#26
Posted: 2/20/12 at 4:14am
Owen - You say pop song writers are ruining musical theatre. Okay. Then why do you like Carrie? Isn't the score by pop song writers?
TALES OF THE CITY — Page 2
#27
Posted: 2/20/12 at 4:28am
I appreciate that--thanks. I do think it's all too easy for a pop or rock writer to come in and write a score for a musical with no thought about the vastly different requirements--any of the interviews with Bono and The Edge about Spiderman show this. I also don't think this was an issue for Shears and Garden--they're music is not similar to the Scissor Sisters material, and they obviously tried to go for something different. It didn't work for you when you saw it, it did for me, but I wouldn't lop it together with the desire to hire a successful pop star to write a musical. I would be curious to know which lyrics you dislike though?
#28
Posted: 2/20/12 at 4:41am
"So we get a parade of different characters with different stories, but no unified whole. There are pieces all over the place, but not enough to hold them together."
That's the trouble, and while I think it holds together much better than you suggest (I'm not sure when you saw it, but I saw it in previews and know some major changes were made, perhaps not for the better), the show does need more of a shape. Like any good soap opera, the books lure in viewers with the over the top plot turns, but really are appealing due to the characters,a nd the plot turns rarely amount to much at all. This is a much bigger problem with a musical or play. I think changing some of the characters would help--and wouldn't upset fans of the piece too much (I think it was Variety that said there's a problem when a musical of Tales of the City ends with group hugs--and I agree). Combining Mary Ann's story more with Beauchamps would help both characters.
That's the trouble, and while I think it holds together much better than you suggest (I'm not sure when you saw it, but I saw it in previews and know some major changes were made, perhaps not for the better), the show does need more of a shape. Like any good soap opera, the books lure in viewers with the over the top plot turns, but really are appealing due to the characters,a nd the plot turns rarely amount to much at all. This is a much bigger problem with a musical or play. I think changing some of the characters would help--and wouldn't upset fans of the piece too much (I think it was Variety that said there's a problem when a musical of Tales of the City ends with group hugs--and I agree). Combining Mary Ann's story more with Beauchamps would help both characters.
#29
Posted: 2/20/12 at 8:03pm
It isn't so much pop writers ruining musical theatre, its people who think its okay and eventually accept the lesser scores these writers are composing.
Gore and Pitchford wrote the score of the film "Fame" before they wrote Carrie.
Gore and Pitchford wrote the score of the film "Fame" before they wrote Carrie.
#30
Posted: 2/20/12 at 8:15pm
But the score of Fame--which I love don't get me wrong--is by a large a *pop* music score-- I don't really see, in this case, how it's different. I *do* get your point about pop writers, I think, but I think it's still worth going over on a case by case basis. In the case of Tales we obviously disagree about the score, but Jake Shears and Garden aren't IMHO big enough names to say that the only reason they were connected to the musical is some cynical attempt at a built in audience. And there certainly are cases I can think of of pop composers doing a score I love (Promises Promises springs immediately to mind).
#31
Posted: 2/20/12 at 10:36pm
I spoke with Betsy Wolfe Saturday evening after her performance in Merrily We Roll Along at NYC's City Center, and she said she has reason to be very hopeful that Tales of the City will have a future production outside of San Fran. I told her how I wished I could have caught it at ATC, and she really made me feel like she might know something positive about this happening.
She could not have been nicer in person, and I was very impressed with her performance and the whole show. She absolutely stole the spotlight during "Bobby and Jackie and Jack" (hilarious!) and gave a beautiful rendition of "Not A Day Goes By."
She could not have been nicer in person, and I was very impressed with her performance and the whole show. She absolutely stole the spotlight during "Bobby and Jackie and Jack" (hilarious!) and gave a beautiful rendition of "Not A Day Goes By."
#32
Posted: 2/20/12 at 11:37pm
Good to know! She sounded spectacular in Tales even if, as I've said, there are some thankless problems with her role right now (at least in Act II)
#33
Posted: 2/22/12 at 8:38am
Back in the early '90s there was a fundraiser for an AIDS charity here in London and the whole second half was songs from a work-in-progress musical of 'Tales of the City'. Haydn Gwynn played Mary Ann Singleton -- I don't remember who the other actors were or the composer/lyricist-- but I can still remember some of the songs. The opening number was called 'Home' and it was so beautiful and uplifting that I remember crying and crying. (What a baby.) But I've always wished that that had gone further. I've never seen anything else about it, but I do know that Armistead Maupin was there for the concert.
