SMASH Previews- Page 8

[ACL2006]

Posted: 3/15/25 at 7:07pm

Show is on tonight with three understudies. Couldn't see the names on the board from outside.

[steven22]

Posted: 3/15/25 at 7:34pm

Tonight (3/15): Katie Webber is on for Ivy and Chelle for Susan.

Updated On: 3/15/25 at 07:34 PM

[ACL2006]

Posted: 3/15/25 at 7:37pm

steven22 said: "Tonight (3/15):Katie Webber is on for Ivy and Chelsea for Susan."

There's also a swing on for Webber's track.

[parker russel]

Posted: 3/15/25 at 7:40pm

Also remember - with sets being a million times more intricate these days (much more so than the Pajama Game) there is also an element of danger of putting someone onto a stage with several motorized pieces moving quickly around in all variations of light.  I know of a story of someone in a Bway show who was WILLING to go on unrehearsed, with script in hand, but at the last minute everyone involved chose not to let them for fear of several trap door moments in the show. 

[itsahopi]

Posted: 3/15/25 at 8:14pm

VotePeron said: "That said, perhaps the contingency is to just cancel the show. Refund the money, hope the word of mouth isn’t affected, and move on. That’s what Gypsy seems to think. What a strange business this is."

I imagine shows have different insurance policies now. Especially for shows like GYPSY.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/15/25 at 8:26pm

Who is Chelsea? Or do you mean Chelle who has (I believe) gone on for Susan for every performance so far.

[steven22]

Posted: 3/15/25 at 9:38pm

QueenAlice said: "Who is Chelsea? Or do you mean Chelle who has (I believe) gone on for Susan for every performance so far."

Chelle, yes. Apologies (auto correct). 

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 3/15/25 at 10:49pm

Very eager to hear the Katie reports from tonight. She’s a consummate professional. 

[steven22]

Posted: 3/15/25 at 10:54pm

EDSOSLO858 said: "Very eager to hear the Katie reports from tonight. She’s a consummate professional."

Katie was wonderful. You can tell she’s a professional. I would not have known it was a last minute thing. She was wonderful! 

Updated On: 3/15/25 at 10:54 PM

[JSquared2]

Posted: 3/15/25 at 11:40pm

ACL2006 said: "steven22 said: "Tonight (3/15):Katie Webber is on for Ivy and Chelsea for Susan."

There's also a swing on for Webber's track."


Well, yeah…should Webber still be doing her own track as well as the lead role?? 

[ACL2006]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 9:14am

JSquared2 said: "ACL2006 said: "steven22 said: "Tonight (3/15):Katie Webber is on for Ivy and Chelsea for Susan."

There's also a swing on for Webber's track."


Well, yeah…should Webber still be doing her own track as well as the lead role??"

the swing that went on should have also been named, Libby Lloyd. Stroman made a speech at the start of the show that Webber got just 3 hours of rehearsal on Saturday to learn the role.

[theatergoer3]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 9:58am

Partial spoilers below 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I find it ironic that most comments on the book have issues with Chloe’s character and her arc or quickly lack thereof but in the show, she’s the breakout star who the social media audience clamors for. 

A lot of the proposals to fix the book here and on other forums would align better with the original and be more effective emotionally/dramatically. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 10:08am

Has Kristine Nielsen gone on yet?

[akhoya87]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 10:19am

This may prove to be a fiery hot take, but I actually thought the show worked quite well with Katie Webber.  You could not tell she had only three hours of rehearsal in the role.  Katie was entirely off-book, and was just absolutely terrific.  But setting all that aside, I actually like the idea of a veteran actor who's put in her time but losing a bit of her shine trying something new to fend off the threat of an ingenue usurping her role.  Caroline was the stronger vocal performer of the two (and so was, erm, the Act I closer), but I actually think that serves the story.  So I'm curious to see what this is like with Robyn Hurder.

The book is ... forgivably bad?  It's certainly funny, and refreshing compared to Boop (which I saw the other night, and which is strange because Bob Martin's behind both).  But this is very much a character-driven show, and the characters are woefully underdeveloped.  Who is the focal point?  Is it Ivy, who seems like an afterthought in her own show?  (Maybe that's the point, but then the afterthought's understudy is third fiddle.)  Is it Bombshell itself (maybe?)  I didn't even know Krysta Rodriguez and John Behlmann's characters were supposed to be married until about 40 minutes into the overly long Act I.  Do we need to spend so much time at Sardi's?  Does everyone need a plot?  

My biggest gripe is about the ending, which just felt cheap and lazy.  If the contrived, feel-good sing-along was meant to be a satirical snipe, they need to do a better job of setting it up.

Book sins aside, I had a good time, which is rare for me at new musicals these days.  Brooks Ashmanskas is doing the Lord's work with his comedic delivery.  Really, the entire cast turned what could've been tedious material into something palatable.  And all the reservations I had about Caroline Bowman disappeared when I saw her smash the hell out of They Just Keep Moving the Line -- you can feel every bit of Karen's emotions in that moment.  

