New faces of 'Charity'; facing news media's troubles - boston globe

[jim coleman]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 10:07am

https://www.broadwayworld.com/l.cfm?id=64795 Why do you fire 2 excellent performers who have gotten very good reviews and are audience pleasers? Mr. Weissler needs to explain what happened to help us understand. It just sounds like a real disaster to me.

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 10:21am

OMG Solange Sandy was AMAZING!!! she was like my fav part of the show...what are they STUPID!??!?!?!

[timote316]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 10:38am

Well, no one ever said Mr Weissler made logical decisions.

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 10:52am

apparently...geez..lets just change all that's good in the show...


WHY DON'T they change that craptastic ending they have?? argg

[jim coleman]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 12:51pm

To me it sounds as if the problem might be with the direction. You are right--getting rid of all the good things about the show is not very smart. I personally think that Charlotte D'Amboise is a great improvement over Christina Applegate. I haven't seen the show but I know that Charlotte is a very talented, seasoned Broadway performer. I hope that we find out what really is behind all of this.

[Bobby457]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 1:15pm

I agree with you Jim....makes me wonder if the 2 that were fired were upstaging the star and they need someone that would make Christina look better. just a thought

[justme2]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 2:28pm

jimcoleman,

So you haven't seen the show and feel compelled to dis the director for his decisions? You haven't seen the show, and feel compelled to comment on the loss of two actresses who you never saw perform?

Your other posts I've seen on other topics (including Follies...I LOVED the Paper Mill production and am properly jealous of your participation in it!) tells me you are definitely in the business. I would think this makes you more aware that there are MANY reasons why there are cast changes during the OUT OF TOWN TRYOUTS Of a show.

[camthom]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 2:44pm

Well, I see no reason to come to conclusions such as...perhaps the director screwed up. I know firsthand that the actresses didn't decide to up and leave the production. And seeing that the director CAST them in the first place, after several rounds of auditions, then yes, if those actresses were replaced, then it is indeed the DIRECTOR's fault. All a good director has to do is cast the right people. If he or she does not and is forced to replace them, then, yes he or she is responsible for the apparently wrong choices he or she made in the first place.

If he fired them because they were wrong for their roles, then he never should have cast them...and with most actors going through 4-10 rounds of callbacks, the director has PLENTY of opportunity to see if they can do the job. So yes, I'd fault the director as well...an easy assumption.

[rKrispyt]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 2:49pm

justme2 - I got the impression from jimcoleman that he was saying he had not yet seen the show with Charlotte D'Amboise in it, as he says "I haven't seen the show but I know that Charlotte is a very talented, seasoned Broadway performer.". Maybe I misread it and you're right...

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 2:50pm

Let's try and NOT judge until we see the difference, folks.

[justme2]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 2:51pm

Not so easy an assumption.

Casting is only the first step in a PRE-BROADWAY tryout. They are still changing scenes, songs, characterizations, etc. Who's to say that maybe after these changes were implemented, the director realized that the actress/actor is now wrong for the character?

That is the whole purpose of having a pre-broadway tryout. To test, to change, to align, to perfect.
I think so many of these posts are missing the main point of these changes. The show is still PRE- broadway. If the director felt the material was strong enough to open on broadway without this trial period, you'd be seeing Sweet Charity in NY and would have every right to call the director out on changes such as this. It would be his fault, as he should have had a period of time to work the actors first. Which is what he is doing now.

Can we at least TRY to reserve our judgement of these out of town shows until we SEE them and can really form an opinion? I see this happen way too often. The armchair quarterbacking is disturbing.

[gustof777]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 2:58pm

What are we smoking people? i saw it Feb 27 in chicago and Solange SUCKED!!!! WHooo she was horrible!!!! She could dance but her acting was very tired and just not very good sorry but i really can't think of another word and the latin could act well and was funny but both of them sure could not sing i dont blame them. and as for them being the only good part i must disagree Dennis o'hare was hilarious and Christina was very good as well she had her whole heart in the show and was not upstaged by them at all.