#34
Posted: 2/22/12 at 10:15am
That was an entirely different version of a musical Tales; there have been several book & score teams on this project over the years, and no one has yet made it a complete success. As I noted earlier, I believe that's because the episodic and diffuse nature of the multiple threads isn't conducive to coherent theatre.
That's not to say it couldn't be done, but I think the writers would have to "betray" the rabid fans of the books in order to create a new and theatrical animal.
That's not to say it couldn't be done, but I think the writers would have to "betray" the rabid fans of the books in order to create a new and theatrical animal.
#35
Posted: 2/22/12 at 11:40am
newintown: i don't understand why you feel compelled to frame your comment in terms of a "betrayal" (and i appreciate that you're attempting to shorthand a more subtle concept, so i'll respect the use of quotes) of rabid fans of the book ... isn't the issue here really the "betrayal" of the nature, i'll even say the spirit, of the underlying text itself? i think the focus is off.
plus, let's be real here -- it's not as if either "betrayal" (rabid fans or text itself) would be a material concern for a commercial broadway production!!! the only "betrayal" that would stop deep pockets from trying to make a buck on the great white way however they thought best would be maupin's (assuming he felt it).
most of all, it's not like this type of material hasn't been successfully adapted as musical before. in many ways, doctorow's original "ragtime" novel was as sprawling as "tales", and they made a fine musical of it while retaining (admirably, imho) the book's sense of scope.
i was fortunate enough to be in SF twice on business during the run -- early on in previews and again in july, when it had extended. the tightening had been considerable; not sufficient, but substantial and directionally encouraging.
imho, there are two themes that i think could be leveraged to achieve the "sculpting" the work needs ...
the easy one is anna madrigal; she's the constant in most of the story lines.
the harder one is the city itself. "tales" is about a time and a place unique in american cultural history. it doesn't exist anywhere anymore, not even in SF itself. a much trickier proposition, but the material could be re-crafted in a way that it means to tell *that* story.
ok, i'm rambling now ... the thing is (things are) that rabid fans are neither a material consideration nor a particularly objective way to frame the concern AND while i agree this needs more work (it's been given a lot) i think there's enough there there to warrant the effort.
plus, let's be real here -- it's not as if either "betrayal" (rabid fans or text itself) would be a material concern for a commercial broadway production!!! the only "betrayal" that would stop deep pockets from trying to make a buck on the great white way however they thought best would be maupin's (assuming he felt it).
most of all, it's not like this type of material hasn't been successfully adapted as musical before. in many ways, doctorow's original "ragtime" novel was as sprawling as "tales", and they made a fine musical of it while retaining (admirably, imho) the book's sense of scope.
i was fortunate enough to be in SF twice on business during the run -- early on in previews and again in july, when it had extended. the tightening had been considerable; not sufficient, but substantial and directionally encouraging.
imho, there are two themes that i think could be leveraged to achieve the "sculpting" the work needs ...
the easy one is anna madrigal; she's the constant in most of the story lines.
the harder one is the city itself. "tales" is about a time and a place unique in american cultural history. it doesn't exist anywhere anymore, not even in SF itself. a much trickier proposition, but the material could be re-crafted in a way that it means to tell *that* story.
ok, i'm rambling now ... the thing is (things are) that rabid fans are neither a material consideration nor a particularly objective way to frame the concern AND while i agree this needs more work (it's been given a lot) i think there's enough there there to warrant the effort.
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
#36
Posted: 2/22/12 at 12:44pm
I think that the best theatrical adaptations of nontheatrical sources have departed rather drastically from the source.
You cite Ragtime as staying true to the novel, which leads me to believe that you either haven't read it, or read it very long ago. The novel "Ragtime" is almost nothing like the musical (or the television movie); the novel doesn't put the Coalhouse story at the center, but rather includes it as one part of a panoply; Coalhouse's story is no more stressed than that of Younger Brother. But Terence MacNally understood that he needed to focus on one aspect of the novel and subtract enormously from all others in order to make it work in the theatre.
The adaptation from the novel "Auntie Mame" to the play Auntie Mame, and subsequently the musical Mame, is similar - read the novel again to see how the play and musical are entirely different in structure from the novel.
