickets for Lestate but switched to this after the previews were cancelled. These were his birthday gift to my wife. I would rather have seen something else but free is free
No intention of seeing Ring
Chita
Woman in White
In My Life
Touch of the Poet
Jersey Boys was indeed great. Seascape was OK but to me one of Albees minor works
Seeing Barefoot for free.My brother in law had originally bought tickets for Lestate but switched to this after the previews were cancelled. These were his birthday gift to my wife. I would rather have seen something else but free is free
No intention of seeing Ring
Poster Emeritus
Updated On: 3/11/06 at 08:46 AM
#33
Posted: 3/11/06 at 8:52am
Lots of good things are on the horizon.
Things are particularly healthy for new plays and play revivals.
A bounty of good new plays open in April and May, including the sublime THE HISTORY BOYS, FESTEN, SHINING CITY and THE LIEUTENANT OF INISHMORE. (I'm looking forward to all four of them, and I'm giddy to see the blood splashing around the staid, elegant Lyceum when Lieutenant gets there. I still remember the glee I experienced when the brothers were smashing the plaster saints and destroying the set at McDonagh's Lonesome West in that theatre several years ago).
And of course, on the play revival front, THREE DAYS OF RAIN will be huge for obvious reasons, and I'm sure FAITH HEALER will sell well too (though I'm not a huge Brian Friel fan myself). I'm most looking forward to AWAKE AND SING!, which has a wonderful cast. CAINE MUTINY? Not so much for me, but I'm sure someone will care about it.
TARZAN and DROWSY CHAPERONE are the most promising of the new musicals. Both are generating positive buzz. I'm not quite sure what to expect of LESTAT, since rumor is the New York production will be much revised. And I'm anxious for HOT FEET, but for all of the wrong reasons.
As for musical revivals, THREEPENNY OPERA has an intriguingly bizarre cast. I'm curious to see how it turns out.
So, in other words, I wouldn't lose all hope for the season yet. I think we'll all be a lot happier once the new crop of shows arrive.
Things are particularly healthy for new plays and play revivals.
A bounty of good new plays open in April and May, including the sublime THE HISTORY BOYS, FESTEN, SHINING CITY and THE LIEUTENANT OF INISHMORE. (I'm looking forward to all four of them, and I'm giddy to see the blood splashing around the staid, elegant Lyceum when Lieutenant gets there. I still remember the glee I experienced when the brothers were smashing the plaster saints and destroying the set at McDonagh's Lonesome West in that theatre several years ago).
And of course, on the play revival front, THREE DAYS OF RAIN will be huge for obvious reasons, and I'm sure FAITH HEALER will sell well too (though I'm not a huge Brian Friel fan myself). I'm most looking forward to AWAKE AND SING!, which has a wonderful cast. CAINE MUTINY? Not so much for me, but I'm sure someone will care about it.
TARZAN and DROWSY CHAPERONE are the most promising of the new musicals. Both are generating positive buzz. I'm not quite sure what to expect of LESTAT, since rumor is the New York production will be much revised. And I'm anxious for HOT FEET, but for all of the wrong reasons.
As for musical revivals, THREEPENNY OPERA has an intriguingly bizarre cast. I'm curious to see how it turns out.
So, in other words, I wouldn't lose all hope for the season yet. I think we'll all be a lot happier once the new crop of shows arrive.
Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.
Updated On: 3/11/06 at 08:52 AM
#34
Posted: 3/11/06 at 9:08am
Got a bit of one of the smashed skulls from his Conemara play. Intend seeing Inishmore .It sounds bloody good. My wife is interested in Festen & Faith Healer. Awak & Sing who knows & no interest in Caine either. Will see most of the new musicals except Ring
Poster Emeritus
#35
Posted: 3/11/06 at 10:10am
i just saw RING OF FIRE ad on the Entertainment channel (E!)
it was one of those "this program was provided by" things...
it was an interesting turn for advertising for this show i thought
wonder if it will work
it was one of those "this program was provided by" things...
it was an interesting turn for advertising for this show i thought
wonder if it will work
#36
Posted: 3/11/06 at 10:39am
Ring of Fire looks like the kind of show that will appeal to the Old Folk's Home Bus Trip crowd.
It's a shame, I'm a big Johnny Cash afficianado.
It's a shame, I'm a big Johnny Cash afficianado.
#37
Posted: 3/11/06 at 5:43pm
Maybe on the outside, but I can't see how this show could "appeal" to ANYONE...
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#38
Posted: 3/11/06 at 10:08pm
the first time i saw it... it was the most painful theater experience i'd ever had. it took all i had to stay through the second act. the pain, the agony of it... oh god it was bad.
