Riedel on Chess coming to Broadway

I was bummed to miss it in DC, so this makes me so happy! I hope it transfers with the whole cast. Karimloo's "Anthem" has to be incredible.

I'd like to see it, and it has a much better cast than the ENO version.

Chess has what is absolutely one of my top 5 scores of any show ever. To this day, I play it more frequently than any show over a year old. I love it. I have seen 4 productions; the only one I actually enjoyed without reservation was at the Signature Theatre in Virginia 6 or 7 years ago.

I remain skeptical that any production of Chess can be successful unless they do actually figure out how to fix the book (the Signature did a very good job at keeping the dialogue from dragging down the show, but it did not succeed in making you care about the characters (at least to me)) OR if it is scheduled as a limited engagement with a very famous cast. This cast may be talented, but it is not a 'box office' cast.

So, while I hope it transfers so I can enjoy all there is to enjoy, I hope it is announced as a limited engagement, so it does not end up as yet another failed attempt to tame an untamable beast.

Really hoping this isn't the case. A bad book is the absolute worst thing to sit through. It might be a great score, but you can listen to it at home.

I remember how fast it closed the first time around on Broadway. Seems like an awful lot would need to change to make it viable. Something is really wrong when Starlight Express out performs you that badly.

I'm sure it has happened, but it seems odd to have a revival for a show that was pretty much a flop the first time around? ...but if Disney can keep making Tron movies, I guess it could happen on stage too.

Updated On: 2/21/18 at 02:01 AM

JudyDenmark said: "Karimloo's "Anthem" has to be incredible."

I would LOVE to hear that. He must slay that last note ("...my HEARRRRRRRRRT".

What a lot of critics missed is that Strong's new book was written precisely for the concert production. AS a concert production. A smartly written one at that.. The concert had a friggin' narrator that gave tons of exposition. Cause he was a NARRATOR! Exposition that someone as talented as Strong would of course excise, creating more subtle and dramatic ways to get plot points across. The Kennedy Center "Chess"'s book was merely the idea and outline of a book he would eventually write for a legitimate stage production. I am a big fan of the Richard Nelson original and I hate the original Brit version of Chess. BUT, this is (and if it gets picked up will be) the BEST version of that plot outline.

Okay, so from someone who was around from the very beginning of the CHESS phenom -- the record was brilliant and so was the concert version that preceded the West End staging. And IMO, this is the way the show works best - indeed, I think its the only way its ever worked at all. I feel like the original concept for CHESS was that it was essentially an all sung, impressionistic experience, much like EVITA.

It was basically the story of love and betrayal told against the backdrop of this Chess tournament in the middle of the cold war. And that was enough. Can you imagine if after EVITA was a concept recording, what the authors decided was that it needed dialogue and a lot of plot contrivances to really make it realistic and hammer home the politics of the piece?

Everything that has been done to the script and score of CHESS since 1983 has just made it hamfisted and heavy handed. They should eliminate all of that and just go back to the impressionistic experience of the record.

BroadwayConcierge said: "Really hoping this isn't the case. A bad book is the absoluteworst thing to sit through. It might be a great score, but you can listen to it at home."

The second I read this observation, I immediately thought of Mack and Mabel. 40+ years later, I vividly remember how stupefyingly boring the show was despite a great score, great performances by the two leads, great production design, some wonderful choreography. Nothing mattered because of that book. While Chess's book (any version I have seen) is not as bad as M&M, it still took a lot of the air out of the evening every time but the Signature version, whose book just seemed a little trivial (as opposed to purely boring).

qolbinau said: "I wonder if someone managed to write in a joke, however tenuous, about Russians meddling with elections."

Not that I recall, but near the end there was a very pointed comment about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of unstable leaders that got a lot of laughs and the biggest applause of the afternoon.

Owen22 said: "Jarethan said: "I remain skeptical that any production of Chess can be successful unless they do actually figure out how to fix the book(the Signature did a very good job at keeping the dialogue from dragging down the show, but it did not succeed in making you care about the characters (at least to me))ORifit is scheduled as a limited engagement with a very famous cast. This cast may be talented, but it is not a 'box office' cast"

The Signature production used the Richard Nelson book, adding some songs and deleting some dialogue, mostly to it's detriment. Go to Lincoln Center Library. Check out how well the original Trevor Nunn production holds up (minus its self inflicted dated nature). Some of the negative attitude toward the show at the time was it's stylized and impressionistic set design (amorphous columns representing chess pieces moving around the stage like monster monoliths) though critics somewhat failed to recognize the exacting character development (of course Richard Nelson in now known exactly for his talent in doing just that). There is no Merano, Act One is in Bangkok and Act Two is in Budapest (making it much more immediate for Florence) and both Freddy and Anatoly play both sets which builds the tension between acts as opposed to the British version (and the Kennedy Center's) that brings in a (totally) nondescript player to battle Anatoly in Act 2.

The Broadway "Chess" got devoured by New York critics but we forget a lot of out-of-town and magazine critics absolutely loved the show. And even the bad reviews fell in love with Phillip Casnoff, Judy Kuhn and David Carroll's performances (one might ask how could even greatly talented singers and actors give such tremendous performances in a show that bad). Every performance I saw got a cheers and a standing ovation, not that that necessarily means a show is any good, but I can testify (as could the confused actors at closing) that the audience really enjoyed it.

I actually saw the London production 3 times (I was traveling to London on business regularly 35ish years ago or so) and had the same reactions as I have had with every production. I got sucked into its bigness, I loved the score from first hearing, the performances, etc.; but I was frequently restless and felt it was an incredibly cold show, i.e., some beautiful ballads acknowledged, I never cared about the characters a speck. But, again, that score!

Maybe time made me more tolerant, but I really enjoyed the Signature production the most of the four I saw. Even there, it seemed like a 'Movie of the Week' with glorious music. The story just seems so trite, the American is so obnoxious, the Russian is so noble, Florence is so alone. The smallness of that production definitely worked in its favor IMO.

PS -- I have to admit that I was among the haters of the Broadway production. I hated the staging, with a single exception. I really liked the way Nunn and the set designer did the mountain scene. I thought the leads did not have the charisma to pull off their roles and that the scenic design was as ugly as any I have ever seen for a large budget musical. I also have to say that we were not at the same performance (I only saw it once on Broadway). My audience, probably from the suburbs since it was a Saturday night, sat on its hands the entire performance. (I remember it was a Saturday night because we went with two other couples who had never seen it, and who were positively bored for most of the show).

Updated On: 2/22/18 at 10:04 AM