Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
#1Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 6:36pmI just got the cd and to me it seems like a good show. Why did it close so fast?
#2re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 6:53pm
Take a 1950's movie about greed and corruption in the PR game on Broadway. Remake it at the beginning of the 21st Century and place it in its original time period. What was shocking and eye-opening in the 50's was quaint to modern audiences. Thinking that the original material would translate to a modern audience without major adjustments was its downfall.
As nasty as that old movie is, when they threw it up on stage it had all the heat and irony of a camp picnic.
If there was any chance for that show to work as it was written, it would have run during the 1959-1960 season.
Updated On: 4/12/07 at 06:53 PM
Roscoe
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
#2re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 7:00pm
All that GoSmile says is true. There's also the little problem of a lackluster book and rather drab score. It got to be hilarious when the Chorus kept popping up to ask Brian Darcy James "Whatcha gonna do, SIDNEY?" Brian Darcy James wasn't able to generate enough interest in his character's struggles.
And it was playing in what was then the Martin Beck, which was simply too large, the show got lost in it.
#3re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 7:09pm
it was remounted and reworked this year? last year? in Chicago to what i believe were very positive reviews.
also- I disagree with you about the score. I think it's the best part of the show and it's my favorite Hamlisch. I think it's incredibly exciting and tuneful
RentBoy86
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
#4re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 7:33pmWhile some of the songs are rather bland, but that might come from the fact that Lithgow isn't really a singer, I think the score is rather strong. I really like it. I find some of the song placements strange - Wouldn't "Dirt" be better as an opener, rather than the song before it?
Danielm
Broadway Star Joined: 3/17/05
#5re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 7:37pmLets also be honest--the lead characters in this are morally reprehensible and completely cynical and it just seems weird when they sing.
#6re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 8:54pm
I bought the script from Samuel French to get a better idea of the show and I really couldn't come up with a whole lot as to why it didn't do so well. I don't agree that it is not shocking today. And I think it speaks to us better now than it did in the 60's because of how accustomed we are today of scandal. The book does need a little work because it's hard to like the characters at times, but it's great that John Lithgow played JJ because he's written as a monster and yet because of Lithgow's comedic personality you still kind of like him. But, who says we’re supposed to like him? (possible spoiler) The end of the show made me feel a bit sorry for JJ as it ends up being him who is conned and by the person he would have least expected. He's left with nothing. You're heart has gotta go out to him.
I also used to think "Dirt" would have been better to open the second act, RentBoy86, just when listening to the CD, but when you read the script you can see why that's not a very good idea. The intermission follows in the same vein as SWEET CHARITY as it closes with a scene and then opens right back where we left off. Replacing "Dirt" would ruin that. Also, lyrically, the unrecorded song "Psalm 151" plays a key role in the early development of the plot. It's a shame that it was not recorded as the CD suffers miserably from its absence.
I like the show and despite its flaws I think the material deserved a longer run, but I can't speak for what was happening on stage at the Martin Beck.
#7re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 9:16pm
I love the score and performances I've seen on TV. I've wanted to see this one real bad.
Was there a major reworking recently? I don't remember any news of that sort.
--Aristotle
#8re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 9:26pm
it sounds like trunk songs from CITY OF ANGELS. my friends and i call it SWEET SMELL OF A MESS.
At the Fountain, At the Ballet, what's the diff?
#9re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 9:32pmum. the whole song? the music? the lyrics? the point?
#11re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 9:38pm
"I don't agree that it is not shocking today. And I think it speaks to us better now than it did in the 60's because of how accustomed we are today of scandal."
That's my point. The musical as written assumes that the audience has the naive sensibility of a 50's audience. The very fact that the mainstream media survives on scandal today takes all of the venom out of the work. The Anna Nicole Smith saga makes everything in Sweet Smell of Success look like a garden party.
#12re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 9:45pmWhile I never saw the show, I do really enjoy "At the Fountain," "What If?," and most of all, "Don't Know Where You Leave Off." It's a GREAT duet!
#13re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 9:58pmDon't Know Where You Leave Off is a really pretty number, and well song! Damn, Kelli and Jack sell it!
Chrysanthemum62001
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/14/04
#14re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 10:04pmThe problem I had with it was that it was very long and boring.
#15re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 10:06pmthe NY times review said that one of the main problems was the set/staging/length
TheEnchantedHunter
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/27/05
#16re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/12/07 at 11:36pm
Bad idea, bad execution = flop.
Sister Margaretta
Somewhere in Salzburg
Updated On: 4/29/08 at 11:36 PM
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#17re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/13/07 at 5:26am
"Lets also be honest--the lead characters in this are morally reprehensible and completely cynical and it just seems weird when they sing. "
Oy ya think? I dunno... What about Chicago to use the most obvious example... Mad barbers? etc etc-0-the morally reprensible thing always get sme cuz it remind sme of old school reviews--liek Cabaret in 1966/67 nearly every review loved it but all questioned the taste of making a *musical* about such characters. We've come a long ways since then but...
It's kinda shockign to me how little success Hamlisch has had since the 70s with musicals
JBSinger
Broadway Star Joined: 11/12/04
#18re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/13/07 at 8:44am
I saw the show and just wasn't affected by it at all. The performances were very strong all around, but you just didn't really care what happened to everybody. They all make such horrible choices that it made it hard to root for anyone. The score had some really nice things in it, but couldn't overcome the overall tone of the piece.
EricM22 - Chicago works because of the format as a vaudeville. The tongue-in-cheek comment on society that these scorned women/murderers can get away with anything. Sweeney works almost on level of Greek tragedy. Yes, he goes too far, but at least you understand why. Cabaret still has a heart amongst the low-lifes. Cliff is our "Camera" as it were and we are emotionally on his journey. Even though Sally makes some rough choices, we ultimately want to root for her because she truly is a good person underneath the problems (and she gets the best music in the show). Basically, there is "hope" that things will work out for our leads.
Sweet Smell lets situation/choices destroy hope so basically, we didn't care.
WOSQ
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/18/03
#19re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/13/07 at 10:43am
Just about every post here from those who saw the show is correct in its own way.
I'll back up one step and return to the source material, the 1957 film. These characters have nothing to sing about, and the show was doomed from the get-go by selecting this property.
And if you don't feel that JJ got what he deserved and really deserved more by the end of the show, then they needed to write a different show from a different source.
JJ is a irredeemable monster and to paint him otherwise is to change the film script away from its extraordinarily nasty POV. JJ's relationship with his sister skirts way to close to incestuous for any margin of comfort. Sing about that.
Rent the film.
#20re: Sweet Smell of Success: what was the problem?
Posted: 4/13/07 at 1:33pm
I can only answer for the one-and-only time I saw this show, and it was the VERY FIRST Chicago preview prior-to-B'way: 12-23-01.
Later I got the impression that the show had been HEAVILY worked on before the NYC opening. Here's a couple of reasons why:
The character of "JJ" as played by Lithgow at the time was so ineffectual and sappy that he hardly qualified as a villain and certainly didn't come off as one. As a matter of fact, he was ultimately tripped up by Susan at the ending, and rendered virtually helpless somewhat in the manner of her having chastised a child.
Also, Sidney did not die.
Other than that, I really don't remember too much.
Videos