TAMMY FAYE Previews- Page 9

[DrMonicaDeMoneco]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 9:16pm

Based solely on the posts from this board - I don’t see this show running much past opening! 
I gotta get a ticket soon!

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 10:32pm

lotta delusion in this thread.

i knew nothing about the show before i went. usually bad word of mouth lowers my expectations so that i enjoy the show more, not less. i gave an honest, unbiased review of my experience. get it together, elton.

[rburton66]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 11:21pm

I saw tonight's performance and, at first, I didn't understand how this had an Olivier-winning run in London when it's so completely shapeless and devoid of identity. I didn't realize it was a limited run for like a month and a half. They're clearly working through a lot in previews, and I feel bad for Christian Borle and especially Michael Cerveris, who are great talents given way too little to do. (If only Borle got a fraction of the material Andrew Garfield was given in The Eyes of Tammy Faye...) It's a showcase for Katie Brayben, but nowhere near a kind of star turn to make this worth seeing for her alone.

 

Is it a boring bio-musical? A satire of televangelism and the '80s Moral Majority which, by Broadway standards, is shooting fish in a barrel? Is it a celebration of Tammy Faye as a feminist and beacon for love and acceptance who just happened to use her followers' donations to buy fur coats and lavish mansions? I mean, I guess it's all of these, but why... And why in 2024 instead of 2004?

[raddersons]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 1:18am

Hours after walking out of the show I have no clue what the writers want me to think about who Tammy Faye is. Is she a good person, or is she a grifter? Did she really believe she was helping the world? Was she just as bad as the other televangelists? Was her show just Jerry Springer tied with a faith based bow?
 

I’m led to believe she’s supposed to be warm and relatable but as an audience all I feel is a cold chill.

[raddersons]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 1:22am

Also the writing and pacing is so clunky that an audience member accidentally cheered for 9/11 tonight, when they quickly switched from talking about lesbians to the World Trade Center attacks on a hairpin turn. 

[Wick3]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 10:17am

I'm guessing the writers want you to leave the theater thinking Tammy is a good person overall despite her flaws. When I saw it last weekend, in the final scene she told the audience how the word 'love' is used a whole lot more than the word 'hate' in the Bible. Not sure if they deleted that line or not.

[raddersons]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 11:09am

The line is still there. The writers desperately want you to think she’s warm. But as an audience member I certainly didn’t feel warmth. You can say “love” a million times but I didn’t feel any. The show spends so much time pinning her down as a grifter that platitudes come up empty. It tries to create a nuanced portrait and have it both ways but ends up just making her look bad and still try to have us celebrate her. 

 

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 11:44am

The more I reflect on this show, the more I think this is worst Broadway show I’ve ever seen. As others have said, it’s really jumbled. There’s no clear arc or narrative. At times Tammy disappears. What happens to her isn’t clear. When did she start using drugs? Was that why she was so oblivious to what was happening? How did she get off the drugs? I think she could have a better trajectory in the show. 
 

Also I’m having a really hard time with her being shown as having Steve Pieters in the studio and her hugging him. That’s rewriting what actually happened in a major way. Kinda shady. PTL actually wouldnt allow him in the studio. 
 

I really don’t understand the Olivier love for this show. Katie’s performance was really hyped and while I appreciated it, I didn’t think it was that special or memorable. 
 

Also I saw an interview with her and Rannells on a red carpet where they were talking about their excitement of opening the show on Broadway. It seems like they had a great connection and had become friends. They seemed elated to do this together again. That falling through had to affect the dynamics of the show. 
 

I love Tammy and was hoping this would be a great show. 

[bway1430]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 12:43pm

Also I’m having a really hard time with her being shown as having Steve Pieters in the studio and her hugging him. That’s rewriting what actually happened in a major way. Kinda shady. PTL actually wouldnt allow him in the studio.
 

That simply  isn't true. Steve Pieters was in need of chemo for another condition besides HIV and was therefore unable to travel. A flight would have greatly compromised his immunity. But you are correct in that he was not in the studio.

