THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY to Close May 18 — Page 4

Roxy, I'm still final reserving judgement that there must've been something worse in Broadway history besides "MORE SONGS THAN THE BOOK!" though after much though anything else escapes me.

---

So disappointed I won't be able to watch this one, it was one of the first shows on my "to see" list when I got back home!

The show could do fine on tour, as most of the touring market is based on a bundled season subscription. But I am genuinely sad that this show didn't find it's New York audience, and that this stupidly talented cast and creative team don't get to keep doing this show every night.

This makes me very sad. Such beautiful songs performed by two talented actors should have been seen by more people. I believe Kelli will finally get her Tony by this signature performance. She is just exquisite!!

---

Tell me how a nothing confection like Aladdin , who everyone said was dead in Toronto, is now a huge success & quality theater like this is a failure.

People do not want to think & just want mindless entertainment. This is what tourists demand and this is what they are getting.

The critics would fall all over themselves if Sondheim did this or the Kincaid musical.

---

Okay, BOMC, though I did like it, was 100% mindless. It was a nice little soap opera musical, and there was nothing in it at all that made you think.

---

I imagine that this will have a brief tour with someone like Elena Shaddoe or Katie Rose Clarke. But even Light in the Piazza was a hard sell on the road. Introspective, romantic, ballad-heavy shows, much as they are rabidly beloved by some, can be difficult commodities to sell.

I would be interested in a longer (polite) discussion/exploration of something touched upon earlier in this thread - the difficulty of accurately judging a show merely by listening to its cast recording. Of course, there are going to be many people who can't afford to see a lot of shows in their entirety, only able to judge its merits by marketing, the occasional national TV appearance, and the cast recording. But as has been pointed out millions of times, a show most often succeeds or fails because of its book, not the score. The score is rarely the problem - we all own a lot of beloved flop recordings, and many ask "how could this show flop? The score is so great!"

It seems that loving the score and loving the show are very often different and unrelated things. I'm no fan of either for Bridges, but (to me) the book really is bad - sentimental, anti-intellectual, casually immoral, reductive, artificial. Those same qualities could be couched in more positive terms by someone to whom this book/narrative speaks. But this closing indicates that the majority (whether slim or vast) don't admire the book.

Updated On: 5/2/14 at 10:00 AM

"At least it doesn't confuse and alienate half of the audience like IF/THEN"

Exactly. Nominations aren't everything, but there's a reason this totally original show with huge names behind it didn't get a Best Musical nom. When half the audience has no idea what's going on, your show is in trouble and typically sucks.

Bridges had its issues, but the score wasn't one of them. Like the performances, the score was pretty much universally praised both from critics and audiences. Nothing TURGID about it.

But this closing indicates that the majority (whether slim or vast) don't admire the book.

I don’t think we can necessarily make such a concrete assumption as this. Full disclosure, this is coming from someone who found the book to be made of intimate and natural dialogue (as well as creating complex, full characters) that made me feel like I was sitting at that dining room table right next to them. However, whether the majority of those who saw the show liked the book or not, to my eyes, I can’t see the reception to the book as the main reason for the show’s short run. Word of mouth and critical/audience reception was fairly good for the show (especially in comparison to many of the other musicals this season) – it seemed that the show, more than anything, had a hard time getting people interested in a musicalized version of “The Bridges of Madison County” in the first place, which is why I believe that the marketing, reputation of the source material, and style of the show were its biggest hindrances to finding an audience.

I do think the discussion on judging a show by its cast recording is interesting and I think it can go both ways: in some cases I think the recording can really encompass the show and, other times, give you an entirely different picture. There are also the cases where the songs are enjoyable on their own, but when put into context onstage either don’t add much to the show or don’t fit well into the overall show. I know it’s often the case for many that they can’t appreciate a cast recording until after seeing the show; much can be added to a score when you can understand the context and impact of the moment in the show (and, I find that having seen the show brings out moments or lyrics on the cast recording that have much more meaning than I knew having listened to it before seeing the show).

This also (in my mind) brings up discussion of how Best Score awards should be approached: are we judging on the quality of the score on its own or on how much it elevates the story-telling during the show/how well it serves its purpose as a musical score? I have always approached it from the latter train of thought (although, of course, excelling at both is the ultimate hope).

The message of the novel, film, and musical is: it's a beautiful thing to cheat on your spouse with another man and consider abandoning your family if:
1) said spouse is dull,
2) said family is annoying,
3) said other man is sexy, and
4) you convince yourself that you really, deeply, truly are "in love" with him (however loosely you might define that phrase), and
5) after a few rolls in the hay with said other man, decide to stay with said boring husband and said annoying family.

Codicil: you don't need to actually know said other man for more than a few days before convincing yourself he is the love of your life.

Updated On: 5/2/14 at 12:41 PM

The book is more than just dialogue - it's the shape of the show, it determines the pace, the way the story is told. Most people watch a show with no conscious understanding of how the book influences their enjoyment.

I know many people who feel that the book of Wicked is much more skillfully done than the score. Several of the other shows you mention also succeed because of the skillful way their books tell the story, manipulate the audience, and allow the songs to contribute.

Updated On: 5/2/14 at 01:02 PM

As I've mentioned before, I loved this show and saw it twice (the second time with friends, who also really enjoyed it and expressed a desire to get the cast album). I could nitpick about some of it, but overall I was moved in a way that is rare for a musical.

Many here have remarked on the poor marketing. Living in LA, I haven't really seen how it is marketed (trailers, key art, etc). What in your opinion were the flaws in the campaign and how could they have improved?