Questions for Roxy, Dollypop and any other loooong time theater patrons - Page 5

[Hellob]

Posted: 2/19/16 at 3:54pm

What great replies, Jarethan

To theater nerd and the others who were there during the ACL days, what was it that made that musical hit so big? What shows were running at the same time? I've read that the realism of it was the draw which would make sense since film was also moving towards more regular characters and average looking actors. Without getting too deep, could the end of the war and the emergence of the younger generation being tired of seeing sanitized stories be what propelled it? Or was it just that great on its' own? Was it something that everyone loved? 

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 2/19/16 at 4:16pm

"It's not about f****ing bragging rights. A lot of people have waited a long time for a musical that is actually this good. I saw it the first time (as did many here) for peanuts when no one knew what it was. And as many others have said, the hype is no hype."

You're missing the point. If you look at the very first HAMILTON thread from the Public, I was also one of those first people to see the show and state how brilliant it was. I think Hamilton is amazing... but I also see the paradigm shift that is happening with the YOLO/FOMO effect. It's definitely a real thing. When the brilliance of Hamilton meets the FOMO effect what you get is this crazy phenomenon that is happening right now!!!!

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 2/19/16 at 8:21pm

The week I saw A CHORUS LINE in '75, I also snagged tickets to the original productions of CHICAGO and PIPPIN (both of which were really easy to get tickets to). Since the TKTS booth was already up in Duffy Square, I suspect my ticket to PIPPIN could have been a half price one (that show was already 2 years old). What other shows were playing then? THE WIZ, RAISIN, Hal Prince's environmental CANDIDE, SHENANDOAH, THE ROBBER BRIDEGROOM (briefly).

 

These shows all had a markedly feel-good tourist-friendly bent, so when CHICAGO and A CHORUS LINE  both opened within a month of each other that summer, suddenly folks felt like the grownups had arrived on Broadway. Both shows were thrillingly staged, both had a dark underbelly overlaid with adult humor, and both demanded more from their audiences than the tired businessman model. And as a gay boy, hearing Paul's monologue in A CHORUS LINE was the first time I heard a gay story used for something other than a punchline in a broadway musical. That was revolutionary in 1975.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 2/19/16 at 9:40pm

"what you get is this crazy phenomenon that is happening right now!!!!"

what is that phenomenon and how does it differ?

what I see are a lot of people who want to see something great and a lot of people who see it and want to talk about it. What's different is we have the internet now so lots more information gets exchanged a lot quicker. We used to do all of this in bars.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/19/16 at 10:50pm

The first couple years Chorus Line was total madness too.  And people did sometimes come across as braggy, because when some people get themselves something that's scarce (like a ticket to a show with a finite number of seats and very high demand), they can seem a little show-offy.

 

I think all of these impulses can happen at once.  People can really want to see it, people can love it, people can be braggy, people can resent the people who are paying the high prices so no matter WHAT they say about getting tickets it is taken in the worst possible way... we're humans with lots of conflicting behaviors.

 

I remember on an episode of The Jeffersons, George surprised Weezy with something, when she opened the envelope she yelled (very gravelly), "Oh George!  Two tickets to A CHORUS LINE!" because they had moved on up and they had the hottest ticket in town.  I imagine what their old neighbor might have said about all that.

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 2/19/16 at 11:44pm

Hellob said: "What great replies, Jarethan

 

To theater nerd and the others who were there during the ACL days, what was it that made that musical hit so big? What shows were running at the same time? I've read that the realism of it was the draw which would make sense since film was also moving towards more regular characters and average looking actors. Without getting too deep, could the end of the war and the emergence of the younger generation being tired of seeing sanitized stories be what propelled it? Or was it just that great on its' own? Was it something that everyone loved? 

 

"

I asked about a chorus line awhile back after hearing so much about it on this boards and from the friendly folks on this board got some helpful replies. Haven't had a chance to go back through some of these resources yet but I hope to!  I'm sure you would enjoy reading these prior replies as well so here's the link:

 

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1084830#4694557

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 12:10am

My post in the thread within the thread (linked by the above link to the PalJoey link!) is me coming from a very Roxy vis a vis Hamilton position.  You reach a point sometimes with these things where you're like, okay, enough!  Enough hoops, enough obstacles and AT THOSE PRICES.