Other adaptations that similarly alter the source in fundamental ways include Fiddler On The Roof, Les Misérables, Kiss Me Kate, South Pacific, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Guys And Dolls, and Gypsy. (There are many more.)
The problem with adapting the book(s) "Tales Of The City," etc., is that the books themselves have no central character; from the current version of the musical, it would seem the writers are most drawn to Mona and Anna Madrigal; personally, I think Mary Ann is the center of the story - the fish-out-of-water thrown into the middle of a crazy quilt of zanies. Nevertheless, the current authors haven't yet focused on any one story - they try to give everyone their due (because, one suspects, they are among the "rabid" fans of the book and don't want to change it brutally and sufficiently to make it theatrical).
You cite Ragtime as staying true to the novel, which leads me to believe that you either haven't read it, or read it very long ago. The novel "Ragtime" is almost nothing like the musical (or the television movie); the novel doesn't put the Coalhouse story at the center, but rather includes it as one part of a panoply; Coalhouse's story is no more stressed than that of Younger Brother. But Terence MacNally understood that he needed to focus on one aspect of the novel and subtract enormously from all others in order to make it work in the theatre.
The adaptation from the novel "Auntie Mame" to the play Auntie Mame, and subsequently the musical Mame, is similar - read the novel again to see how the play and musical are entirely different in structure from the novel.
Other adaptations that similarly alter the source in fundamental ways include Fiddler On The Roof, Les Misérables, Kiss Me Kate, South Pacific, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Guys And Dolls, and Gypsy. (There are many more.)
The problem with adapting the book(s) "Tales Of The City," etc., is that the books themselves have no central character; from the current version of the musical, it would seem the writers are most drawn to Mona and Anna Madrigal; personally, I think Mary Ann is the center of the story - the fish-out-of-water thrown into the middle of a crazy quilt of zanies. Nevertheless, the current authors haven't yet focused on any one story - they try to give everyone their due (because, one suspects, they are among the "rabid" fans of the book and don't want to change it brutally and sufficiently to make it theatrical).
#37
Posted: 2/22/12 at 2:16pm
i didn't say the musical ragtime stayed true to the novel ... i said it retained the book's sense of scope.
and doctorow is a favorite, so you're barking quite up the wrong tree there.
what i admire about the stage adaptation is the way it was able to create a theatrical narrative while still conveying the sweep of the original work ...
some of the other adaptations you mention faced that *particular* challenge (Les Mis, to a lesser extent South Pacific (lesser than Hugo, anyway)) but others (Auntie Mame, Gypsy) did not. (Also, I hadn't mentioned Auntie Mame, so i hope you'll forgive me if i decline your suggestion to read the novel again -- i've already got about 30 books sitting on my nightstand!!!)
(just to be clear: i'm speaking specifically of the challenge of conveying a sense of sweeping scope that is specific to certain works of literature, like the examples we're discussing here ... i agree there were adaptation challenges in all the works you cite, but i think some of them of a different nature.)
i agree that greater focus is required here, but i think a piece like ragtime proves that it can be done in a way that hews true to the spirit of the underlying work. it's just not as categorical as it sounds to me like you're trying to make it.
personally i would find anna is a more interesting focus for that effort -- and arguably a more appropriate one for the slice of the series this adaptation seeks to cover -- but that's an entirely subjective point of view. (i just can't bring myself to care enough about mary ann to commit two-hours to finding out what happens to her ... by contrast, anna is a character of enduring and universal (unless you're rick santorum) appeal.)
and i do still think the relative rabidity of tales fans is both gratuitious and irrelevant, but i'll take the use of quotes as a compromise on that point. :)
and doctorow is a favorite, so you're barking quite up the wrong tree there.
what i admire about the stage adaptation is the way it was able to create a theatrical narrative while still conveying the sweep of the original work ...
some of the other adaptations you mention faced that *particular* challenge (Les Mis, to a lesser extent South Pacific (lesser than Hugo, anyway)) but others (Auntie Mame, Gypsy) did not. (Also, I hadn't mentioned Auntie Mame, so i hope you'll forgive me if i decline your suggestion to read the novel again -- i've already got about 30 books sitting on my nightstand!!!)
