Sit-downs in LA and Chicago- Page 2

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 7:00am

Cheers for all your wisdom it is certainly intriguing.

2 questions: How long did Sunset Boulevard play LA? Where is the Shubert Theatre has it closed or renamed?

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 7:07am

The entire regular Center Theatre Group season and all subsequent Ahmanson subscriber seasons for the next few years were suddenly "homeless" because of the unprecedented run of Phantom of the Opera. As a result, they were moved to the James A. Doolittle Theatre in Hollywood for (what was known as) "Ahmanson at the Doolittle." I don't think any "financial help" was given or needed for Phantom's run after the initial subscriber-based season.

The run for 'Sunset" wasn't long because Webber shut it down (fairly abruptly) to move the cast to NY. Only 369 performances.

He was definitely extravagant with some of his business decisions.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 7:15am

Forgot the last part of your question ...

The Shubert Theatre (Los Angeles) was located in Century City (formerly the back lot of 20th Century Fox, which was largely sold off to business developers in 1963 after the debacle known as "Cleopatra" flopped big-time at the box office and almost shut the studio down for good). Century City is located just west of Beverly Hills.

I saw many productions there ... from the pre-Broadway runs of Ragtime, Mamma Mia, and Sunset Blvd. to the sit-down of Beauty and the Beast. Les Miz played there as well.

It's where the taping was done for the Lansbury/Hearn Sweeney Todd (available on DVD).

The Shubert was demolished in 2002.

EDIT: I also saw shows there that never made it to NY, including "Durante" a multi-million-dollar musical bio about Jimmy Durante (played beautifully by Lonnie Price). The show was good ... but not great. The production was first-rate and clearly a lot of money had been spent.

Updated On: 5/26/12 at 07:15 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 7:31am

Wicked had a weird run. It opened first as a limited run at the Pantages with Stephanie Block, Kendra Kassebaum, David Garrison, and Carol Kane. That production closed and went to San Francisco. It was announced that a sit-down production was coming.

So the sit-down was actually the second time the show played Los Angeles. I saw it the first time, with Block and Kassebaum.

[lemiz1862]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 4:19pm

Actually Best12, the taping for the Hearn/Lansbury Sweeney was filmed at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, where First National Tour closed August 1981. The bits where you can hear/see the audience were filmed while the show was running, while the bulk of the show was filmed immediatly after the tour closed.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 6:43pm

The Dorothy Chandler?! Sorry for the brain fart!

I should know better! I saw the pre-Broadway Gypsy with Tyne Daly and the pre-Broadway revival of Fiddler with Topol there (back to back) in 1989. For some reason, the few wide shots they had of the house looked like the Shubert to me.

(Not that either theatre had remarkable interior decor.)

My bad.

Updated On: 5/26/12 at 06:43 PM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 6:54pm

Best, what was the better theatre in LA?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 7:01pm

I'm pretty sure BoM is doing a sit-down in Chicago and then launching the 2NT from there.

http://www.investorscopes.com/Jumamosi-Tour-Limited-Partnership/D/11764056.aspx

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 7:17pm

rosscoe(au)---I've seen so many shows at the Ahmanson, that I would say that's the best. Although, because it's on the larger side, I recommend sitting in the first half of the orchestra or mezzanine. The top balcony is in a different Zip code, but if you're cool with that, you can usually see shows fairly cheaply.

The Shubert (as I recall) was a pain without any center aisles at all. Just one long row of seats in the orchestra, stretching all the way from side to side. It was great sitting dead-center, unless you, or someone next to you, had to get up to use the bathroom. I may be "brain farting" about this again, but I think the Chandler, at least back in the '80s, had the same long rows.

For sound, all three were comparable. I also think I have a fondness for the Ahmanson because of all the great shows I saw there: Phantom, Drowsy (pre-Broadway), Curtains (pre-Broadway), Carousel, Into the Woods, Miss Saigon, Doubt, An Inspector Calls, The Dead, and so many others.

The James A. Doolittle in Hollywood is really the perfect size. I saw the Most Happy Fella there (with the two pianos), plus Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Glenda Jackson, John LIthgow, Cynthia Nixon), both were deferred from the Ahmanson series when Phantom extended for years and years. Many other shows as well.