 

I did end up seeing the tour with Michael Gruber and Nikki Snelson a couple of years later on my actual birthday and so I did get my itch scratched affordably.  And I got myself a nice t-shirt with the angled pic of the line, which I think promised a different perspective on the show that the actual production wasn't interested in delivering.  (Not when you think of Baayork in the documentary trying to recreate every bit of minutia right down to where the actor playing Connie was allowed to have been born!).

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 8:48am

"EVERYTHING evolves, change is inevitable."

 

 Simplistic. One has to be cognizant of the kind of change in question. There is evolution that is natural, and that which is artificially imposed. There is good change and bad. One has to acknowledge the difference. If some factory dumps toxic waste into a river, that is not a "natural" evolution. Nor is it a good "change." In fact, it's just the reverse. It's the poisoning of something good and natural.

 

So let's not be naive here. As far as our theatre is concerned, the "change" we have witnessed is from a magical wonderland to the depths of hell, change poisonous, pernicious, and willed upon us. This is not something to be excused with a shrug and the simple comment, "change is inevitable." It needs to be decried with every fiber of one's being till the end of time, and the perpetrators covered with all the ignominy they deserve.

[haterobics]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 9:01am

After Eight said: "If some factory dumps toxic waste into a river, that is not a "natural" evolution. Nor is it a good "change." In fact, it's just the reverse. It's the poisoning of something good and natural."

 

Like your appearance in a Fun Home thread.

[The Glenbuck Laird]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 10:28am

Some of the best posts ever in this thread, well best in my BWW forum posting time. Really informative and some great insights from some long time theatre watchers.

But also some of the worst. You guys are a nightmare sometimes.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 10:36am

After Eight said: " Simplistic. One has to be cognizant of the kind of change in question. There is evolution that is natural, and that which is artificially imposed. There is good change and bad. One has to acknowledge the difference. If some factory dumps toxic waste into a river, that is not a "natural" evolution. Nor is it a good "change." In fact, it's just the reverse. It's the poisoning of something good and natural.

 

So let's not be naive here. As far as our theatre is concerned, the "change" we have witnessed is from a magical wonderland to the depths of hell, change poisonous, pernicious, and willed upon us. This is not something to be excused with a shrug and the simple comment, "change is inevitable." It needs to be decried with every fiber of one's being till the end of time, and the perpetrators covered with all the ignominy they deserve."

That's more pathetic than your usual nonsense. First, there is nothing artificial about the change you are describing. In fact, what was artificial was the unfortunate effort to shield musical theatre from the culture in which it exists. Second, of course, that "willed upon" BS is just you being a crazy old cow. Third, dumping chemicals is demonstrably toxic whereas your attempt to use the word to apply to the theatre is just a flimsy effort to occlude the fact that you are using "toxic" as a euphemism for "it's not my taste." Finally, you are of course free to do all the "decr[ying] you want until whenever your plug is pulled; in the meantime the only hope the rest of us can have is that the arthritis in your fingers gets so bad you can't type any more. 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 11:51am

I'm just imagining the horrors with which the original audiences might have viewed the first performances of CABARET, or WEST SIDE STORY, or for that matter the appearance of Aunt Eller churning butter on an empty stage as the curtain rose on AWAY WE GO back in its first performances in New Haven in 1943 before it became OKLAHOMA. All of those first performances may well have seemed toxic to the audiences who had only expected what had come before. The contests between a WEST SIDE STORY and a MUSIC MAN have always been with us in every season, and will continue in every season, and the fact that both shows are now considered classics of the golden age is as it should be.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 1:15pm

Sorry it's taken me a while to respond but I was on the go and viewing things on my Smart Phone.  I wanted to give you some decent comments and the tiny keypad always presents a challenge for me to use.