(just to be clear: i'm speaking specifically of the challenge of conveying a sense of sweeping scope that is specific to certain works of literature, like the examples we're discussing here ... i agree there were adaptation challenges in all the works you cite, but i think some of them of a different nature.)
i agree that greater focus is required here, but i think a piece like ragtime proves that it can be done in a way that hews true to the spirit of the underlying work. it's just not as categorical as it sounds to me like you're trying to make it.
personally i would find anna is a more interesting focus for that effort -- and arguably a more appropriate one for the slice of the series this adaptation seeks to cover -- but that's an entirely subjective point of view. (i just can't bring myself to care enough about mary ann to commit two-hours to finding out what happens to her ... by contrast, anna is a character of enduring and universal (unless you're rick santorum) appeal.)
and i do still think the relative rabidity of tales fans is both gratuitious and irrelevant, but i'll take the use of quotes as a compromise on that point. :)
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
#38
Posted: 2/22/12 at 3:49pm
Nitpick alert--Ragtime was an Oscar winning movie by Milos Forman, not a TV movie. And for what it's worth I like the musical a lot more as an adaptation of the novel than the movie, though the movie has it's pluses.
Tales is a hard concept to adapt. I've said it before, but it's two fold--many readers got sucked in because of the soap opera narrative--ie the mix of characters, wild plot twists that hinged on wild conincidences. But like any good soap opera, the true appeal wasn't the plot so much as the characters and their interactions. I mean the actual novels, even the recent ones that aren't revised versions of the original serial but written as novels, barely even really have endings, not in the usual theatrical sense--they dip into the lives and then out. That causes problems.
Mary Ann should be the focus except even fans of the novels and miniseries don't think much of her story with Norman--some of the blame of that part not working in Act II (and so Mary Ann becomes kinda useless for the second half of the show) is the fault of the show itself, but more so I think they should have borrowed something from a later book (they already did take some of More), or come up with something brand new, which is why i thought tying it into Beauchamps (who is such a major part of the first part of the musical and then disappears as well) with him continuing his relationship with Mary Ann and blackmailing Anna Madrigal and maybe even dying in Norman's place would help solve those problems (we can just leave out Norman's pedophile plot...)
That said I do think Anna should be the true center, even in the books, they tend to suffer more in the volumes where she is barely featured.
Critics often compare the books to Dickens--maybe not in quality, but not just because they began as soap opera like serials. The mix of contrived coincidences (so and so is actually your brother, etc), the depiction of a city and the different social classes, some connection to social issues, broad even caricatured characters, and convulated plots that ultimately are more appealing due to those characters than the twists... So in that case Oliver might be an example--and it drastically did do away with a lot of plot and characters--although with Tales I think if it becomes too much just about one or two of the characters you do lose a lot of the appeal.
Whatever2, do you remember any of the changes made between the two times you saw the show? I only got to see the second preview. Obviously some trims would be made as it was still very very long (though it mostly went by quickly) and I've read Wes Taylor say that he and Mona soon got a replacement duet. it sounds like no huge changes were made, but I'd be curious (two things that I wondered if they'd change were taken directly from the book--one was when Norman falls off the cliff and Mary Ann is left holding his clip on tie. That got a huge, awkward, laugh--in the book it IS meant to be a darkly funny scene but it works, I just don't think it could be done to work on stage. The other was when Edgar dies and Anna senses it subtly and makes on brief comment--in the book it's only a couple of sentences but it's clear what happened. On stage, anyone who didn't know the novels seemed to *completely* miss that part).
Tales is a hard concept to adapt. I've said it before, but it's two fold--many readers got sucked in because of the soap opera narrative--ie the mix of characters, wild plot twists that hinged on wild conincidences. But like any good soap opera, the true appeal wasn't the plot so much as the characters and their interactions. I mean the actual novels, even the recent ones that aren't revised versions of the original serial but written as novels, barely even really have endings, not in the usual theatrical sense--they dip into the lives and then out. That causes problems.
Mary Ann should be the focus except even fans of the novels and miniseries don't think much of her story with Norman--some of the blame of that part not working in Act II (and so Mary Ann becomes kinda useless for the second half of the show) is the fault of the show itself, but more so I think they should have borrowed something from a later book (they already did take some of More), or come up with something brand new, which is why i thought tying it into Beauchamps (who is such a major part of the first part of the musical and then disappears as well) with him continuing his relationship with Mary Ann and blackmailing Anna Madrigal and maybe even dying in Norman's place would help solve those problems (we can just leave out Norman's pedophile plot...)
That said I do think Anna should be the true center, even in the books, they tend to suffer more in the volumes where she is barely featured.
