Senational News - Dreyfuss out and Nathan lane IN London Producers- Page 2

[leeinlondon]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 11:35am

I am going to see the show next Monday.. I am guessing this will be the first preview and that Friday and Saturday's show will be cancelled. Will post some thoughts here, I have seen it on Broadway but not with Nathan.

[JakeB]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 11:48am

Phew. Got my ticket for next Wednesday.

[Janki]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 12:09pm

Woohoo.... I'm in heaven......I couldn't be happier...Thank Godness.....(yeah it's from Everyones fav musical...Bite me!!!)

[HeartinNYC]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 2:20pm

Are people under the impression that Nathan is some sort of factory-created performing robot?? This man has been working practically non-stop, oftentimes with ill health, for far too long. I was really hoping he'd have a few months to himself to rest up before shooting the film version of TP.

Mel Brooks & Co. are slavedrivers. Period.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 2:23pm

I haven't heard of many slaves being paid $100,000/week. And it was HIS choice - he's not still under contract. He has plenty of money in the bank. If he didn't want to do it, he wouldn't do it.

[HeartinNYC]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 2:26pm

I think it sounds like it's more along the lines of - "Hey Nathan, look what we've done for you and how much you're going to make in the film version...we're in an AWFUL spot in the London production, so..."

Come on. Even Dreyfuss had reservations about his ability to do the role! And how convenient that the London production was scheduled to begin just after "The Frogs" closed.

[Princeton78]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 2:29pm

I think the underlying truth here is that the show has not been nearly as successful in subsequent stagings as it was in it's initial Broadway run. Mel isn't dumb, nor is Stro. After the Toronto, LA and Sydney companies didn't return the big bucks, they knew that to fill a theatre like the Drury Lane night after night (it's huge), they were gonna need a bona-fied star to do it and one they knew would deliver. The show is seriously over-hyped and in order to make it a hit in London, it needed Lane, Broderick or both. I'd rather see them forget about it and make that gorgeous theatre available for something like "Aida," "Wicked," or "Hairspray."
Just my 2 cents...

[SamIAm]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 2:40pm

rath: your post may seem logical on the surface, but I think for us to think that Lane had a choice is a bit naive. Yes, he could have said no but he is a pro and wouldn't do that...never has before when he's been asked to do things at the last minute (such as benefits etc.) No matter how much money they are paying him, he is still a human being and you can't discount the stamina issue in doing Max. I'm sure he's a big boy and wasn't handcuffed and dragged there, but the 'choice' in most cases like this comes down to being a trouper and Brooks knows how to twist arms when he needs to.

So the truth is that London will get a great Max and Lane will have to postpone his long overdue vacation even longer and possibly use his big pay check to pay his doctor bills when it's all over.

Hate to make it sound melodramatic but as HeartInNYC said, the man is NOT a machine and we sometimes forget what this work takes out of people.

I tip my hat to him for stepping in in a pinch but hope he remains in good health.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 2:42pm

"Mel Brooks & Co. are slavedrivers. Period."

Bulls-eye, Heart. Brooks is treating Nathan like Louis B. Mayer treated Judy Garland: "So? You've HAD a one-week vacation and you're STILL exausted? You've rested enough. June Allyson got pregnant and we NEED you opposite Astaire. NOW."

No wonder she later described herself as "A piece of meat that sings".

And Rath, I don't think it's as simple as that. Brooks is relentless and overbearing.

And I'm with you, Princeton. I'd rather they cancel the show for the time being and mount it later with Nathan and Matthew (or Lee) when the man is back to peak physical health.

Updated On: 10/18/04 at 02:42 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 2:49pm

The difference is that Garland was under contract. She had no choice. Let's stop acting like this is some poor schlub with some $20,000/year janitor job being taken advantage of. Lane has PLENTY of money and no legal obligation. He can do whatever he wants. This is HIS choice. Perspective is everything here.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 2:55pm

Rath, yes, you are right...Garland was under contract. And it's true, Nathan has no legal obligation to Brooks...

But....have you ever worked with Mel Brooks? :)

It's kinda like having a tapeworm....

[HeartinNYC]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 2:59pm

Rath, you're missing the point. Brooks knows how to pressure Nathan. Brooks knows how to take advantage of Nathan's natural tendencies to work his a** off and help when needed, even to his own detriment. You don't have to like Lane, but you cannot argue the fact that he is an exceptionally hard-working actor, and is the type that will put himself last on the list in order for the show to go on.

Brooks knows this. THAT is the point. And it's a very sad and sick one.

[capnkidd]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:14pm

lot of supposition here-has anyone forgotten how much time Nathan missed in The Producers the 1st time around-Nathan Lane's not doing anything Nathan Lane doesn't want to do-he owes Mel Brooks nothing...

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:17pm

Beautifully expressed, Heart.

[HeartinNYC]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:22pm

If you're close to the situation, you can connect the dots more easily. Trust me.