[camthom]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 2:58pm

I have to disagree...
The whole purpose of having a WORKSHOP is To test, to change, to align, to perfect. Yes there is still tweaking going on out on the road, but seeing as both these actresses did the workshop and you must agree, that is where the majority of the changes occur (and in this case, they occurred under the supervision of one of the now-deceased writers). I would love to find some examples of some contemporary shows (post-workshop contracts) that had changes in characters that were so major that it forced them to replace an actor (not fire an actor because the part had been cut, but replace because a difference was that great in the rewrites). I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but if and when it has, it has been VERY rare and hardly successful.

[jim coleman]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 3:05pm

Guys, I am just voicing an opinion--I am not passing judgment on anyone, just possible reasons---being in the business I know how some things happen--and knowing this director's work, I think that may be the problem. I have worked with him as a performer and he is fantastic, but I don't think he is a very good director. Don't get your knickers in a twist. I hope that every show produced is a hit. It keeps everybody working, and that is what we all want. Unfortunately, it is a tough business and bad things happen all the time.

[justme2]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 3:09pm

We are also leaving out the personal aspects of someone being fired from a show. Like I said before, there are many reasons for cast changes. We don't know the reasons, jimcoleman admits he hasn't seen the show, and is basing his opinion on a couple of MN and Chicago reviews? That is wrong.

[jim coleman]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 3:12pm

I am not basing my opinion on reviews--you don't know what I know. Get your facts straight before you put words in my mouth, ok?

[LaCageAuxFollesFan]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 3:13pm

The whole thing just seems like a conviluted mess to me, from the very beginning of the book rewriting, fights with directors and book writer, replacing actors mid-stream tryouts who got decent reviews, the CONSTANT changes being done even after they thought they had the perfect version, Applegate's broken foot, - Gawd what a headache. The Weislers had success with ANNIE GET YOUR GUN, and rightfully so (except for that breif casting of Cheryl Ladd, WTF?) and critical aclaim with WONDERFUL TOWN (although the box office wasnt a huge draw, but it didnt need to be) - other than that - they have had a rough time of it, and this certainly doesn't help matter.

Did anyone ever consider having a good product over Tony contention? Gawd, what a random idea?!?! If its Christina they really do want - WAIT TILL SHES FULLY READY - THEN OPEN! Who cares if its after May 4 - there will be another Tony Awards. It's not like SC is guarenteed a Tony this year anyway, it would have to be near perfect to go up against LA CAGE(not saying its perfect either, just that Charity would have to be the best verion of its show ever), and they way things are looking now - ouch.

[justme2]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 3:13pm

"It just sounds like a real disaster to me."

Yeah, that's a real "just an opinion" opinion of a show you haven't seen. Fair? How can it be if you HAVEN"T SEEN THE SHOW?

And again, you say you are in the business and know how it goes. Well, how would you like someone carping on your work before it's even completed?

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 3:14pm

'both these actresses did the workshop'

But they didn't do the workshop with the headliner of the production, did they? And that could make all the difference.

[justme2]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 3:18pm

"Why do you fire 2 excellent performers who have gotten very good reviews and are audience pleasers?"

I am responding to your posts, nothing else. You state here that you are referring to "good reviews" the performers got. That would tell me that you read the reviews. If you are indeed basing it on something else, state that.

And if that something else if "something I can't reveal", then why open a post?

[jim coleman]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 3:21pm

I have been there and that has happened, justme2--I am not a vindictive person. I know this business, believe me, and a lot of it is not pretty. I don't say anything behind anyone's back that I wouldn't say to their face. Ease up, I didn't mean to make this into an argument. Everybody has a right to their opinion and a right to voice that opinion. And that goes for you, also. I respect your observations, but it seems that you are being a little nasty about it. There is no reason for that. You don't know me or I you--so why don't we just agree to disagree? I will say no more on this subject. I always that this was a forum where people could say what was on their mind.

[justme2]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 3:31pm

A forum for discussion, yes.

A forum for bashing...I see it way too much and it discourages me to think that the same people who weeks ago were rooting for the show, the actors, etc, can so easily turn on it when a problem arises.

And then turn around and say they know the business is hard and can be nasty.