I really don’t understand the Olivier love for this show. Katie’s performance was really hyped and while I appreciated it, I didn’t think it was that special or memorable.
 
Cool. Those of us who saw the show in London and liked it (along with critics from NYT, The Guardian, Time Out London, Evening Standard and others...) have a different opinion and thats what makes the world go 'round.

 

 

Updated On: 10/30/24 at 12:43 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 1:08pm

bway1430 said: "Also I’m having a really hard time with her being shown as having Steve Pieters in the studio and her hugging him. That’s rewriting what actually happened in a major way. Kinda shady. PTL actually wouldnt allow him in the studio.


That simply isn't true. Steve Pieters was in need of chemo for another condition besides HIV and was therefore unable to travel. A flight would have greatly compromised his immunity. But you are correct in that he was not in the studio."

"

"Tammy and Jim would have been quite hospitable to me," Pieters says. "But they were afraid — from what I've heard — that the crew would not be comfortable with my being there and that I might not be treated well by the staff. So they decided to do it by satellite."

[bway1430]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 1:30pm

Kad said: "bway1430 said: "Also I’m having a really hard time with her being shown as having Steve Pieters in the studio and her hugging him. That’s rewriting what actually happened in a major way. Kinda shady. PTL actually wouldnt allow him in the studio.


That simply isn't true. Steve Pieters was in need of chemo for another condition besides HIV and was therefore unable to travel. A flight would have greatly compromised his immunity. But you are correct in that he was not in the studio."

"Tammy and Jim would have been quite hospitable to me," Pieters says. "But they were afraid — from what I've heard — that the crew would not be comfortable with my being there and that I might not be treated well by the staff. So they decided to do it by satellite.""

Good find and thanks for putting that to light as I did not see that interview. I also found this:

Steve was on suramin, one of the first antiretrovirals used for people with AIDS. Like many of the early treatments, it was largely ineffective and the side effects alone had nearly killed him. And though Tammy said they did the interview by satellite out of concerns for his health, he later learned the real reason was fear that the camera crew would refuse to be in the same studio as a person with AIDS.

But to Steve’s relief, Tammy’s questions seemed aimed at combating the very misinformation about AIDS that nearly led the camera crew to strike.

She asked him about when he realized he was “different from the other boys,” and about being in the closet, and about coming out to his parents.

When Tammy thanked God that his parents had accepted and loved him, Steve responded with words that likely seemed revolutionary to Tammy’s millions of conservative religious viewers:

“Jesus loves me just the way I am. I really believe that. Jesus loves the way I love.”

That’s when Tammy began to cry, as she often did.

After the segment, Steve heard that network executives pressured Tammy to do an interview with a Christian psychiatrist who would give advice on how to “cure” homosexuality or pray away AIDS. She refused.

“She got in trouble for it, and apparently she just stuck her heels in and said no. I think this was an interview that told her that things could be different and that she could indeed be different as a televangelist and reach out to the gay community.”

Glad for this correction as the truth uncovered here paints an even better picture. Thanks!

Updated On: 10/30/24 at 01:30 PM

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 2:52pm

bway1430 said: "Also I’m having a really hard time with her being shown as having Steve Pieters in the studio and her hugging him. That’s rewriting what actually happened in a major way. Kinda shady. PTL actually wouldnt allow him in the studio.


That simply isn't true. Steve Pieters was in need of chemo for another condition besides HIV and was therefore unable to travel. A flight would have greatly compromised his immunity. But you are correct in that he was not in the studio.

I really don’t understand the Olivier love for this show. Katie’s performance was really hyped and while I appreciated it, I didn’t think it was that special or memorable.

Cool. Those of us who saw the show in London and liked it (along with critics from NYT, The Guardian, Time Out London, Evening Standard and others...) have a different opinion and thats what makes the world go 'round.

I’m getting the sense the show was better in London. I wish I’d seen it in a smaller house before it was tinkered with  

 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 6:00pm

Over on the “other” board, they are saying that the show has been having 10 hour rehearsal days, and that multiple changes are being implemented. If true, at least they realize there are issues and are attempting to fix them. 

