SEUSSICAL - The Road To Broadway And Back To The Road

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/5/04 at 8:25pm

Has anyone here seen the pre-Broadway run of SEUSSICAL? I believe it took place in Boston.

I'm told it was much different from what went on in Broadway. And then even before the tryout, the workshops, from what I remember reading, made SEUSSICAL seem VERY Dr. Seussy, with the entire show being in rhyme and more of a children's storybook approach.

I find the journey that is SEUSSICAL to be very interesting. The Tour that came after Broadway was improved upon dearly, with cut songs, a more focused storyline, and great new staging.

The non-equity tour which came afterwards sort of reverted back to the Broadway staging, though opened in a new fashion. Kept the focused storyline, but brought back the cut songs (at least one).

Now the show is being done frequently across the country in community and school theatres.

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 12/5/04 at 10:54pm

The show is not great. It's not F/A best work by any means. The tour was ok but hardly exciting.

[edenespinosalover]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 9:42am

Seussical is awesome. It isn't by any means good "quality theater", but it's a fun show with some good music.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 10:11am

The Broadway production was fun, but definitely had room for improvement. I thought trying to tie it all into one story was the biggest flaw. Had it been a review, I think it would have worked. The tour I saw with Cathy Rigby was a step backward. The staging was ok in some places, but really baffling in others. The opening was the worst with the entire cast dressed in white jumpsuits (sorta like Oompa Loompas) and crammed in a box just shifting around a bit here and there. It was static and dull. The black light swimming fish looked more like an cheap carnival ride and cuts to the Cat in the Hat (including the song A Day With the Cat in the Hat) made no sense whatsoever and his presence was a complete mystery.

[misterchoi]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 10:17am

The tour with Cathy Rigby was a wonderful theatrical experience! It was a children's show at heart, but catered to the entire family. They didn't look like oompa loompas, they were painters!

It started with a white box like a canvas, and then they enlarged the canvas and put on their costumes for color. it was so beautiful and so thrilling and it served the story perfectly!

It is a funny show meant to be a children's book on stage. I took it for more that what it was, and was still overwhelmed.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 10:19am

the broadway opening was better.

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 10:29am

I hate this show no matter where it plays.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 10:39am

"It started with a white box like a canvas, and then they enlarged the canvas and put on their costumes for color. it was so beautiful and so thrilling and it served the story perfectly!"

I guess if you hadn't seen the original opening, it wasn't so awful, but the cast crammed in a box thing did not work for me. They didn't look like they were painting or doing anything else than robotic movements in a box for no reason. The rest of the stage was empty and they remained packed like sardines shifting around a bit here and there the entire time. It was the complete opposite intent of the song. The original opening was so joyous and spirited, it was like a huge celebration. The rest of the show aside, it was one of the most energetic and fun openings of a show I had ever seen and really got the audience excited to watch the show. The night I attended, the audience loved it on Broadway and everyone seemed to have a really good time. It wasn't a great show, but by the end, it did make you feel good. And the original Green Eggs and Ham curtain call was a blast.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 10:43am

'Seussical' needed to be wild and energetic and chaotic and original.

Why then the least wild, energetic, chaotic and original creative team on Broadway decided to write the show is beyond me.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 10:50am

"It's not F/A best work by any means."

Just curious, which do you think is their best work? I adore them.

"It isn't by any means good "quality theater"..."

Not sure what you mean by this comment. Please elaborate.

"I thought trying to tie it all into one story was the biggest flaw."

I HIGHLY disagree with you there! SEUSSICAL is one story with characters from many different Seuss books. None of the books are acted out on stage - they may reference them, or take the very basic plot, but that is all. I can't understand why everyone says the show "uses too many Seuss stories." They don't at all! They only take many Seuss characters, and then wrote a show to accomodate them.

The show is about how Horton and Jojo are being criticized - Jojo for having too big an imagination, and Horton for hearing voices and thinking people live on a clover. Throughout the play, Jojo and Horton help each other and in the end, all other characters are taught two lessons: that if you "open your mind" and listen to others instead of critizing them, you may discover what they see; and that an active imagination does no harm.

Other characters learn morals, too. Gertrude learns that it doesn't matter what you look like, but to be noticed, it is what you do - your actions.