For sheer beauty, the Pantages is unmatched. It's like a slightly smaller Radio City Music Hall. Grand Art-Deco style. But the sound is very hit-and-miss, depending on where you sit in the theatre. I saw Wicked there, Lion King, West Side Story, Guys and Dolls, etc. Again, many others. It always takes my breath away ... then I wonder if I'll actually be able to hear when I take my seat.

Updated On: 5/27/12 at 07:17 PM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 7:46pm

Sadly never saw anything at the Shubert, Saw Chicago last night at the Pantages. And yes it is a stunning theatre, a bit of a barn.

And speaking of Chicago, Christie Brinkley was at least watchable in the show and not the train wreck I was expecting. Ended up sitting side Orc and the view was fine if a little far back.

Catching Addams Family Wednesday week

[My Oh My]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 7:55pm

As a long time Les Angeles theatre-goer, I still pout and am bitter when the magnificent Shubert Theatre is mentioned. It was, without a doubt, the best place to see a show in Los Angeles. That's where my life changed after seeing a performance of Les Miserables there in 1989. Btw, Les Mis also had a sit-down run in L.A. that lasted 14 months. That production was said to have been custom built for L.A.'s Shubert which means it was initially not going to be a tour. I guess either the long run in L.A. or the projected similar long run in San Francisco (moved to the Curran in November, 1989 and closed in January, 1991) changed that. It was nicknamed the "Fantine" or Cosette" company. I'm pretty sure it was "Fantine" but it's the one Les Mis fact I can't seem to get confirmed. I'm sure there are old cast members here who read these boards...HALP! LOL.

Anyway, the production was also known as the 2nd U.S. national tour. It wasn't built to tour but the original production of Les Mis was actually not too difficult to mount since the show utilized its own stage deck with all the mechanics included. Nothing in the hosting theatre had to be gutted or upgraded.

Phantom played L.A. for 4 and a half years. The final performance actually made the front page of the L.A. Times. I still have my copy. L.A. was really sad to see Phantom go and its many returns were never the same because they did not have that wonderful company. They truly were a likable bunch with talent to spare. They were INCREDIBLY sweet to everyone at the stage door. Gaines spoke to my sister and I as if we had known him all of our lives and Dale was surprisingly timid the one time I met her.

Ahhhhhhh...that was 20 yeeears ago!!! It'll be time for hip replacement soon!!!111!!!1

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 8:14pm

Oh, it was the Fantine company. The other was Valjean and the 3NT was Marius.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 8:19pm

Toronto's a theatre city that intrigues as it receives the National tours but also brings has productions either locally or from the West End, the Sound of Music transferred to Toronto as it the upcoming production of The Wizard of Oz, I wonder why other cities in the US like LA, Chicago etc don't try that or would it be too expensive to host a show that isn't bound for Broadway or a stop on a tour.

The Pantages looks a beautiful theatre judging from pictures, do tours tend to go there or do CTG compete for shows as well?

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 9:29pm

Most other cities in the US just don't have the audience to sustain a truly extended run. Some of the mega-hits have been able to do up to three months or so, but anything beyond that is stretching it. Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco have enough of a tourist trade that they can still support those long sit downs. But the small tourism industry in a place like Cleveland, for instance, is focused much more on things like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or the sports teams (though sports in Cleveland is as hit and miss as theatre is there).

[keb2]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 10:01pm

Regarding sound at the Pantages, one of the worst aural theater experiences I've had was there (on a technical level, not talking about the performers' singing ability, as it's irrelevant in this case). For Come Fly Away, they cranked up the volume so loud I walked out of the theater slightly deafened. It was really quite unpleasant.

Jonwo, the Pantages gets most of the tours that are doing short stops (like a week or two), and the Ahmanson, with some exceptions, gets the longer sit-downs (like 1-2 months) and theater-specific shows (e.g. Follies, which afaik isn't "touring" to anywhere else, Leap of Faith, theoretically Funny Girl). The Ahmanson has far fewer shows per season, but in my experience (which, granted, is just over the past two years), it tends to get better productions that those at the Pantages—or maybe I've just seen so many more disappointing shows at the Pantages that, as a whole, their shows seem worse, as even the worst shows at the Ahmanson are better than most of the shows I've seen at the Pantages (though ITH with Lin-Manuel Miranda, the non-Eq Spring Awakening tour, and Burn the Floor were all quite enjoyable and at the Pantages—but also all over a year ago).

