Shows that over time lost their "spark" — Page 2

BroadMagTech said: "What do you think it takes to reinvigorate a long running show? Cast, move theatres? What they do in London is they often replace the cast members all at once.



"

This is so smart and Broadway should follow suit, the only problem I see is the cost. I don't know if this is the case in London, but cost to rehearse that many people for two would be tremendous. You have the new salary of the old ensemble on top of the new ensemble. It would be a nightmare. Maybe the can do half the cast leaves at a time.

I haven't seen Phantom in years, but is Hal Prince still doing his annual "checking ins" with the NY and London productions? For a long time--whatever one thinks of the show--I think that helped keep it feeling fresh, at least as fresh as a 1980s megamusical could be.

Not quite the same thing, but I remember many online complained that the A Chorus Line revival never felt fresh (how was it at the end of its initial run?) I saw the revival tour with Gruber and thought it was alive and vibrant--and perhaps a better cast (admittedly with, at the time, lesser known names and some no-names) then what I had seen of the Broadway revival.

MichelleCraig said: "I don't think shows lose their "spark"...I think that sometimes the casts lose the spark they had when they first inhabited the roles. I know this isn't always the case...but there is that famous story of Cameron Mackintosh going into a Broadway performance of LES MISERABLES and letting the entire cast go, close the show, recast it...all because he witnessed how stale it had gotten. He also realized there had been cast members that had originally been bought on in children's roles, that were still performing them like 10 years later...or something like that.



"

If only CamMac continued to show such passion for his productions. His current trend of hiring, at low wages, tour directors of his big hits to "re-imaging" them and claiming he wanted a fresh perspective (ie a cheaper one) on them seems to show he feels he has nothing left to offer the theatre.

In regards to Phantom, when I saw the show almost...two years ago now with Norm Lewis in the lead, and I thought it was phenomenal. I think part of the problem with that show isn't necessarily the show or production itself, but rather the cast. Before Norm stepped in, Hugh Panaro was the lead; he was one of the long runners who did the show on and off for years, and I've heard reports that he seemed a bit tired and bored with the part by the time he was ready to finish. I find that, when new cast members step in who bring their own spins to the parts, the show seems to get back a quite a bit of its old "spark." That's why I think they need to start consistently bringing in brand new Phantoms instead of hiring back the same old ones every couple years.

The Lion king and Aladdin

I see Phantom and Chicago 5 or 6 times a year and I am always ready to pounce on the first sign of long-run-itis and I have yet to see it. My beloved productions of Rent and Les Miz (original and both revivals) lost their spark.

But looking through this thread made me wonder what people mean when they say a show has lost its spark. That an actor had a blank stare on his face when he should have been animated? That a dancer threw his hands half way up instead of all the way up? That an actor slowly walked offstage instead of vigorously jogging offstage?

I am often in the front row of Chicago and I'm always looking at the actors faces to see signs of boredom or to see if a certain dance was done with less polish and I simply have yet to see it.

With Phantom, I was astonished this past February when so many of the props and costumes were replaced with new versions. To someone who sees the show every couple months for years now, it was quite a change. I sure hope that Phantom's producers don't read this thread and attempt to change any of their classic effects to some trendy cornball new tech thing. One of the coolest things about the effects is the ooohs and aaahs they still generate. Every single show? No way. But I would say every other show I go to has people gasping audibly at the masquerade scene, at the gunshots, when Raoul jumps into the trap door, and of course when the pyrotechnics come out of the stage.

I think it's easy to see any show, even (GASP) HAMILTON and say that it lacked energy, it was stale, the actors were bored, etc. I think most people who have that perception of a show have it before they even sit down, and they just convince themselves that that's what they are seeing.

For Rent, I could say that it lacked energy and it got stale, but that would be just as useless as these other comments. What would be better is to say that I saw actors go out of character and have side conversations during key dramatic scenes, such as Angel's death and La Vie Boheme. I also saw Mimi sing a very subdued and quiet Out Tonight. I saw the chorus members not lean forward during the title song. Little things like that can add up. I would love to hear specific feedback about that in Chicago or Phantom so I could know to look for it when I see them again. In 3 weeks

Call_me_jorge said: "The Lion king and Aladdin



"

I think Aladdin is still okay, considering James Monroe Iglehart was and still is the entire show, and he is still killing it. I wonder what they'll do when he moves on.

I wouldn't say "Chicago" had lost its spark. Things have changed over the years mostly due to Gary Chryst re-creation of Reinkings choreography. I've watched the show countless times everyone always gives 100%.

Example Donna Marie Asbury has been with the show since - well first I saw was 1998 - to this day gives a performance likes its her first time.

I cannot believe that Chicago and Jersey Boys are still running. I have seen each several times over the years but not in about 5-6 years. I remember thinking the last time that they would close soon since they were nowhere near as good, Chicago bordering on awful.

Kinky Boots is beat. Those queens are half assing it and the score doesn't hold up without palpable energy.

Bettyboy72 said: "Kinky Boots is beat. Those queens are half assing it and the score doesn't hold up without palpable energy.



"Could it be gone by the end of the year?

I've seen Chicago 5 times. The 4th time I saw it I almost fell asleep. It was terrible. Seemed like the cast was marking EVERYTHING. Only went back a few years later because it seemed like a large amount of the veteran cast members had left & I decided to revisit it. Such a difference, great energy, strong vocals.



Oh, and Phantom needed to close about 5 years ago. Very stale. Haven't heard positive reviews about the show in a while outside of Norm Lewis.

Updated On: 5/12/16 at 11:19 PM

BroadMagTech said: "Marlothom said: "Related to the loss of "spark" some long running shows don't hold up well due to tech advancements. I saw Phantom for the second time a few years back (after seeing it as a kid) and there was very little magic. I wondered if there was a way to take advantage of new technology and update some of the stunts but then I figured it's probably not worth it to producers.

"That's the big question isn't it. How far should directors go to reinvigorate a show. Casting changes happen all the time. I think that some of the effects in Phantom could be updated but without changing the effect itself. By that I mean they should add a few more bells and whistles. Maybe increase the speed of the chandler. Bring Hal Prince back in to do a bit of tweaking. I ask myself how far should they go to keep something fresh. Chicago is going to update their costumes. Getting back to my point, I think that Phantom needs something to give it new energy. "

The chandelier unfortunately is at it's maximum speed. It can go faster, but NYC law won't allow it to out of safety concerns. (Which is insane, because it does fall much faster in London, Germany, Japan, etc. Clearly it can be done safely.) Hal also does stop in twice a year for a day or two of rehearsals. The problem at Phantom is the casting lately. I became a fan of the show just before its 23rd anniversary, and got to see it at its best at the 10,000th and 25th anniversaries. Since that time period, I've seen it once a year or so for the past two years, and it is just painful to watch, with 80% of the cast not caring, or just not acting. James Barbour makes it tough to watch, because he brings no excitement to the role. He's not scary, he's not romantic, he's just there, which is just not a way that role can be performed. Last time I went, out of the nine lead/supporting lead roles in the show, only Carlotta (Michele McConnell) really felt like she was working to give the audience a great show, which I give her so much credit for since she's been in the role for something like four or five years now, and is still fun to watch, unlike some of the leads who have been there two or three years, who can't be bothered to emote.

I don't think the show needs to close simply for those reasons, but it's becoming incredibly clear that they need to do some cast changes to keep it interesting and fresh.