Critics often compare the books to Dickens--maybe not in quality, but not just because they began as soap opera like serials. The mix of contrived coincidences (so and so is actually your brother, etc), the depiction of a city and the different social classes, some connection to social issues, broad even caricatured characters, and convulated plots that ultimately are more appealing due to those characters than the twists... So in that case Oliver might be an example--and it drastically did do away with a lot of plot and characters--although with Tales I think if it becomes too much just about one or two of the characters you do lose a lot of the appeal.
Whatever2, do you remember any of the changes made between the two times you saw the show? I only got to see the second preview. Obviously some trims would be made as it was still very very long (though it mostly went by quickly) and I've read Wes Taylor say that he and Mona soon got a replacement duet. it sounds like no huge changes were made, but I'd be curious (two things that I wondered if they'd change were taken directly from the book--one was when Norman falls off the cliff and Mary Ann is left holding his clip on tie. That got a huge, awkward, laugh--in the book it IS meant to be a darkly funny scene but it works, I just don't think it could be done to work on stage. The other was when Edgar dies and Anna senses it subtly and makes on brief comment--in the book it's only a couple of sentences but it's clear what happened. On stage, anyone who didn't know the novels seemed to *completely* miss that part).
#39
Posted: 2/22/12 at 4:13pm
I agree that I'd love to see this developed further.
IMHO - it was in pretty good shape for its first production. I think that the author was downright masterful in teasing out the necessary plot lines from the first two books to make a workable script.
I think that the score was about halfway there. I saw it a few days before traveling to NY - and it shared similar problems to another musical written by rock star first-timers, Spiderman. In both cases, it was obvious that the composers used many of the musical conventions and wrote songs that "sounded" like Broadway. However, in both cases, many songs didn't have the lyrical clarity needed. (You can be as obscure as you wish in rock lyrics that people will listen to again and again, but in a show, there is one chance for that line to land and it must be clear).
In Tales, one song stood out in particular as a real winner, ("Paper Faces" I think) and some others worked as well. I have no doubt that with some guidance, Jake could bring the rest up to that standard.
Beyond that, yeah - they cut a lot, but could still lose a good 20 minutes of "walking around wacky SF" and the associated song(s). The staging/blocking was really boring and could also be improved. However, to me, it was definitely good enough to warrant additional work.
IMHO - it was in pretty good shape for its first production. I think that the author was downright masterful in teasing out the necessary plot lines from the first two books to make a workable script.
I think that the score was about halfway there. I saw it a few days before traveling to NY - and it shared similar problems to another musical written by rock star first-timers, Spiderman. In both cases, it was obvious that the composers used many of the musical conventions and wrote songs that "sounded" like Broadway. However, in both cases, many songs didn't have the lyrical clarity needed. (You can be as obscure as you wish in rock lyrics that people will listen to again and again, but in a show, there is one chance for that line to land and it must be clear).
In Tales, one song stood out in particular as a real winner, ("Paper Faces" I think) and some others worked as well. I have no doubt that with some guidance, Jake could bring the rest up to that standard.
Beyond that, yeah - they cut a lot, but could still lose a good 20 minutes of "walking around wacky SF" and the associated song(s). The staging/blocking was really boring and could also be improved. However, to me, it was definitely good enough to warrant additional work.
#40
Posted: 2/22/12 at 5:02pm
The staging was fairly uninspired, though I'll give the actual set more props than many have--it did a good job of always quickly changing and making it clear which of the myriad locations you were at.
Paper Faces definitely seems to be the standout song--in terms of audience reaction as well as from critics (I think the New york Times said that in that one moment the show was great). Interestingly, it's one of the few songs that made it from the demo intact. I think some of the songs (like the opening sequence) use theatrical lyrics well, others are maybe too vague as you say (I like Mona's song as she, high, goes off on her journey--musically it fits her, but it really could be sung by anyone with a guitar out of context and be as effective). Love Comes Coming is another one people (including myself) see as a standout--both of those songs were performed by the cast at S|f Pride so I assume they realize they're winners (the performance is on youtube).
One thing about the story, and I think there are many valid points about the troubles still there with the plot, but in my experience most of the people who have complained about the plot being hard to follow and trying to incorporate too much are people who know the books. I've spoken to a few people (including the friend I saw it with) who had never seen the TV series or read the books and had no real problem following any of it.