The Ahmanson hasn't announced its 12-13 season yet beyond Anything Goes and Over the Rainbow, but the Pantages will have Book of Mormon, the pre-Broadway tour or whatever of Jekyll & Hyde, and then some first-run tours of mediocre shows and longer-running tours of other shows (for their shows from now until next summer, see: http://www.broadwayla.org/production/)

[My Oh My]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 10:49pm

I've lived in Los Angeles all of my life so for me this schizo, convoluted way of life is the norm and owning a car is like DUH. Wanna have your legs cut off? Don't own one!

Still, Los Angeles to me is about the most unfriendly place for long runs there is because that "marquee advertisement" benefit that New York's Times Square brings and the luxury of having all the shows and all the theatres within one, giant, overlit clusterf*ck for the senses aids in luring weary tourists who might never even consider seeing a musical, into their auditoriums and valuable butts in seats.

Los Angeles for a tourist is a nightmare and you will spot a handful of them around the Music Center, mostly in the day time because you'd have to be quite the er...adventurous type to walk in downtown L.A. at night. Hollywood Blvd. has been attempting to mimic NYC's Times Square and it has been paying off with tourists making it THE spot to stay at and play in with the necessary day trips to fragmented L.A. neighboring attractions. L.A. isn't like NYC or London where there are a myriad of choices to get from point A to point God knows where. Here, you better make damn sure there are waiting cabs every place you wish to travel to or else, you'd literally be stranded.

Advice to all of you travelling to L.A. for the first time to see Follies or for any reason...

...PLAN YOUR TRANSPORTATION AHEAD OF TIME.

Know exactly what your choices are, the hours they operate, the cost, and don't hitch hike--this isn't 1971!

Especially to those staying in downtown L.A.--unless you want to be bored staring out of your hotel window, plan your nights well because immediately outside most hotels is a ghost town where only the homeless lurk. Contrary to popular belief, the homeless around this area are extremely friendly but I still wouldn't recommend hanging out and crashing their cardboard pads. But be very, very careful anywhere closer to the bordering neighborhoods late at night.

For those of you not a part of the BWW8, and are party animals, I'd suggest you skip downtown as a place to stay and go for West Hollywood. West Hollywood is gayer than gay is gay and your lavender peeps gather on Santa Monica Blvd. (between San Vicente Blvd. and N. La Cienega Blvd.) and party the night away. Well, until every bar and club closes at 2 a.m. anyway, grr. Many a queen can be had around those parts but unless you fancy shemale harlots and tweaky gay for pay further up Santa Monica Blvd. is a no gooooooo. I live in this joint so have no need to stay at L.A. hotels but I have stayed in and recommend the Bonaventure Hotel in downtown just for the schizo experience (the architecture and layout will have your head spinning), the Radisson in West Hollywood (has possibly been renamed since but its across the street from that gym, argh name escapes me), and a little place I stayed in years ago and would again if I had a reason to is San Vicente Inn, an ideal place for the partier who wishes to hang out at the top bars and clubs in L.A.--they are all a few minutes away as well as the entire WeHo gay scene. And if you're really feeling hot, no worries because it's clothing optional. Nothing like airing it all out, LOL. It's been a while so maybe it has changed but here's their official site: http://www.thesanvicenteinn.com/

Transportation is something most people worry about once they're at their destination. Don't be a fool and plan ahead for L.A. and get ready for an adventure! Los Angeles is the type of city where you have to find the beauty of it all. Part of L.A. culture is travel and we spend a considerable amount of time in our cars each day. So embrace the raod and L.A. will embrace you!

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 10:52pm

I live in LA and personally I think The Ahmanson is way better than The Pantages.
One: The Ahmanson is a lot cheaper. The best seats usually cost less than 100, that's because CTG is a non-profit so donors pay a lot of the "background" fees that productions go through.

Two: It also has (IMO) the better quality productions. I've seen some of my favourites there like: Spring Awakening (1st nat'l equity tour), Next to Normal (with Alice Ripley), The History Boys, Frost/Nixon, and many others. The Pantages tends to go for the more commercial hits and blockbuster like Wicked (3 times), WSS, now The Book of Mormon.

Three: I think that the Ahmanson has a better seat setup. I saw Hairspray at the Pantages and I was in the mezzanine and to the side and it had terrible sight lines. I saw Next to Normal at The Ahmanson in the rear of the Balcony all the way to right (and they had opened up the last ten rows for this show which they don't always do) and I could see everything extremely well. It seems like they're terrible seats but I don't mind being up there and the seats usually cost $20 for this section.

