Sweet Charity and the sharks

[justme2]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:19pm

Once again, the sharks are circling. Theater FANS are salivating all over their keyboards with their dire predictions of death for this Sweet Charity show.

I've been following this show and it's reviews throughout the preview period in each city and NEVER saw the show being "roundly panned" (thanks again, Reidel). I saw mixed to good reviews in MN and Chicago, comments about the show needing a better ending in all three cities, good to mixed reviews about Applegate in MN and Chicago, and good reviews for Charlotte in Boston. The worst I saw was a critic in Boston calling the show Ho Hum, and some reviewers questioning the need for a revival of this show (WISHIHADATONY, please insert your agreement here). There are shows running on Broadway now with reviews worse than "Ho Hum" and "where's the need for this?"!!

I won't bother to add here all the links to the many positive reviews posters here and at ATC have given this show. Just do a search under Sweet Charity at either site. I am just discouraged once again by the absolute joy many people seem to get in slamming a show they haven't seen. As a theater fan myself, I look forward to ANY show opening on Broadway. Don't you?
I, for one, would like to see this show when it gets to New York, and then base an opinion of my own off of the actual product. I feel like we get robbed of that chance when a show is slammed into oblivion before it even opens.

Just my opinion..what's yours?

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:21pm

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.

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:23pm

It truely is sad to see people hoping for this production to fail.

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:30pm

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!

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:31pm

i'm rooting for the show!! the article in todays Times turned me on to it! GO CHARITY!

[justme2]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:40pm

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!

[jim coleman]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:43pm

I don't think that anyone is wishing the show to fail. It is just we all know that things happen in this business, and it is called show BUSINESS. NO money to run the show means no show. The thing is to buy tickets. Unfortunately, word of mouth is a big thing in the theatre, and Reidel is read by LOTS of folks, and he really is kind of vicious in his report. Could that story about Miss Applegate and the reviews be true? It probably is or the Weisslers would make him pring a retraction! I do hope the show makes it to NY, and everyone can make up their own mind. Just my opinion...

[WISHIHADATONY]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:45pm

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.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:45pm

i wish i was lived in NYC, than id go buy my tickets...

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:49pm

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

[WISHIHADATONY]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 1:54pm

Michael Bennett, well said. :)

[riv]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:07pm

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

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:10pm

They could lose more by opening the show and failing to generate enough money to cover the operating costs of an ongoing show.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:11pm

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.

[jim coleman]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:18pm

Good point, MichaelBennett. Also why revive the show yet again? Unless you have a powerhouse talent to play that part, why do it? All of those ceative people are talented. This just probably wasn't the show for them to tackle. The revival that Bob Fosse directed himself wasn't even a hit!! That should be a clue, right?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:22pm

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

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:27pm

They could lose more by opening the show and failing to generate enough money to cover the operating costs of an ongoing show.

There is much much MUCH more at stake with opening Sweet Charity on Broadway than just money.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:31pm

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

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:35pm

They already did that with the aborted revival of Miracle Worker though and people haven't forgotten that. Sweet Charity will open on Broadway. They can't afford not to.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:42pm

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

[justme2]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:46pm

"that the majority of word of mouth and most reviewers say the show is piddling to lousy."

I spent WAY too much time this morning doing a search on Sweet Charity reviews and am not seeing the "piddling to lousy" that you are referring to. I see good reviews and some piddling, but very few absolute negative "this show must die" reviews. And the majority of posted reviews from people who have seen the show are positive.

And I agree, the high level of production and creative energy does make it more visible. There are a lot of people involved in the production that should have the skill set to make a bankable show.

But that's not my point here. My point, again, is that there is so much joy emanating from theater fans that this show is in trouble. Why? Shouldn't people hope for the best so they have a chance to see it for themselves?

[musicnmath]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:53pm

" 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.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 2:54pm

Just me -- the Boston reviews are not good. "Piddling to lousy" may be my interpretation of them, but the fact remains, they aren't the kind of notices that will sell a show like SWEET CHARITY on Broadway without a star.

My point is not one of judging the production for its worth, mine is judging the show based on business sense.

Artistically, I whole-heartedly agree with you -- people should go to the theatre (if they have the money or interest) and evaluate it for themselves.

[Glebb]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 3:01pm

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

[justme2]

Posted: 3/25/05 at 3:07pm

I completely agree with you that this show will struggle without a star. It's a shame that people will not go see it without Applegate in it though.

And glebb...you left at intermission? How is it right that you review the show and call it terrible? I paid that much for Blood Brothers in SF, absolutely hated the show from 10 minutes in, and didn't leave. I didn't feel it would be right to tell others how bad the show was unless I actually saw the show.