[bway1430]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 7:09pm

Matt Rogers said: "Over on the “other” board, they are saying that the show has been having 10 hour rehearsal days, and that multiple changes are being implemented. If true, at least they realize there are issues and are attempting to fix them."

That's the word from Michael Cerveris on Instagram. Last night's performance was considered their second 'first preview' given the amount of changes they put in during rehearsals on Monday and Tuesday. 

Glad to see them using the time wisely.

[ivy3]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 7:42pm

Matt Rogers said: "Over on the “other” board, they are saying that the show has been having 10 hour rehearsal days, and that multiple changes are being implemented. If true, at least they realize there are issues and are attempting to fix them."

It is true. Michael Cerveris has been doing almost daily videos on his Instagram. On show days, they are having 5 hour rehearsals. Monday they didn't have a show and he said they rehearsed for 10 hours. He mentioned due to all the changes, it feels like "first preview" again.

He said that a song from second act , a song Christian Borle sings that Michael described as "when Jim calls Tammy from prison",  has been cut. He did mention his character also lost certain things but he didn't go into specifics. 

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 8:03pm

Gee, if they're going to that much effort to make changes, it would seem that the stans and insiders on this thread are incorrect and those who reviewed it negatively aren't just stupid poopyheaded haters and the show isn't being well-received everywhere else after all (including by its own creative team).

Huh.

[ivy3]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 8:16pm

MemorableUserName said: "Gee, if they're going to that much effort to make changes, it would seem that the stans and insiders on this thread are incorrect and those who reviewed it negatively aren't just stupid poopyheaded haters and the show isn't being well-received everywhere else after all (including by its own creative team).

Huh."

Is it "that much effort" or normal for a preview stage of any show? I don't think anyone thinks any show is perfect and doesn't need changes. It all will have changes done. It's normal. Looking over boards and discussions, you can find both constructive criticism and things that could be considered as full blown negativity. 

 

 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 8:26pm

ivy3 said: "Is it "that much effort" or normal for a preview stage of any show? I don't think anyone thinks any show is perfect and doesn't need changes. It all will have changes done. It's normal. Looking over boards and discussions, you can find both constructive criticism and things that could be considered as full blown negativity."

No, most shows that have transferred to Broadway aren't doing massive changes in the preview process, they're fine tuning. They're attempting to do work that would occur in a show's out of town try out in the Broadway preview process. 

[ivy3]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 8:44pm

Bettyboy72 said: "I’m getting the sense the show was better in London. I wish I’d seen it in a smaller house before it was tinkered with"

There is a bootleg of the off West End version. I watched that video but didn't see it on Broadway yet. To add context - I'm not American born so I don't have much knowledge or bias/ negative perceptions about Tammy and evangelists.

Also I'm aware that the show went through a developmental lab after London run, more materials, a new song is added and two songs were cut before Broadway run but I believe there hasn't been extreme fundamental changes to the material. For example I read the first act is pretty much the same as London. Please anyone who has seen both London and Broadway shows correct me if I'm wrong. 

Anyway, when I watched the off West End version, I thought it was fine and had potential but definitely needed work. There were some songs that were catchy, some were funny and some were just plain meh. I thought there were some very funny moments (especially first act) but then a kinda boring and long second act. I thought there was so much focus on other evangelists in a show called "Tammy Faye" and it distracted so much from the story. Personally I would cut a lot of that side plots and characters. Andrew Rannells was billed as male lead, but Jim Bakker felt more like a side character/ featured role. Jerry Falwell character had a bigger role / better part to play in my perception (and the actor who played him also won an Olivier award and I hoped that he will also transfer to Broadway as he was really good in the part). I didn't mind Rannells's performance but I though it was like a sequel to Elder Price but a friend of mine strongly disagreed with that perception. Overall with some changes, I thought it could be good and successful on Broadway.

