Phillipa Soo to lead AMELIE on Broadway — Page 3

As much as I obviously like and support this show, I am inclined to agree somewhat with icecreambenjamin's statement regarding this show's prospects for success. Granted, we don't know how drastically the show will have changed by the time it hits Broadway, but based on what I saw at the 1st preview in Berkeley, I think it might not have enough staying power among NY audiences. The show is fun, heartfelt, quirky and charming, but I don't know how well it will fare at the Tonys compared to the more splashy and/or serious musicals. I doubt it will draw much of a tourist crowd, and I predict the critical/audience reception will be fairly mixed (as we can already see from mine and Fantod's opposing opinions of this show)

Also, I'm not so sure Soo will be nominated. She's wonderful, and the role of Amelie as I saw it was definitely a nice leading part. However, the role is not exactly a powerhouse star vehicle, nor is it as subtly and tenderly written as Eliza and Natasha. Still, I think Soo can do more with it than Barks did, and I hope she does snag a nomination.

Even if this doesn't do well on Broadway, I can definitely see this show getting a nice life in regional and amateur theatre. It's a small, ensemble-based show that I could be very popular with schools.

Updated On: 6/17/16 at 04:58 PM

was she ever here to begin with?

and did Barks become a big star while I wasn't looking? what's she so busy with that this isn't good enough for her?

Saw Amelie in Berkeley too and was disappointed in this little musical. It may take place in Paris, but you'd never know it. About as French as a French Fry.

EDIT: Nevermind. It was an argument against icecreambenjamin's criticisms but I decided I don't want to get into it.

Updated On: 6/17/16 at 05:24 PM

Call_me_jorge said: "Matthew did a reading/workshop of finding neverland as well in the spring of 2014 prior to the ART run. They are both in the same situation."

In that case, it's probably because most people who saw Jeremy thought he was better in the role and that they only chose Matthew over him due to name recognition. Doesn't apply with the situation here.

icecreambenjamin said: "Hopefully it's an entirely new creative team. The score did not reflect the show at all. It's going to end up just like Tuck Everlasting if they don't start at square one.

The film is fantastic and there's no reason for it to be a less than stellar musical. The set, costumes, score, and choreography were uninspired and boring. Phillipa is the only upside for this production.

Jeez the film deserved so much more.



"

We seem to be more and more in agreement as time goes on. The movie works precisely because it uses the medium of film perfectly. The kind of crazy pace and visually spastic quality that the film has is only possible on film. Plus, it is so quintessentially French that translating it into English immediately cuts some of its charm.



Plus, the music in the movie is some of the best ever (even though it wasn't written for the movie) and to replace the fantastically bizarre French music with ultra-bland musical theatre pop should be considered a crime.

HogansHero said: "It's funny to me that so many here seem to think Barks was passed over in favor of Soo when it is obvious it was the other way around. Barks is at a stage in her career where it makes no sense to subtract yourself from the market for a year or more to do a show. And of course even more so financially. In all likelihood, if she tried to do the show, her agent would drop her."



I have no opinion as to who decided what. However Soo was obviously not passed over in favor of Barks, so what do you mean by "the other way around"? Did you mean Barks turned down the first offer - or let it be known she wasn't interested, and then the role was offered to Soo? If yes, how do you get to obvious? Are there other known cases where young actors, who have yet to make his/her Broadway debut, have passed on a leading role set to play a major market within six months and then open on Broadway shortly thereafter? In favor of what? Specifically regarding Barks, in favor of what?

The idea that Samantha Barks is some huge star that would get audiences to see a Broadway show is pretty silly. She wasn't nominated for the big prizes, hasn't done any significant film role since LES MIS, and didn't even earn the reviews for LES MIS that would put her at the top of any lists. That's not to say Phillipa Soo is more famous or that she will sell more tickets, but she undoubtedly is buzzier at the moment which is what often matters in these decisions. I also personally think she is incredibly more interesting and unique as a performer than Barks, whom I consider a dependable if unremarkable performer.

Phillipa needs a bona fide star vehicle, and her unique voice may lend some character to what was reportedly a boring score.

Very exciting!!

Any idea when her last performance in Hamilton will be?

Maybe Sam can replace Soo in Ham?

And remember when Celia was up against O'Hara in a role she was replaced in (and there was "backstage) drama going on there as well.

CurtainPullDowner said: "Maybe Sam can replace Soo in Ham?

And remember when Celia was up against O'Hara in a role she was replaced in (and there was "backstage) drama going on there as well.



"

Who would cast Sam 'as white as wonder bread' barks as Eliza?

also, the comparison to Celia Keenan Bolger and O'hara is silly. The only drama that supposedly happened was that Celia was passed on for the role of Clara because Kelli was dating adam guettel at the time. And Celia was probably relieved that she didn't have to continue with the role since she was never fully confident in her soprano voice