Paper Faces definitely seems to be the standout song--in terms of audience reaction as well as from critics (I think the New york Times said that in that one moment the show was great). Interestingly, it's one of the few songs that made it from the demo intact. I think some of the songs (like the opening sequence) use theatrical lyrics well, others are maybe too vague as you say (I like Mona's song as she, high, goes off on her journey--musically it fits her, but it really could be sung by anyone with a guitar out of context and be as effective). Love Comes Coming is another one people (including myself) see as a standout--both of those songs were performed by the cast at S|f Pride so I assume they realize they're winners (the performance is on youtube).
One thing about the story, and I think there are many valid points about the troubles still there with the plot, but in my experience most of the people who have complained about the plot being hard to follow and trying to incorporate too much are people who know the books. I've spoken to a few people (including the friend I saw it with) who had never seen the TV series or read the books and had no real problem following any of it.
#41
Posted: 2/22/12 at 5:40pm
eric: if memory serves, they really trimmed the norman/mary ann plot line ... almost to the point where they'd have been better off losing it altogether. (then again, if she's supposed to be the main character, which i guess she is, given that it's her silouhette in the artwork, it would be tough to make too many cuts to her story line.) in any case, his departure seemed abrupt, and both the relationship and his professional life were under-developed. i don't remember the reprise of "next time you see me" from the second time i saw it, but it's on the "official" song list (buried on the ACT website in the Press Kit) ... so maybe i'm having a brain freeze. if i am remembering correctly, that's even further indication of the extent of the trimming there.
i'm not sure what the relplacement song was for mouse and mona ... their only duet was "everything good gets better", and that was there both times i saw it.
the thing that struck me the most between the two performances, oddly enough, was the pacing -- they trimmed about 20 minutes between the two times i saw it (from 3:10 to 2:50), and i felt like mostly everything just happened more quickly the second time. i know you can't squeeze 20 minutes out of pacing, but i bet they got half of that ... it really was frenetic the second time around!
i'm not sure what the relplacement song was for mouse and mona ... their only duet was "everything good gets better", and that was there both times i saw it.
the thing that struck me the most between the two performances, oddly enough, was the pacing -- they trimmed about 20 minutes between the two times i saw it (from 3:10 to 2:50), and i felt like mostly everything just happened more quickly the second time. i know you can't squeeze 20 minutes out of pacing, but i bet they got half of that ... it really was frenetic the second time around!
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
#42
Posted: 6/7/19 at 4:04pm
Is there any chance the new Netflix series will revive interest in the stage adaptation? Reviews have been mixed but I imagine a lot of folks will be watching over pride month. From what I've seen of the older series it feels like there's more affection for the setting and characters than there is for any of the soapy plot lines themselves.
threepanelmusicals.blogspot.com
#43
Posted: 6/8/19 at 12:32pm
I would love for that to be so.
Jake Shears (score) has recently been in the media and I seem to recall him mentioning that he was working on a score for a different project, but if he's "back in the saddle" he might be open for revisiting ToTC.
I dearly love the characters and would love to see the show further developed.
#44
Posted: 6/8/19 at 1:09pm
Wow! Blast from the past!
I saw this twice in SF and loved it both times despite its flaws. I thought there was a lot of great material in there, along with plenty of things that were easily cuttable. Can't believe that was 8 years ago already! At this point I doubt that the show has any future life in NYC, unfortunately.
#45
Posted: 6/8/19 at 2:13pm
JBroadway said: "Wow! Blast from the past!
I saw this twice in SF and loved it both times despite its flaws. I thought there was a lot of great material in there, along with plenty of things that were easily cuttable. Can't believe that was 8 years ago already! At this point I doubt that the show has any future life in NYC, unfortunately."
What a blast from the past... I saw the show in SF and thought it felt a little too jampacked. But, I figured it was a work in progress and figured they threw everything in and could start trimming. Even though it has been 8 years - I also hope this has a chance to get to Broadway. Look how long Hadestown took to get to Broadway.
Given that movie translations are still a source for new musicals, these characters and their relationships have a built in market for a certain audience. But taking it further, the characters are so rich that those not familiar would have interest (but does require some sort of open mind). IMHO - with some colorblind casting and cutting edge alternative score (a la Jake Shears), you can reach the elusive "younger" audiences along with the regulars. And yes, the updated Netflix TV treatment may give that interest a boost (or even a new creative team for the property).
Let's hope. I think it could be awesome popular.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95