Posted: 11/1/15 at 3:36pm
I have heard that as we speak, Hartford Stage is scouting for theater on Broadway to stage Rear Window. Any thoughts where? The capacity of Hartford stage is about 500 so I don't think the Broadway venue would go over 1000 seats. I think it would work in the Lyceum, Golden, Booth, Belasco, or Walter Kerr.
Posted: 11/1/15 at 6:18pm
Golden:Eclipsed
Belasco:Blue Bird
Lyceum: A View From The Bridge
booth:Hughie
Posted: 11/1/15 at 6:27pm
If Rear Window does end up coming to Broadway, would it be this season or next season?
If it's this season, I'll say the Lyceum Theatre after A View From the Bridge completes its run on February 21st.
Posted: 11/3/15 at 3:05pm
Nothing is booked in the Cort after Sylvia ends in January either, as far as I can recall.
Posted: 11/3/15 at 4:23pm
But the review in THE TIMES seemed wishy washy. It seemed like Brantley was saying the show is more like the short story than the movie, which is one of my favorite movies. Why would they not have had a Grace Kelley type of character in the play (it is a play right, not a musical?) why would they take out a main iconic character?
Posted: 11/3/15 at 4:25pm
It did not get very good reviews from the ones I saw. Set was praised but the story was not. It is completely different from the movie that theatergoers might be expecting to see. It is based more on the story and from what I read not a good adaptation.
Posted: 11/3/15 at 4:31pm
I know, right? People are going to want to see a Grace Kelley like character standing next to a Jimmy Stewart type character. Why change something that so many people love and adore? Please don't tell me they were just trying to be politically correct. But I guess someone might say, "oh the play has to be independent of the movie. Different." But I would counter, "why?? People I would think would love to see the characters live and up close representing what they remember in their mind. Why try and re-invent the wheel when you have an iconic brand?
Updated On: 11/3/15 at 04:31 PM
Posted: 11/3/15 at 4:39pm
Why would anyone want to see a stage version of this in the first place?
Posted: 11/3/15 at 4:40pm
I would. I loved that movie. I would see a stage version of any Hitchcock film.
Posted: 11/3/15 at 6:51pm
Braniff Forever said: "But the review in THE TIMES seemed wishy washy. It seemed like Brantley was saying the show is more like the short story than the movie, which is one of my favorite movies. Why would they not have had a Grace Kelley type of character in the play (it is a play right, not a musical?) why would they take out a main iconic character?"
When your entire out of town tryout is sold out, a mixed NYT review probably isn't going to affect the desire to move to Broadway. Kevin Bacon is a marketable name, and Rear Window is a marketable title.
Posted: 11/3/15 at 8:15pm
It's easy to sell out a 500 seat theater for 4 weeks -- less so to sell out a 1,000+ seat theater for 4-5 months. Every show that has some modicum of success regionally "looks" at a Broadway transfer. Maybe a quarter of them actually come to pass.
Posted: 11/3/15 at 10:33pm
But I guess someone might say, "oh the play has to be independent of the movie. Different." But I would counter, "why?? People I would think would love to see the characters live and up close representing what they remember in their mind. Why try and re-invent the wheel when you have an iconic brand?
Then I guess Julie Taymor was the wrong person to bring The Lion King to the stage (sarcasm alert).
Posted: 11/4/15 at 9:23am
The reviews don't warrant an immediate Broadway transfer, but that doesn't mean they won't try.
Not sure of Kevin Bacon's schedule, but the smarter move to me would be to find an Off-Broadway non-profit willing to give it their fall slot. It'd anchor the season and sell a lot of subscriptions. Then if demand in New York is high enough they can transfer in the spring.
Posted: 11/4/15 at 9:40am
You want Grace Kelly? Watch the movie for Pete's sake! This is something (GASP!) different! Come on, does everything that opens on Bway have to be familiar to make you feel warm and cozy. Have you ever heard of the expression: Familiarity breeds contempt.
Updated On: 11/4/15 at 09:40 AM
Posted: 11/4/15 at 9:52am
"I loved that movie. I would see a stage version of any Hitchcock film."
This is something I honestly don't get - if you love the movie, why not just watch the movie? Is there really any way that a stage version will be anything more than a limited imitation? Or is there a novelty factor at play, seeing live actors (sort of) duplicating a film that you enjoy?
Posted: 11/4/15 at 5:00pm
I can see not wanting a Grace Kelly clone -- that would be a little creepy 
-- but I can also see missing the character that she played. Her character added a lot to the movie. So did Thelma Ritter's character. The three of them -- those two plus Stewart's character -- worked great as a team, and without that I can see this version having a different vibe. From the NYT review, it sounds like this version has more antagonists and may feel more like Jeff-against-the-world (although that would depend somewhat on how much time Sam has onstage).
Posted: 11/4/15 at 7:14pm
I could re-watch this movie tonight if I wanted to, and I just might! Lol! I love this movie. And you know what, in the grand scheme of things, if this show transfers to off Broadway or Broadway, I would try and see it, even though I know it will be different. It's fine. Maybe it will be good, it's hard to say without seeing it. I know, as a screenwriter, that film adaptations can be a lot different than the books, stories, magazines that they are based upon. I get it, given the time constraints, a long book of say 800 pages cannot fit into a 2 hour film. Many things will have to be cut, so I guess, a play based on a movie can be different as it wants to be. Who's stopping them? No one. And maybe it would be good or even better who knows? It's hard to really say without seeing it. And also, even if we both see the film and both see the play, one of us may or may not like the play more. It's extremely hard to find agreement about art. Art and shows are very subjective. I get that.
Posted: 11/4/15 at 7:26pm
It's really very simple: They don't have the rights to the movie or its screenplay - they have the rights to the short story by Cornell Woolrich. While the bones of the general story are the same, just about everything else is different. The Kelly and Ritter characters were created by John Michael Hayes for the film, and many other very specific plot devices, including many of the rear window inhabitants are his and are owned by Universal (the film was produced by Paramount, but the rights to it and a few other Paramount films reverted to Hitchcock, who sold them to Universal). Universal probably wanted an outrageous sum of money that was not worth it to the producers, or they simply wanted to go back to the original story - it's a fine short story, but had no fleshed out characters. The screenplay is brilliant but other than the bones it just doesn't have much in common with the short story.
Posted: 11/4/15 at 7:40pm
The Brantley review really was "the audience left singing the scenery." Had he not liked the set and Bacon, he would've written a near pan. That doesn't mean it couldn't work on B'way. But next to "Misery"?