 

1..  Without a doubt, theater audiences have changed.  There was a level of sophistication among the theater-goers that is lacking today.  They dressed appropriately and extremely polite.  This is because television was still relatively new and entertainment was more than sitting on a couch with a remote control in your hand.  A humorous side story--I started going to the theater in the early 60's and my favorite jacket was burgundy colored.  It looked nice with gray slacks.  I wore it to the theater often but so many people in the lobby were coming up to me and asking questions about how long the show was or whether they could exchange tickets.  My next blazer was navy blue.

2.  No, discounts didn't become available until the TKTS Booth opened up on Duffy Square in the 70's.  I remember buying tickets for the original production of EQUUS and SEESAW there.  Of course I bought tickets for other shows at that venue but those two stand out for some reason.  I DID stand few quite a number of shows, starting with the original BAREFOOT IN THE PARK.

3.  I'm thinking theater is far more accessible these days.  The availability of huge discounts helps and Broadway in HD is really quite remarkable.  I saw the James Franco OF MICE AND MEN at the local multiplex and enjoyed every bit as much as I would have in the theater.  The same has been true for the British STREETCAR. I have three grandchildren, ages 6, 7 and 10 and I take them regularly.  They loved ON THE TOWN so much that I had to take them to it a second time.  Luckily I was able to get the tickets on TDF and it was affordable.

4.  Yes, there has been shows that created even bigger stirs than HAMILTON.  The original production of HELLO, DOLLY!  was the show to see in the 60's.  It was on the cover of LIFE magazine several times (Carol Channing, Mary Martin and Pearl Bailey were featured in different editions) and the line to buy tickets went around the block. The show was featured on many television shows and the columnist Dorothy Kilgallen anointed those of us who were repeat offenders "Dollypops".  It's a name I'm happy to retain. There were no message board in those days so no one was posting constant threads about it, though.

5.  Yes, I wish we still had writers like Neil Simon, Tennessee Williams, Edward Albee and William Inge.  However, I always look forward to a new play by Terrence McNally and CURIOUS INCIDENT knocked my socks off with its brilliance.  I wasn't looking forward to BEAUTIFUL but a friend of mine is in the cast and I attended as his guest.  I was truly impressed with the show and enjoyed the music.  I greatly miss the traditional "Jewish Showtune".  Modern composers lean toward pop culture and the "sound" of Broadway has changed.  I miss the original;.

 

6.  Boy, oh boy did the quality of stars change with the times.  There are plenty of good actors on stage today but they don't come close to Ethel Merman, Gwen Verdon, John Raitt, Alfred Drake, Zoe Caldwell, Rosemary Harris,  Christopher Plummer or my beloved Carol Channing.  Patti LuPone and Bernadette Peters are about as close to being Golden Age stars as we can get.  Tony Yazbeck may very well enter that inner circle soon.

 

7. Oh yes, prices are higher these days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I have tickets stubs from the Opening Night of HELLO, DOLLY! and they were $9.90 for 5th row center!   Enough said.

 

8.  The moment of stage that had the greatest impact on me was the moment the horse drawn trolley pulled onto the St. James Theater and Carol Channing stepped off it.  Something undefinable happened inside me and I went from being a "theater-goer" to a "theater-lover".  Of course, when Carol appeared at the top of the staircase in the second act, I went ballistic--as did everyone else in the house on January 16, 1964. For the record, I saw the original production of HELLO, DOLLY! 74 times. I'm welcoming the upcoming revival but realize it could never be as good as the original.  I hope to God it works.

 

9.  DOLLY.  We need the joy and happiness that cascaded over the footlights in the original production.

 

I'd like to add that I miss the old sound systems of old Broadway--when mikes were at the foot of the stage.  The current trend of over-amplified voices creates serious problems fo me.  Why do we have to be blasted out of our seats at shows like IF/THEN or KINKY BOOTS?  I've had my hearing tested and I'm fine.  I can hear every not at the Philharmonic or the opera, but IF/THEN actually caused me pain.  I would have walked out of the show except a friend of mine was in it and we were going to dinner afterwards.  PS- He took one look at my face after the show and knew I had problems with it.