THEN i saw it recently. dont get me wrong, not a thing had changed. not a single sung flat note or bad staging/direction... literally the same show i had seen two weeks prior. but this time it was less painful. i knew what i was getting into this time. i watched only the performances. and whenever i payed attention to the show i was usually laughing at how corny something was, or the poor staging, the bad "sets"... something along those lines. but when i just watched the performances, somehow it changed the entire experience.
now i didn't pay for either of these trips to the show... i'm not THAT crazy. but now i understand both sides. both the person in munk's frame of thought who thinks its the worst piece of trash ever seen on broadway, and others who thought it was at least enjoable.
all that aside... it'll still be slaughtered in reviews and close in... maybe 2 months if they're really really really lucky.
THEN i saw it recently. dont get me wrong, not a thing had changed. not a single sung flat note or bad staging/direction... literally the same show i had seen two weeks prior. but this time it was less painful. i knew what i was getting into this time. i watched only the performances. and whenever i payed attention to the show i was usually laughing at how corny something was, or the poor staging, the bad "sets"... something along those lines. but when i just watched the performances, somehow it changed the entire experience.
now i didn't pay for either of these trips to the show... i'm not THAT crazy. but now i understand both sides. both the person in munk's frame of thought who thinks its the worst piece of trash ever seen on broadway, and others who thought it was at least enjoable.
all that aside... it'll still be slaughtered in reviews and close in... maybe 2 months if they're really really really lucky.
#39
Posted: 3/12/06 at 12:26am
What kind of reviews did it get out of town? I dont think Buffalo, NY is the best place to try a show out of town.
#40
Posted: 3/12/06 at 12:44am
I agree. In all my years of theatregoing, it's the worst "musical" I've ever seen.
Updated On: 3/12/06 at 12:44 AM
#41
Posted: 3/12/06 at 1:24am
it is not worse than 'good vibrations'. no way.
#42
Posted: 3/12/06 at 1:41am
RentBoy, I'm not sure your insinuations about Buffalo are valid. Please explain the issue here? Please tell me how the city of the tryout impacts the quality of the show? ESPECIALLY when the show is essentially locked as of opening night in the "tryout".]
I'm not defending the show as a whole. Personally I thought the show as a whole was a stretch... but I have to admire some of the performances.
Buffalo was a licensed production, not an "official" out of town tryout. The producers were different. It was the same production however.
Buffalo responded to the energy of the performances, yes. But there is no reason to insult an entire city because the show didn't come together.
I'm not defending the show as a whole. Personally I thought the show as a whole was a stretch... but I have to admire some of the performances.
Buffalo was a licensed production, not an "official" out of town tryout. The producers were different. It was the same production however.
Buffalo responded to the energy of the performances, yes. But there is no reason to insult an entire city because the show didn't come together.
Hamlet's father.
#43
Posted: 3/12/06 at 1:44am
i think good vibrations was worse as well. some of the dislogue in GV was so awful, you just had to cringe and/or laugh out loud. in ring of fire, there WAS NO DIALOGUE, just a bunch of songs (that were well done). ring of fire was just dull and certainly not as funny as good vibrations, but i think it was better overall.
#44
Posted: 3/12/06 at 2:29am
RING OF FIRE is probably a "better" show whan GOOD VIBRATIONS, but I was actually able to sit through both acts of the latter. GOOD VIBRATIONS was so atrocious that I laughed through the entire thing - AT the show. AT the concept, AT everything. Don't get me wrong, I didn't enjoy one second of it - but RING OF FIRE is just so bland and so poor that there is simply no amusement to be found in the show - even at the expense of the show itself.
Personally, I'd take GOOD VIBRATIONS over RING OF FIRE anyway.
Personally, I'd take GOOD VIBRATIONS over RING OF FIRE anyway.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#45
Posted: 3/12/06 at 2:42am
i agree with you there, munk. i definitely had more fun sitting through Good Vibrations and laughing at it.
#46
Posted: 3/12/06 at 2:55am
I think we tend to have the same taste...
I do recall a recent show that you loved, though - and I think I hated it. WOMAN IN WHITE?
I do recall a recent show that you loved, though - and I think I hated it. WOMAN IN WHITE?
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
#47
Posted: 3/12/06 at 2:59am
yes, i LOVED it. other than that, we have the same taste. wanna go see Lestat together so we can make fun of it?
#48
Posted: 3/13/06 at 1:37pm
MUNK: Looks like DROWSY CHAPERONE is the ticket to restore your faith in the Broadway season. If nothing else, you will have an enjoyable evening at the theater!
PS: The Brooklyn line earlier in the thread made me laugh heartily!
PS: The Brooklyn line earlier in the thread made me laugh heartily!
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71