Now if you are reading what people who have seen the show on Broadway writing, you will see that they are mostly saying similar things. So once again that makes me think there really hasn't been extreme fundamental changes between London and Broadway. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) It's not like they took a perfect show and made it terrible. If we are to assume / agree there hasn't been extreme fundamental changes between the two runs, what is soooo interesting to me is how the show seems to be perceived differently by British and American audiences, off West End and Broadway audiences. I don't have an explanation or theory as to why, just find it very intriguing.

 

Updated On: 10/30/24 at 08:44 PM

[BroadwayBen]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 9:05pm

Having been around during Tammy Faye's rise and decline, it's just hard to make Tammy Faye totally sympathetic, even if she was nice to one man dying of AIDS, which seems to be their primary marketing talking point.   She and her husband bilked people out of millions, and it's just hard to believe she wasn't in on the grift.    I know the film tried to make her sympathetic, but it didn't work for me.   I just find her to be dumb and misguided, and so unless you're doing total satire -- and who needs that, really -- it's just a poor choice for source material for a musical, particularly during an election year when the culture they  come from and represent may take down democracy.   The majority of evangelicals are right-wing, MAGAs, vearing into Christian nationalism.  Jim and Tammy Faye were two of their early heroes, at least until they were exposed for being sick hypocrites.   And now we're supposed to go spend hundreds of dollars to see a musical that sympathizes/celebrates/examines all that craziness.   I just don't get it. 

[veronicamae]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 11:52pm

I found this absolutely abysmal. Whose story are they telling? I learned more about Jerry Falwell than I did about the title character. The show has no idea what it is even though it thinks it wants to be a show for The Gays (I am a gay).

There were many hiccups tonight, mostly people stumbling over lines and a few missed mic cues, which makes me wonder if they're revising it significantly/frequently.

[bway1430]

Posted: 10/31/24 at 2:57am

 "Having been around during Tammy Faye'srise and decline, it's just hard to make Tammy Faye totally sympathetic, even if she was nice to one man dying of AIDS, which seems to be their primary marketing talking point. She and her husband bilked people out of millions, and it's just hard to believe she wasn't in on the grift. I know the film tried to make her sympathetic, but it didn't work for me. I just find her to be dumb and misguided, and so unless you're doing total satire -- and who needs that, really -- it's just a poor choice for source material for a musical, particularly during an election year when the culture they come from and represent may take downdemocracy. The majority of evangelicals areright-wing, MAGAs, vearing into Christian nationalism. Jim and Tammy Faye were two of their early heroes, at least until they were exposed for being sick hypocrites. And now we're supposed to go spend hundreds of dollars to see a musical that sympathizes/celebrates/examines all that craziness. I just don't get it."

Then you must have really hated EVITA.

Updated On: 10/31/24 at 02:57 AM

[lilpunkin]

Posted: 10/31/24 at 7:31am

MemorableUserName said: "Gee, if they're going to that much effort to make changes, it would seem that the stans and insiders on this thread are incorrect and those who reviewed it negatively aren't just stupid poopyheaded haters and the show isn't being well-received everywhere else after all (including by its own creative team).

Huh."

Literally no one has said that.

I don’t understand why the anti-fan brigade have to lie all the time.

No one has denied that the show has issues. No one has claimed it’s a universal success. All anyone has said is that reviews elsewhere are more mixed, than plenty of people online have enjoyed it, and that spending all day every day for months talking with such extraordinary vitriol about how much you think a show sucks and how much you’re celebrating it doing poorly (and hurling personal abuse and name calling at anyone who is taken aback by the idea of someone being so overinvested in wanting a show they have no connection with to fail).
Updated On: 10/31/24 at 07:31 AM

[Bwaygurl2]

Posted: 10/31/24 at 7:43am

 

I rated it 5* for it's Almeida run, but to me, in NYC it fell to around 3*.

 

(General spoiler warning for the show)

 

There were changes I did enjoy, and I feel like overall they did a good job of upgrading the show to fill a space like the Palace. More costumes, more set pieces, more tech. For me, Act Two has been much improved, it feels sleeker, and still has those important emotional punches. But the whole thing fell flat, really flat.

