Riedel on Good Vibrations

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 3:10am

From today's column:

" IT'S an open secret on Broadway that the latest loser from Dodger Theatricals — the production company whose motto could be "Flops R Us!" — is "Good Vibrations," currently in previews (and apparently at sea) at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre."

***************

" Two telltale signs of trouble emerged last week.

The director David Warren was brought onboard to help bail out his friend, John Carrafa, the "official" director and choreographer of the show; and the opening night has been pushed back a week.

Warren, whose credits run more to straight plays than musicals, is hardly George Abbott, so just what he can do to save this coming fiasco is unclear.

Production sources say he is concentrating on the "book scenes" and the "acting," while Carrafa works on the dances (i.e., kids in bathing suits hopping around with surfboards)."

*********************

" Poor Carrafa is already getting most of the blame what one Broadway insider calls "the worst show ever booked in a theater."

His track record as a choreographer is mixed. He received Tony nominations for "Urinetown" and "Into the Woods," but he also lists "Dance of the Vampires" among his credits.

"Good Vibrations" marks his debut as a director, and production sources say he is simply in over his head.

At one point he asked the actors if they had any ideas for how to stage some of the scenes, company members say.

Before the start of each show, Carrafa appears onstage to announce that "Good Vibrations" is still "a work in progress."

To which the only proper response is: "Then why are you charging full prices?"

**************

"Good Vibrations," an obvious rush job, is now scheduled to open Feb. 2, although late yesterday afternoon Carrafa and Warren were pleading with the Dodgers for yet another week of previews.

If and when the show opens (and some on Broadway think it should be shut down in previews), it's unlikely the Dodgers will be able to keep it running in the face of poor reviews, as they did with their last clunker, "Dracula," which ran nearly six months and lost $7.5 million.

The reason is that the Dodgers have lost their chief backer, billionaire Dutch entertainment mogul Joop van den Ende, whose deep pockets have propped up a lot of money-losing Dodger productions, including "Dracula," "42nd Street" and "Into the Woods."

Last year, van den Ende announced the van den end of his partnership with the Dodgers after nearly 10 years.

He has money in "Good Vibrations," but production sources say he won't shoulder any losses once the show opens."
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/38402.htm

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 3:17am

"whose deep pockets have propped up a lot of money-losing Dodger productions, including "Dracula," "42nd Street" and "Into the Woods."

I was under the impression that the 42nd Street revival had been fairly well-received and had boasted a healthy and relatively lengthy run (May 2001-Jan. 2005). It also snagged the only two Musical TONYS not won by The Producers.

Did I miss something? Was it a money-loser?

Updated On: 1/19/05 at 03:17 AM

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 3:22am

Oh, Michael.

"Last year, van den Ende announced the van den end of his partnership with the Dodgers."

That's not just a rather unfunny attempt at humorous wordplay, it's an utterly nonsensical one. Winchell, you're not.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 8:10am

One of the many reasons I hate Riedel. He's bombing our own ships before they're even out to sea. Why print something like that about a show in previews? Horrible man.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 9:31am

I'm no Reidel fan, but this kind of reporting has existed as long as Broadway. More importantly, shows that opt to preview -- for weeks and weeks smack dab in the heart of NYC -- face extreme scrutiny, rumor-mongering, and what is generally known as "buzz." It takes chutzpah to preview thusly in today's climate, particularly with material as potentially Vegas-y (and backlash-creating) as this. Remember, shows go out of town for a reason -- to find their legs, to allow replacements, and to allow major fixes. Hey, SEND IN THE CLOWNS was written in Boston. I doubt there's a "Clowns" moment that would've made a difference with the Vibrations material (that's the problem with these juke-box shows -- the scores were written 40 years ago, and are frozen.) But whatever the fate of this show, I don't think Michael Reidel will be the culprit.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 9:33am

"At one point he asked the actors if they had any ideas for how to stage some of the scenes, company members say."

Wow.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 12:26pm

i love michael riedel. nobody gets the dirt like mikey.

*edit*

margo, you're awful, simply awful for posting this article! and i luvs ya for it!

Updated On: 1/19/05 at 12:26 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 12:45pm

I don't like sabotaging a show while it's in previews, either, but I have to admit that delaying the opening and getting someone in to help the (first-time) director are things that are going to catch attention no matter what.

[Iris Chacon]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 1:35pm

And he hasnot been wrong yet. I am wondering if I should conduct a search on this board and reall all those posts from thse Shills saying how good this show was.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 1:36pm

Like David Larsen says in the interview with Broadway.com:

"I think people should just come to the show expecting to have a good time. Those who are looking to be deeply moved by an amazing dramatic story are coming in looking for something that this show is not even trying to be. It is just a group of people coming together to give it their all. It is exciting and new. Hopefully we can bring some people along for the ride."

[Plum]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 1:46pm

He's been wrong before, Iris. He's mostly right, I'll give him that, but he isn't completely accurate. But such is the downfall of dealing in gossip.

