Susan Egan seems a bit old to play Millie. Dontcha think?
Posted: 12/12/03 at 3:09pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 3:15pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 3:23pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 3:27pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 3:36pm

I agree that the picture on that site is horrible...
Here's one that hopefully will change people's minds.
Posted: 12/12/03 at 3:56pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 4:00pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 4:10pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 4:14pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 4:17pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 4:33pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 4:49pm
Really? First of all, although I think a lot of the critics thought Sutton was hard-working, I don't remember them being out-and-out raves (perhaps some). Secondly, I can't imagine that the major critics are going to come back to see MILLIE with Susan Egan as the replacement. She's not a big enough name and the show isn't regarded highly enough for that to happen.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Posted: 12/12/03 at 4:57pm
we shall see, I suppose...
Posted: 12/12/03 at 5:04pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 5:12pm
Although I heard wonderful things about her Sally, did critics re-review it for her or was it just time to re-review or was there a big name coming in as the Emcee? I don't even remember the re-review of that time period.
My other question (and I truly don't mean this to sound snarky) is:
Is it customary for critics who gave it a mixed-to-negative review (a la Brantley) to go back and rereview if it's not a huge star coming in? Truly just wondering.
Posted: 12/12/03 at 5:19pm
I don't remember the reason Cabaret was re-reviewed to be honest..just that it was. I don't think ANY reviewer is ever obligated to re-review or even really review a show..are they?
While I agree someone who gave the show a tepid review the first time might not be inclined to review it again.. with a fresh lead, they might be more inclined to revisit it (or you could argue inclined to still not care)
Susan's status as a star or not a star I think plays second to the fact that the show has been on bway for what, 2 years about and the lead has always been Sutton.. so with a new lead, that is "news" - whoever is stepping in.
Sorry for the ambiguity...
Posted: 12/12/03 at 5:33pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 6:16pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 6:20pm
Sutton didn't get unanimous raves. Major critics touted her talent yet thought her performance too self-conscious and in-your-face.
But doesn't a show built around a fresh-faced ingenue need ... an ingenue--who's truly fresh?
More critically, does anyone think Susan Egan -- barely out of her black nail polish when she puts on the flapper duds -- will be a potent draw? I love B'way using its own, but Egan's had maximum exposure--and her moment as virginal Millie might've been shortly after BELLE.
Most people here are too young to remember, but NO, NO, NANETTE had this issue. They were looking for a "Susan Watson" type -- because wholesome soubrette Watson -- the Egan of the 60s, having been in FANTASTIKS, etc -- was too old for Nanette. Well, on the road they fired their "Susan Watson type" -- Carol Demas -- and hired the 35ish Watson herself. It was her last major appearance, and she got away with it because the show also had Helen Gallagher, Ruby Keeler, Bobby Van, Patsy Kelly. Maybe MILLIE's the same, now that its deck is stacked with real draws (theater and TV names) Uggams and Burke.
To me, finding a NEW Sutton would've been better for the biz, better for the show. Better even for Egan? Wasn't Sally a chance to tell b'way she'd grown up, wasn't anymore a blushing Nanette/Millie? If I were her agent, I'd tell Egan to move on, and play ... a woman.
Updated On: 12/12/03 at 06:20 PM
Posted: 12/12/03 at 7:31pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 7:35pm
Posted: 12/12/03 at 7:58pm
BroadwayWorld TV