"The opening was the worst with the entire cast dressed in white jumpsuits (sorta like Oompa Loompas) and crammed in a box just shifting around a bit here and there. It was static and dull."

I admit, I thought this was an odd choice. But I didn't see Oompa Loompas or painters. I saw people in an insane asylum. This staging was very neat, but I agree, I prefer the Broadway opening more. However, I do the rest of "Oh, The Thinks You Can Think" much better. The orchestrations were very much improved. It was much more fun, and spooky in the one part.

"The black light swimming fish looked more like an cheap carnival ride and cuts to the Cat in the Hat (including the song A Day With the Cat in the Hat) made no sense whatsoever and his presence was a complete mystery."

The blacklight swimming fish and the Cat and Jojo flying was MUCH better than the Broadway choreography. Carnival ride? Not really. But it was very Seussy and looked brilliant! I couldn't even see the actors for the most part! It just looked so real.

The cutting of "A Day For The Cat In The Hat" DID make sense to me. This was NOT made clear on Broadway, and I am not sure if it was even meant to be this way, but it worked SO much better in the tour. The reason for The Cat in the show was to throw Jojo into the story - an ordinary boy turns into a Who. The Cat also, as on Broadway, hosts the show and narrates the story.

I believe this to be a very underrated and underappreciated show. Its development was slow, and I think they went to Broadway too soon. I would love for them to do another tour and clean up the little mess there is left.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 10:58am

"'Seussical' needed to be wild and energetic and chaotic and original.

Why then the least wild, energetic, chaotic and original creative team on Broadway decided to write the show is beyond me."

JohnPapa:

What right do you have to say what it needed to be? The creative team, Ahrens & Flaherty, wrote the show from scratch. They didn't know what it was going to be when they were drafting it. In fact, they at first wanted it to be a children's theatre piece. More of a staged reading deal. A musical review, narration then Seuss characters sing in between. Not sure how this transisted into a full musical, but they did it, and they succeeded. What was molded in the end may not be as wild and energetic and chaotic and original as YOU would like - but you cannot criticize Ahrens & Flaherty for not living up to that expectation. They made the show what they wanted it to be. And it works. And it is a success.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 11:00am

(Not that you do not have the right to criticize the show, nor any show. If you don't like it, that's fine, its not your cup of tea. But to criticize WHY someone writes a show is just wrong.)

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 11:09am

I criticize those writers making that choice. Flaherty and Ahrens are very straight-forward, mainstream musical theater writers. They have a formula (beaten into their heads by the BMI workshop) and they use it in all their shows which is fine, albeit I find their work leaning on the boring side. But it's the wrong style for Dr. Seuss, which was manic and crazy and anarchist from the get go.

They were trying to recreate one of the most recognizable styles of writing on the planet. I'm not at all out of line by questioning their abilitiy to recreate or represent that style.

Eric Idle left the project, citing similar concerns to mine.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 11:12am

"They were trying to recreate one of the most recognizable styles of writing on the planet. I'm not at all out of line by questioning their abilitiy to recreate or represent that style."

Your comments then make more sense. I don't really think of it as a re-creation of Seuss stories. I think of it as a brand new story that uses Seuss characters.

Like Mamma Mia!, a show that is a brand new story that uses ABBA songs.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 11:42am

"The show is about how Horton and Jojo are being criticized - Jojo for having too big an imagination, and Horton for hearing voices and thinking people live on a clover. Throughout the play, Jojo and Horton help each other and in the end, all other characters are taught two lessons: that if you "open your mind" and listen to others instead of critizing them, you may discover what they see; and that an active imagination does no harm."

But the problem was, they DID tell the original stories almost in their entirety while at the same time, trying to tell some sort of new story all the while narrated by the most famous character who spends more time throwing jokes at the kids in the audience than anything else (whose appearance in the tour was never really explained other than as an unecessary emcee). I found it quite confusing myself, but the real test was when I took Jarico to see the show. Being from Spain, he was unfamiliar with the stories of Dr. Seuss and had no idea what was going on. He couldn't keep track of what was supposed to be the central story (which was abandonded several times) with all the other stories happening at the same time. I don't think they used too many stories, but I do think they muddied the show trying to tie them all together.

"The blacklight swimming fish and the Cat and Jojo flying was MUCH better than the Broadway choreography. Carnival ride? Not really. But it was very Seussy and looked brilliant! I couldn't even see the actors for the most part! It just looked so real."