And re: Larsen- If I want to see a bunch of people coming together to give it their all, I'll watch high school shows for a whole lot less money. On Broadway, I expect quality as well as enthuiasm. Updated On: 1/19/05 at 01:46 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 1:48pm

::Like David Larsen says in the interview with Broadway.com:

"I think people should just come to the show expecting to have a good time. Those who are looking to be deeply moved by an amazing dramatic story are coming in looking for something that this show is not even trying to be. It is just a group of people coming together to give it their all. It is exciting and new. Hopefully we can bring some people along for the ride."::

All together now, "Lowered Expectaaaaaaaaaaaaaaations!"

[son_of_a_gunn_25]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 1:52pm

Namo I had completely forgotten about those! Good memories.

[Iris Chacon]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 1:53pm

Hey sorry folks. My internet connection went down before I finished my above post. Now I don't rember what I was going to say. Plum; I agree with you 100 %. Broadway should be a venue of excellence and the extraordinary. If I want to see people coming together and giving it their all.. there are highschools everywhere. If these people know their product is bad and they are charging full scale prices... then how are they different than a merchant who sells you something that is suppose to be in working order but is broken? ( well; I don't know about that analogy.. but you know what I am getting at)

Updated On: 1/19/05 at 01:53 PM

[magruder]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 2:41pm

Broadway has never been exclusively "a venue of excellence and the extraordinary," even in its heyday, so all of the holding up one's nose at Good Vibrations or any of its bretheren seems like so much grandstanding. On Broadway, high art has always coexisted alongside the most pandering, lowest common denominator forms of entertainment. For every Death of a Salesman, West Side Story or Streetcar Named Desire, you had Abie's Irish Rose, Ankles Aweigh or Follow the Girls. That's the way it has always been and that's the way it always should be. Time has a way of banishing the dross to oblivion in the long run, so those who protest over a show like Good Vibrations befouling the Broadway environment really have nothing to fear.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 2:47pm

I don't expect all shows to provoke a whole lot of thought from me. I like floof as mucha s the next person. But I do expect shows to look like thought was put into them. Which puts jukebox musicals at an automatic disadvantage in my mind.

[kudzu]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 3:59pm

"And re: Larsen- If I want to see a bunch of people coming together to give it their all, I'll watch high school shows for a whole lot less money. On Broadway, I expect quality as well as enthuiasm. "

Plum, I think you may have misunderstood what Larsen was saying, it's not that it's a "High School" productions, but that it is a quality show that allows the patrons to relax, have fun, and come away feeling happy. There is a place on Broadway, as previously mentioned for ALL types of shows, just because someone doesn't care for a certian type, IE "JukeBox" Doesn't mean it doesn't belong. I've seen the show a couple of times, and admittly it needs some fixes, however that is being done and it is getting better, which is what I thought the preview process was for. It will never be a classic and it's not meant to be. I really think that is what David Larsen meant. I really don't believe he thinks it is a High School level production.

I totally agree with magruder, To each their own.

[RadioTV2]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 4:00pm

Well, after posting a positive review of this show, and being labeled a shill, I feel I have to defend this show. It's not as bad as it is being described, and if you want to state an opinion, see the show before you do so.


For Your Consideration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Good Vibrations" for Best Book of a Musical
Kate Reinders for Best Actress in a Musical
John Caraffa for Best Choreography

[kudzu]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 4:02pm

I'm right there with you RadioTV2. It does seem as though, on this board if you are postive, you are a "SHILL" Some people just can't handle being disagreed with I guess.

[Tiny-Toon]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 4:03pm

Go see Good Vibrations! (before it closes)

[Ebonic_Singer]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 4:08pm

That's ridiculous. The point of previews is to tweak a show and make it better. That's why critics aren't supposed to write reviews on it yet. How obnoxious.

[ifagirlisntpretty]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 4:10pm

Yes--earlier in that story Larsen does talk about how you can only get it on Broadway or something like that... So I don't think he believes it to be high school level. I think basically what he is saying is it's not a genius plot and it is not really aiming to be, which is reasonable. The problem with GV is that it's sloppy. You could have made a much better musical with that same plot.

[GirlfriendFromCanada]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 4:13pm

Exactly. I have qualms with the preview process as it is, especially the way it is presented to an unknowing audience, but it IS still a time to work on problems. How is anyone supposed to go into a show with a fresh mind, after opening, if it's already been torn apart before it was completely finished?

And as for the shill thing, trust me, I WISH I worked for this show, because there are lots of aspects I would love to have some input in. And no one jump in with the "Haha, don't wish that, then you'd be unemployed". People like what they like, doesn't mean they're getting paid for it.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 4:22pm

that's why critics aren't supposed to write reviews on it yet.

which would be relevant if riedel were a critic.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/19/05 at 4:22pm

"It will never be a classic and it's not meant to be."

Lowered Expectaaaaaaaaaaations!