For the 1,000,000th time, the ONLY reason Nathan missed so many performances during the first run of the TP was that he had no VOICE. You can't perform that role without a voice, unless you try charades, which would really be a problem for those in the mezzanine seats.

It continues to baffle me how people are so quick to condemn Lane over what was a very serious vocal chord problem. It's not good enough that he's performed with sprained ankles, flu, broken bones --- not to mention the severe injuries he experienced during the run of "The Frogs" this year?? How much more does this guy have to give to earn peoples' respect??

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:30pm

I have TONS of respect for Mr. Lane, believe me. I once worked on a benefit where he was supposed to co-host with Rosie - she pulled out at the last second with some lame excuse of "too much on my plate," and he stepped in to cover.

All I'm saying is, he's going to do a job in a great city, for a ridiculous amount of money, in a role he's already learned and enjoys. I think most of us would jump at the opportunity to build up our nest eggs in the same way. It is his choice. He is not under contract, and Brooks may be a total bully - we don't know - but there is definitely worse "bullying" than this situation, if indeed that's what it is. It's three months - not three years.

[capnkidd]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:45pm

Heart,
Do I take it from "close to the situation",that you are a personal friend?You're awfully sensitive on the subject.No matter-I have been close enough to the situation to repeat...Nathan Lane's not doing anything Nathan Lane doesn't want to do.I am aware of his vocal problems,& you were really quick to read that I was "condemning" him,when I was simply pointing out his absences.If anyone could charade Max,it would be Nathan,and not just to the mezz-clear to the back row.
An aside-when did he perform w/broken bones? Updated On: 10/18/04 at 03:45 PM

[HeartinNYC]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:57pm

Capnkidd, I wasn't aiming at you personally regarding the condemning remarks about Lane. I was speaking more to the general public (particularly this board) that is so quick to jump on the "he's never in the show" bandwagon. Didn't mean to personally offend you - I just become livid when people hammer away at him when it's quite obvious he works his tail off.

Lane performed with a broken leg during two productions in the 1980's - "Merlin" and "On Borrowed Time".

[SamIAm]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:57pm

Really NOT much supposition, thanks. And you were quick to point out his absences in spite of the fact that he is doing THIS which shows again what a trouper he is.

His absences were, not to beat a dead horse, due to serious vocal problems.

He IS a big boy and can make his own decisions but Brooks does have a tendency to push people and to get what HE needs in spite of what others might need and just because Lane is a pro and said 'yes' doesn't make it right. I think that's all Heart is trying to say

[capnkidd]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:59pm

Heart,
was not at all offended,just puzzled by your vehemence...thanks for the info...

[JakeB]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:58pm

Just to step in here - Nathan Lane is not the sell-out star he is on Broadway. My parents have no idea who he is, and a quick ask round my friends points to 'not a clue'. He's not a household name in any way and theatregoing in England is not the 'queue for 5 hours for tickets' trend as it is in America.

[capnkidd]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 5:34pm

Sam,
sorry I missed your post-to clarify-the supposition is that mel brooks is somehow coercing Nathan into doing the london production...and unless you know otherwise for a fact,that's all it is-suppostion.
Absences due to vocal problems=deceased equine,please.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 5:59pm

Capn: Deceased equine is fine with me. I was answering YOUR post and you brought up his absences, not me.

As for someone else posting that he's not a household name in the U.K...that is true but I doubt that was as much a concern to Brooks et al as finding someone to jump in at the last minute and still be able to open in previews and who better than Lane?

This whole thing is a bit sad since Dreyfuss was a long shot from the beginning and dare I say, they wouldn't be in this scramble if they had made a better casting decision?

As for supposition: one of the main reasons that people on these boards DON'T talk about what they know if because when they do they are either told they are making things up or they are asked to provide a notarized certificate of truth.

In the case of Brooks being tireless when it comes to what he wants, there is no supposition OR need to certify knowledge. This is well known in the industry and anyone who has worked with or around him will attest to that. I LOVE his work but he is a bit of a barking dog when it comes to getting what he wants.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 6:04pm

Dreyfuss did his " Donna Murphy" routine in "Sly Fox". Now this. Perhaps he gave up on movies a mite too soon. It will be awhile before he hits the boards again.

I suggest either he trys to get another movie gig or go back to TV. He was on the tube a few seasons ago in " The Education of Max Bickford" It was entertaining & naturally was cancelled. Try TV again, Richard

Updated On: 10/18/04 at 06:04 PM

[capnkidd]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 6:14pm

sam,
*sigh*
His absences were a fact-that's why I brought them up.
They could yank anybody out of the touring companies to jump in last minute,and anybody's a better choice if Nathan's in such need of rest.And I'm certainly not accusing you of making things up,and if you say you KNOW that Nathan's pushed into this,I not only won't ask for a certificate,I won't even ask how you know.Until then,it is all just(pummelling deceased equine)suppostition.I am pretty sure I know Nathan would have no trouble silencing a barking dog.
You guys are so sensitive!