There was also a moment earlier on in Act I where Krysta Rodriguez dropped to the floor -- couldn't tell whether that was intentional, or whether she lost her balance in a scene with John and Brooks.  (Once on the floor, Krysta had to cover her mouth to keep herself from exploding in laughter.)  If it wasn't intentional, both John and Brooks handled it exceptionally well -- John also dropped to the floor to mimic Krysta, and Brooks flawlessly played off that moment by delivering his next line while hovering over John's body.

The frenetic energy of putting on an understudy as a lead this early in previews really gave this performance a special quality that made the show eminently likable.  I easily could've walked out of there sour about all the things the show did wrong... but it worked.  It was broken, but it worked.  And it was entertaining, which is all we can ask for these days.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 10:41am

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Has Kristine Nielsen gone on yet?"

No.Chelle was on all week. Curious to see if Nielsen is on come Monday and if Robyn is back as well.

[LucyEth]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 12:58pm

Katie Webber was fantastic last night.  I haven't seen any videos of Hurder in the role so can't make a comparison, but with only three hours of prep (as Stro explained to the audience in her pre-curtain speech), Webber was pretty much flawless.  But more than that, really: it felt like a fully developed character, one that she'd been performing for months.  Job very much well done. 

As for the show...I highly doubt that anyone who didn't watch the series will care one iota.  And so much of the wacky, convoluted BS that made us all smack our heads and scream at the TV, "That would NEVER happen!!" is present in the book.  The Actors Studio plot line is so dated it has mildew, and the whole cupcake fiasco...It's a level of unsophisticated dreck that I'm shocked to see on a Broadway stage in this day and age.  I guess we're supposed to think of Smash as the kind of "cotton candy" musical that Nigel is hoping Bombshell will be.  But -- IMHO -- someone needs to read the room a little better.  It's 2025, the world is burning.  Some character should be explaining to us why we need a Marilyn Monroe musical 63 years after her death; what can her life and death teach us about the here and now?  (And the creatives should be telling us why we need a musical based on a failed TV series 13 years after it stopped airing.)  Someone should also explain to Martin and Elice that alcoholism stopped being funny with Foster Brooks on the Dean Martin show.  (They should tell that to Drag: The Musical as well.)

Let's face it, the whole Chloe subplot is only there so that Stro can say, "See, I don't just hire stick figures.  I put a plus sized woman in Smash, and I let her bring the house down at the end of Act One."  I agree that combining the Karen and Chloe roles (and changing the outcome of the "who gets to play Marilyn?" debate) would have made all the difference.  That would call for major reshaping and recasting (or out and out firing) at this point so I very much doubt it's going to happen.

And how incredibly weird is it that the director of Bombshell is the main character of Smash?!  Not Ivy, certainly not poor Karen (a complete cipher), not the writers (if I'm not mistaken Krysta Rodriguez has one song -- which she shares), but...Nigel?!  And Brooks is amazing, don't get me wrong.  This is finally his moment to take on a leading role and he shines.  But the shift in focus is not the kind of "look what we have up our sleeves" surprise that fans of the show were looking for.  In other news, the cast is uniformly solid (Kristine Nielsen was out, but I'm sure she's good as always); as others have noted, many of the numbers are snippets rather than full songs, which is disappointing (and only one new song in the bunch); the sets and costumes are...fine, if a little cheap looking (most of the time we're in a rehearsal room or backstage, so there's not much room for opulence). 

All that being said, I had a decent enough time.  Got the ticket on TDF, for which I'm grateful.  Bottom line: this poor man's The Producers retread is going to outrage fans of the original show, make neophytes and critics shrug, win no awards and disappear as quickly as New York, New York.  

[nativenewyorker2]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 1:09pm

Since Susan is an acting coach they should have found a way for her sing Dig Deep lol

[Speed]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 3:26pm

Understudies should be ready to go on without rehearsal.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 3:33pm

Speed said: "Understudies should be ready to go on without rehearsal."

No they shouldn't.

This isn't 1975 anymore.

A modern musical has large amounts of automation and holes in the floor and moving lights that require actors to do things in a precise way –– things that can only be honed in rehearsal. A show is structured around the bodies of the actors who originate the roles, and the understudies are learning their own tracks during that rehearsal period (if they're also in the ensemble).

Could Freddy in MY FAIR LADY go on without rehearsal without hurting himself or anyone else? Probably.

Should the dance-heavy lead role of a new musical do that? No. There's a lot more to understudying than merely knowing the lines/songs and a semblance of the blocking.

You are demonstrating a woeful ignorance about the theatre.

Updated On: 3/16/25 at 03:33 PM

[JSquared2]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 3:47pm

Speed said: "Understudies should be ready to go on without rehearsal."


That’s just….stupid. 

[Kad]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 4:59pm

Speed said: "Understudies should be ready to go on without rehearsal."

Would really love to hear how you think understudies should be ready to step into a production without ever rehearsing. 

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 3/16/25 at 6:22pm

Kad said: "Would really love to hear how you think understudies should be ready to step into a production without ever rehearsing."

Understudies need rehearsal and that rehearsal should happen before the first performance. If producers are now going to be charging full price for previews, they need to have the entire production ready by the first preview, and that includes the understudies. Period. This whole "we're selling this like a real performance" but "you can't expect us to have everything ready yet nor should you talk about how it's not ready because that's not fair to us" is absurd.