 

 

 

Updated On: 2/20/16 at 01:15 PM

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 1:23pm

"I said hello, Dolly, 
Well, hello, Dolly
It's so nice to have you back where you belong."

[Dollypop]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 1:29pm

How sweet!

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 1:33pm

The show was featured on many television shows and the columnist Dorothy Kilgallen anointed those of us who were repeat offenders "Dollypops".

 

I never knew that part of your origin story.  It's great.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 1:35pm

Thanks for turning this thread around, Dollypop.

[bribennett]

Posted: 2/20/16 at 2:15pm

My theater going began in the early 1950's and since I lived on West 55th Street had the opportunity to attend scores of shows. Loved your response to those earlier years and would just add two comments. While true that standing ovations were very very rare, show stopping moments were not uncommon. The applause could be thunderous and was allowed to continue 'til it played itself out. The Gwen Verdon episode was the classic example of that. Audiences then were far more New York area centric and "tourists" were largely from Long Island and New Jersey.

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/21/16 at 8:23am

"Most of you have mentioned the twofer coupons. How were they obtained? Did all shows offer them or is it like today where only certain shows participate?"

 

They were distributed to stores, restaurants, libraries, and were easily accessible to the public. That was their intent! Sellout smashes had no need for them to drum up business, but as their runs progressed and business waned, they too used them.

 

I kept a host of them as souvenirs of that wonderful era of theatregoing. I confess it's not a little saddening to look through them now. Could over a half a century have flown by so quickly? Apparently, since it did. And to think of the distance traveled from there to here... But let's not get into that!

 

Anyhow, they provide some interesting --- and amusing --- insights into the time. Twofers came in an assortment of colors, many with a quote of a review for the show. Some printed the show's logo: How to Succeed, Sweet Charity, The Star-Spangled Girl. Very cute. They listed the dates for which they were valid. They were not good for all performances. Many excluded Saturdays and most excluded the first rows of the orchestra. The discount was not always 50%, either. Carnival, orch reg price, $8.60, twofer price $4.80; Sweet Charity, $9.50/$5.50. It's interesting to note the difference in regular prices for different performances. Tenderloin, orch Mon-Thu eves: $8.35. Wed. mat: $4.80.; How to Succeed, $8.80/$4.80; Mary, Mary, $6.90/$4.80. If you sat in the balcony, you could get really good deals with a twofer: Wait Until Dark, $1.50; The Impossible Years, $1.75; Here's Love, $1.80...

 

 

Updated On: 2/21/16 at 08:23 AM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/21/16 at 1:26pm

As someone who thought Chicago was a much more enjoyable show than ACL, I am not sure what did it.  It is interesting that, like Hamilton, it opened at the Public, gained incredible press as the groundbreaking musical of the last XX years, moved to Broadway in the dead of summer when it would get all the publicity.  That is where the comparison stopped for me.  I never found ACL more than entertaining, with a pretty ordinary score, and incredible staging.  Although I expected it to win most of the Tonys, I am still appalled that Donna McKechnie won the Tony for lead for a decidedly featured role, when Gwen Verdon and Chita Rivera were giving great leading lady roles for Chicago, and Christine Andreas was giving a wonderful performance in the first revival of My Fair Lady.  Don't get me wrong...I thought she was the best thing in the show, but it WAS a featured role vs. real star turns.  Typical scenario where momentum leads a show to win in categories for which it really does not deserve to.  

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/21/16 at 1:35pm

I kept a host of them as souvenirs of that wonderful era of theatregoing.

 

That's lovely.  You'll always have your mothball-scented memories.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/21/16 at 1:44pm

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your reminiscences.  Brought back more memories.  What Hello Dolly did for you Mame did for me.  I was 16 and totally loved it.  Couple of other points:

-- You forgot about two ferns when you said there were no discounts.  I remember seeing Wait Until Dark in the 11th or 12th of the orchestra on a Saturday matinee for $2.65.  In those days, matinees were cheaper...and full price for WUD was $5.25; when the show went on twofers, they moved to the huge Shubert, and did incredible business.  A beautiful movie star, a rare thriller, and $2.65 seats form he orchestra.  

