Sweet Charity and the sharks

For those of you who support the show and intend to follow through on your statements that you'd like to see it in NY, buy tickets now. The only way the show will make it to NY is if the advance is good.

Poor out of town notices and the back stage drama will mean nothing if there is money in the till at the end of the day.

I personally think the back stage drama is more interesting than the show itself, but that is my opinion.

Supports of the show - put your money where your mouth (or keyboard) is and help the show by buying tickets.

---

I wish it the best...i just feel they've made some BAD choices *getting rid or Solange Sandy!--the ending too!* and it doesn't look good.

But i wish it the best!

---

Got my tickets already...and am praying they will still be good come April. I don't personally care WHO is Charity...both actresses would make me get out and see the show.

So yes....buy the tickets now if you do intend to support the show!

---

I have written repeatedly that I would be one of the last people on earth wanting this production to fail. It is employing many people.

As Justme2 pointed out, I have written already on this Board, a number of times, about the dismal experience I had seeing the 1980s revival. I have been hoping that something would be done to improve upon this show, which was never successful with the critics or the box office. The original production received lukewarm response from the critics who recognized that the show was a vehicle to showcase the talents of Gwen Verdon.

It does have a couple of great numbers with, HEY BIG SPENDER and IF MY FRIENDS COULD SEE ME NOW.

I wish they had scrapped the book, the direction and the choreography WITH the exception of the magnificentally staged HEY BIG SPENDER. Then I wish they had added some great songs from the Cy Coleman treasure chest of songs and taken out some of the weaker songs in the show.

Readers of this Board know I love Cy Coleman, I am passionate about Neil Simon and I think Fosse helped create masterpieces more than once.

The basic story does have a certain charm to it, doesn't it? The classic, "hooker with the heart of gold," etc....

Anyway, I am truly saddened by what the professional critics have been saying about this revival. I take no joy being "right" or "able to predict" in this situation.

---

It's always interesting to me how theatre talk inevititably discredits people who either overly praise a production (shill!) or pan a production (shark!) before a Broadway opening.

I hope that SWEET CHARITY opens and creates a sensation. The truth is -- that the majority of word of mouth and most reviewers say the show is piddling to lousy.

Sounds like fair "shark bait" to me.

Perhaps one of the things that attracts those of us in the business to the art of the theatre is the entire process of it. You raise 7.4 million dollars, get a group of top level talent, directors and designers into a rehearsal hall, and what comes out six weeks later is either a masterpiece, an embarressment, a so-so achievement -- whatever the end result -- an unknown quantity on that first day of rehearsal.

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to see the flaws in a show like CARRIE or MOOSE MURDERS after the fact, and even easier to ask -- "How did that project ever get made? It had disaster written all over it! It could never have worked!!"

But obviously somebody, indeed a lot of somebodys, thought it could work. Nobody writes something to fail, and nobody produces a show with the aim to lose money.

Its all a mixed bag -- I mean on paper, how could a concept as bizarre as EVITA possibly succeed, and such a sure thing as BIG fail?

That very question is why we all circle the new shows and the new revivals. Its a fascinating science.

And for the record, there have been pretty few shows the sharks circled, where they weren't warranted.

In the case of SWEET CHARITY, there was every reason why the show could have succeeded, perhaps thats what makes it's troubled journey all the more scintilating.

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 01:49 PM

I've already got a ticket so here's my two cents...

This show costs $7.5 million to produce. The Weisslers would be insane to lose everything if the show isn't working, which obviously is the case at this time. If they feel it has to close, then so be it. They seem to have severly miscalculated by signing Christina Applegate for this revival. Even if she didn't get injured, it's questionable if she had the chops for this role--one which was originated by Gwen Verdon, let's not forget. Big shoes to fill.

Let's hope the Weisslers are more careful with their projects in the future.

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 02:07 PM

Christina Applegate really wasn't the problem with this show. Whether she would have been as good as Verdon in the role is a moot point (would ANYONE be as good as Verdon?), but she had charm, was convincing in the role, and was a box office name.

The reviews have not really been any better with Charlotte D'Amboise, so blame must be put where blame is due: On the creative team.

It's certainly a beacon about really evaluating the worth of all those shows "just waiting to be revived."

It's entirely possible as WISH says that even with Gwen Verdon resurrected from the dead, SWEET CHARITY, much like the ill fated revivals of BELLS ARE RINGING and APPLAUSE, simply wouldn't work in this age and for today's audiences, without the type of drastic rewriting that takes the show away completely from what initially drew the original production team to it in the firstplace.

'Tis a quandry.

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 02:22 PM

Indeed - the reputation of a group of very high level producers and in demand creative team are on the line. Opening a show on Broadway and having it flop could be a bigger blow then simply putting CHARITY on "hiatus," with the promise to retool it.

I'm not saying that will happen, but if the show doesn't end up opening in New York, I'm sure the Weisslers will put some such similar spin on the situation: "When Christina is better, we're going to retool. We should be ready to open in 2006 or 07. Don't call us, we'll get back to you...."

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 02:31 PM

They also did it with APPLAUSE. But nobody has thought twice about either production since, perhaps because they spared a lot of people the humiliation of a pan in THE NEW YORK TIMES.

People in the theatre are strangely willing to look the other way -- when it saves their own asses...

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 02:42 PM

" I am just discouraged once again by the absolute joy many people seem to get in slamming a show they haven't seen. "

but...I *have* seen it. I really am not a harsh theatre critic in that I can find something to love in most shows. This show was not good. It occurred to me that it's one of the few shows where I've entertained actually leaving at intermission -- except the pre-intermission elevator scene was so good it convinced me to stay. I just don't think this comes close to Broadway quality. I haven't read too many reviews...this just my opinion having actually seen the show last weekend.

I paid close to one hundred dollars to see Sweet Charity in Chicago.

Having seen marvelous revivals of NINE, Fiddler, Cabaret and Pacific Overtures over the past two years I did not imagine Charity would be as bad as it was. I went to the theatre rooting for the show and left at intermission sadly disgusted by how badly it missed.

---

Updated On: 3/25/05 at 03:01 PM