 

I think the biggest thing that's caused this shift is the opening 20 minutes of the show. The first scene really hasn't changed much, and it allows us as an audience to immediately get to know Tammy, and get on board with who she is as a person. We are routing for her. But transitioning on from that scene, we are whipped around for so long, we never get a breath or a chance to click with any other characters, most importantly Jim.

 

The Light of the World has been chopped and changed a lot, and the Almeida version worked much better. There was a lovely sense of anticipation, you were met with Jim, Tammy, Paul and Jan as a little quartet, you were in the room and excited to meet Billy Graham, hear what he was going to say. All of that has been lost.

 

I was really not a fan of the way Tammy came into that scene, as a "ghost" figure, very much separated from it. It prevented us as an audience from actually diving into that scene in the same way as before. It also made the end less impactful, when we return to that hospital room with Tammy. It used to be a lovely way to rejoin the beginning with the ending, a bittersweet full circle moment. But making it a lot clearer that the whole show was framed around the device of Tammy's retrospective, made the pay off at the end a lot less rewarding.

 

The old Light of the World scene allowed us to be introduced to these characters as underdogs, looking up at Billy Graham as this mega star figure that they could only dream of connecting with. They were literally squeeling when he looked at them. All of that was lost, and it meant I didn't care for the characters throughout the show. I didn't care that Paul and Jan betrayed them, I didnt care that Jerry Falwell was the man who orchestrated the take over. There was no initial connection, so everything fell extremely flat.

 

The Almeida LOTW set up the religious and political context swiftly and effectively, allowing us space to connect with the underdogs, watch their rise and fall, and feel the contrast of where they started, and where they ended up. The new LOTW failed to do that, which had a domino effect for the rest of the show.

 

Okay, on to Jim Bakker. I enjoyed both Christian Borle and Andrew Rannells performances, but there was something missing. The spark at the Almeida was gone. Thinking about it, I think Borles portrayal of Jim lacks the innocence of Rannells, and that real spark with Tammy. Part of this is due to the beginning of the show. We now meet Jim before his and Tammy's relationship, which was no where near as effective. In the London production, we meet them together, being goofy with puppets. We feel the massive contrast between everyone else and them, and we can see why they are a good pairing. Jim really believes in Tammy, loves her, and he's just as much an odd ball and underdog as she is. In this production, it never feels like Jim believes in Tammy, that he's genuinely routing for her. Jim feels like a character who already fits in with the preachers around him, so it's not a shock that he sides with them to give away PTL, or that any of the scandals that ensue and hurt Tammy, are things he may feel bad about. They aren't surprising. Once again, I didn't feel sorry for him at all.

 

They've added a lot of fluff to the beginning of the show, and it clouds any of the connections that you might have made with these characters.

 

I also want to talk about the songs Satellite of Heaven and Gods House/Heritage USA. Both of these songs have been, for lack of a better term, butchered. The rewrites are clunky, the lyric changes are a lot less effective, and I can see why they have no where near the reaction that they did in London. Please return them to their former glory. In my opinion, the parts that worked best where the parts that hadn't been changed from London.

 

Other minor gripes:

 

-Some of the costume choices are bizarre and distracting (Jim's orange jumpsuit - it's giving Jeffrey Dahmer, and the ensemble girls remaining in their underwear during He's Inside Us)

 

-Cut the fluff from Prime Time, it used to hit us straight away, this just felt underpowered and clunky

 

-I get the bigger budget and making the show fill the space, and overall they did a good job. But they lost the scrappy feeling of the characters. Why does Jim already have 5 detailed models of Heritage USA at the beginning of the song?

 

Why did they cut the line "What's too much mascara"?

 

TLDR: the cast work hard, Katie is incredible, but it no longer feels like an ensemble piece. The only character we are given the chance to sympathise with and route for is Tammy, and that makes the whole thing fall flat. It can be saved, but they need to return some scenes/songs to their previous versions

[ACL2006]

Posted: 10/31/24 at 7:59am

Is this show this season's Bad Cinderella? Bad press, word-of-mouth is awful, huge production costs, and another show is already eyeing the Palace.