Four: Center Theatre Group is big on education and bringing in new theater-goers. They have free student performances for many of their productions. I've seen so many shows in great seats that I never would have been able to afford because of CTG's programs.

Five: Depending on personal preference, I think The Ahamnson is a better looking theatre. The Pantages is more classic theatre design. Like the Paris Opera House style, while The Ahmanson has a modern design.

I go to school in Santa Barbara now and whenever I drive out of or into LA I always make sure to catch a glimpse of The Ahmanson, just because I love it so much.

[Idiot]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 11:03pm

My favorite house in LA is hands down the Taper. The shows are hit or miss, but they have launched some great material (Angels in America).

[kipster]

Posted: 5/26/12 at 11:11pm

There is an interesting thread in the Toronto board about sit downs there in the 90s. At the time there were many enormous runs (including Phantom for nearly ten years), and there's a good discussion about why Toronto can't sustain that sort of thing nowadays (a lot has to do with Livent fraud back then). Anyways, it's a good read about the history of sit downs there.
90s Toronto Theatre Scene

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/27/12 at 7:48am

I would say if you were in Los Angeles it's advantageous to have a car, as getting round the city is very hard and having a car allows you to drive down Mulhouse Drive, which is lovely.

Considering the population of Los Angeles and the wealth there, I am surprised it hasn't got a bigger and more vibrant theatre scene?

[humbugfoto]

Posted: 5/27/12 at 11:21am

It's "Mulholland" Drive, and yes, on a clear day it's pretty spectacular. And with strict air quality laws we have a lot more clear days than we did 30 years ago.

Los Angeles is and always has been an industry town - the film and TV industry, and that has always somewhat curtailed the growth of theater in LA. But that being said, LA DOES have a large and vibrant theater scene. It's just not concentrated in one area like in New York. You have to go looking for it. And a lot of it is small, equity-waiver theaters. There's a tremendous, thriving small-theater scene in NoHo (North Hollywood, centering on Magnolia and Lankershim, and readily accessible by the subway). There is (or at least used to be) another pocket of theaters in the West LA/Santa Monica area. Major theaters range from Pasadena to Westwood to Thousand Oaks to Long Beach, and many places in between.

The Los Angeles Times devotes it's Wednesday edition of the Calendar section (that's our Arts section) to theater and live performances - on that day the movie ads are tiny and relegated to the back of the section. Every week it seems the section gets bigger and bigger.

Theater is alive and well and thriving in LA, you just have to know where to find it (and be willing and able to travel to it). And when you do, I think it's all that much more rewarding.

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 5/27/12 at 12:14pm

Best12: Stephanie J. Block, Kendra Kassebaum, David Garrison, and Carol Kane were all in the original touring company of Wicked. The tour played LA, before it got a sit down production. The LA sit down opened with Megan Hilty, and Eden Espinosa in the leads.

The same thing happened in Chicago. SJB and Kendra Kassebaum played Chicago as a tour stop, and then a sit down was created.

Also, I never really understood why there were short "sit down" productions of The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee in Boston, Chicago, and San Fran. Updated On: 5/27/12 at 12:14 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/27/12 at 1:24pm

Interesting little tidbit. I believe the seats for the Kirk Douglas Theater (in Culver City, and affiliated with the Center Theater Group that has the Ahmanson and Taper) uses seats from the long gone (but not forgotten) Shubert Theater. I loved the Shubert, and was horrified that it was demolished. But, take a bit of solace that a part of it lives on in the Kirk Douglas theater.

The Kirk Douglas is a much smaller house, and is often used for smaller, experimental shows. It is a local landmark, converted from one of the old time movie theaters (the Culver Theater, where I actually worked as a kid when it was converted into a triplex theater).

They have kept the historic facade/outside, and totally redone the inside in amazing fashion.

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 5/27/12 at 3:12pm

I LOVE the Kirk Douglas! It has such great plays. Some that have gone on to better things. Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo had a production there (not sure if it was the first). I also saw the world premiere of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson there (which was great, especially for this size theatre. I love all of the Center Theatre Group houses. They are all just wonderful!!!

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/27/12 at 5:13pm

Just a slight correction because otherwise I second best12bars' remarks above on LA theaters.

But the Pantages isn't "slightly smaller" than Radio City Music Hall, it's half the size. The Pantages has somewhat fewer than 3,000 seats while Radio City is about 6,000.