I do agree that the Broadway choreography was very weak, but the visual effect of the tub rising off the stage with all the pipes and swimming fish underneath was much more creative than the tour. Fish painted in fluorescent colors attached to strings and sticks and lit with black lights. That was my second grade art project in 1976. And yes, it reminds me of the little ghost house ride at the state fair or carnival where you ride around in a little car banging through doors and seeing little black light scary things pop out and fly around.

"The reason for The Cat in the show was to throw Jojo into the story - an ordinary boy turns into a Who. The Cat also, as on Broadway, hosts the show and narrates the story."

This was another problem I had with the tour. By throwing the little boy into the story, it was even more confusing. It added yet another layer that made everything more complex when it needed to be more simplified. The Cat in the Hat is a Seuss character with his own stories. To put him outside the action and completely stop the show every 15 minutes makes no sense when he is actually the most famous of the Seuss characters and one that represents spontaneity and chaos. For him not to actively participate within the Seuss world is pointless. It would have made much more sense to not tie the stories together, but tell them as their own seperate stories and let the audience see how ingeniously Seuss overlapped his characters. Then the Cat in the Hat could have his story as well as perform as emcee to introduce each vignette. It would have made more sense.

"'Seussical' needed to be wild and energetic and chaotic and original.

Why then the least wild, energetic, chaotic and original creative team on Broadway decided to write the show is beyond me."

I disagree completely. As with most Ahrens and Flaherty shows, the score was the strongest element in the production. It was vibrant, fun, touching, and had loads of energy. It's just too bad it couldn't have been put to better use.

For me, the show was like a teaspoon of the delicious score and bitter chunks of an awkward book smothered in gallons of vanilla staging thoroughly blended to make for a rather unsatisfying Broadway Blizzard. Great idea, but not the best of ingredients.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 11:48am

"Your comments then make more sense. I don't really think of it as a re-creation of Seuss stories. I think of it as a brand new story that uses Seuss characters.

Like Mamma Mia!, a show that is a brand new story that uses ABBA songs."

But they didn't do that. If you read the stories, you will see they tried to create a new story using old Seuss STORIES (not just the characters) strung together. If it had been just the characters, then a new story wouldn't have been so bad.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 11:50am

"For me, the show was like a teaspoon of the delicious score and bitter chunks of an awkward book smothered in gallons of vanilla staging thoroughly blended to make for a rather unsatisfying Broadway Blizzard. Great idea, but not the best of ingredients."

Wow, thats a great way to put it!

I don't think the story was flawed, but the flaw is how to tell it. The story has indeed been told, on Broadway and on Tour, but as many have mentioned, it was confusing. I wouldn't say weak - the score does not allow this. It was odd.

For what it is, it's very fun, memorable, and entertaining. In the end, I have no problems with it whatsoever (the only exception was the white box in the Tour).

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 11:52am

"But they didn't do that. If you read the stories, you will see they tried to create a new story using old Seuss STORIES (not just the characters) strung together. If it had been just the characters, then a new story wouldn't have been so bad."

Horton sits on Mayzie's egg and she doesn't come back for it. Gertrude eats from a bush to make her tail grow. That's all I can remember that was kept from the books. Nothing from Cat In The Hat, Yertle the Turtle, Butter Battle Book, Green Eggs In Ham, The Grinch, etc.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 12:03pm

Broadway included:

Green Eggs and Ham (curtain call)
How the Grinch Stole Christmas
Oh the Thinks You Can Think
Oh the Places You'll Go
The Cat in the Hat
Horton Hears a Who
Horton Hatches an Egg
Gertrude McFuzz
McElligot's Pool
Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You Are?

and drops in pieces of:

If I Ran the Zoo
The Butter Battle Book
I Had Trouble Getting to Solla Sollew
Hunches in Bunches

It originally included The Lorax (featuring Eddie Korbitch), but that was cut out of town. I think the Grinch was cut from the tour, but I can't remember.

Updated On: 12/6/04 at 12:03 PM

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/6/04 at 3:25pm

Grinch was in the tour.

I don't consider that a side story in the show, though. He sings a slight verse, and that's it. Didn't harm anything.

I will have to re-read the other books.