-- Seesaw was, in fact, the very first show I purchased at the half price booth.  I remember that the full priced tickets were $12.75, so half price with fees was probably $6.38 plus (?) $1.50 or $2.  Mere mortals could afford to see shows without having to debate for too long whether they could afford them.  E number of times I have seen people get of the line when they were quoted that 1/2 price seats were $80 or $90 made me feel bad and remember seeing Crown Matrimonial at the original Helen Hayes for less that Two dollars (because they only had second balcony left...they even lowered the fee).

[Dollypop]

Posted: 2/21/16 at 8:15pm

I still work as a substitute and find that twofers are readily available in school libraries and faculty lounges.

Updated On: 2/21/16 at 08:15 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 2/21/16 at 10:28pm

Hellob said: "What great replies, Jarethan

 

To theater nerd and the others who were there during the ACL days, what was it that made that musical hit so big? What shows were running at the same time? I've read that the realism of it was the draw which would make sense since film was also moving towards more regular characters and average looking actors. Without getting too deep, could the end of the war and the emergence of the younger generation being tired of seeing sanitized stories be what propelled it? Or was it just that great on its' own? Was it something that everyone loved? 

 

"

ACL was absolutely that good, even if some of the elements and characters seem dated now. Tom Wolfe famously christened the 1970s the "Me Generation", as people turned inward in a search for truth after decades of looking abroad during WWII and the Cold War. Many forms of psychotherapy became popular, including non-traditional forms such as psychodrama and EST. ACL never entirely lost the feeling that we were eavesdropping on a very intense group therapy session.

 

And the staging was astonishing! As brilliant as his work was for FOLLIES, I don't think Michael Bennett had ever given us detailed narrative numbers such as "At the Ballet" and "Hello Twelve". When the pop music and lyrics of people like John Lennon, Joni Mitchell, Bob Dylan and others made Jerry Herman seem twee, the score of ACL seemed earthy and realistic by comparison. Especially if one overlooked the calculated sentimentality of songs like "What I Did For Love".

 

Yeah, it was that good, and tickets sold like hot cakes everywhere it toured. I represented the local promoter when the International Company played the huge space that was (is?) the Miami Beach Theatre for the Performing Arts. Over 3,000 seats and ACL sold every seat for 8 weeks (192,000 people). The previous longest run in that barn was 9 performances (or 27,000 people) for Angela in MAME. Audience members came to see ACL from as far away as Atlanta and New Orleans.

 

Although they were dancers, the characters looked and behaved as we diid: gay and straight, jew and goy, black, Latino, Asian and white, too tall and too short. Some had frizzy hair and skinny limbs. None was hideous, but they were a far cry from the chorus girls of MACK AND MABEL.

 

I'm sure I'm leaving out something important, but all of the above was as remarkable in its way as the multi-ethnic casting in HAMILTON.

 

But, yeah, it was that good. It wasn't just a gimmick.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 2/21/16 at 10:48pm

Hogan, thank you for responding to After Eight. I just can't any more.

 

D.o.l.l.y.p.o.p., yeah, what is up with the blasting sound these days? My husband and I have taken to bringing ear plugs whenever we go to live theater because the sound systems make our ears bleed. And if the sound makes OUR ears bleed, in our 60s and 70s, respectively, who is the cacophony intended to benefit?

 

Jarethan, I eventually came to appreciate CHICAGO more than ACL, but I had to see the former a few times before I warmed up to its cynical vision of human nature and American justice. (I mean I saw it a few times in 1975-6. I didn't have to wait for OJ's Bronco chase.) But I always agreed that the Best Actress Tony should have gone to Gwen Verdon or Chita Rivera. The nominating committee does Broadway no favor when they stack the deck so that one show wins every award!

 

Speaking of which, one nice thing about lower ticket prices was that even starving young artists could see a hit show multiple times, thanks to TKTS. We saw SWEENEY TODD 12 to 15 times during its original run. I doubt we could do that today.

Updated On: 2/21/16 at 10:48 PM