THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES Previews — Page 11

It’s SHERIE.



We need to put some respect on her name!

Please do, can't deal with the sparkle gauche bullsh*t again. Go Sherri!

Wait how are grosses good if they are giving away tickets for free? I don’t think you know what grosses are.

Speed said: "Wait how are grosses good if they are giving away tickets for free? I don’t think you know what grosses are."

I don't think you know how Broadway works.

I keep reading about the potential musician strike and, if they go on any extended strike, I feel this show will be in deep doo-doo.

Add me to the voices who appreciated this more than expected. BroadwayLuv2's assessment is very much in line with my own - the show has clearly done some major overhauling on Act 2, which is tighter, more pointed, and ends up sticking its landing. Act 1 remains rather woolly and seems afraid to go for the jugular. Chenoweth's inherent sunniness and likability ends up working somewhat against the material - I too would be very curious to see what the show is like with Sherie Renee Scott in the leading role.

Saw this last weekend and, unfortunately, found very little to enjoy about it. It’s certainly an interesting story, but was overlong and felt like they didn’t know exactly what they wanted to say. There were too many of the French royalty scenes and by the last one it felt like they were beating the audience over the head with trying to make the comparison clear.

The score was a big letdown for me – had I not known going in that it was written by Schwartz, I wouldn’t have believed that he was capable of creating something this generic.

Kristin was excellent and I thought the whole cast was very good.

While the final set is striking, I couldn’t help but think that so many of the set pieces/props/costumes throughout were unnecessary and a waste of money (but of course, maybe that’s the point).

It's startling how little was changed from Boston, based on many reports. It sounds like the overall just positive enough reviews (to further justify if not fully secure a B'way transfer) were taken to heart as evidence that the show is sound. I re-read the NY Times review:

“The Queen of Versailles,” the surprising and frequently excellent new musical starring an utterly disarming Kristin Chenoweth and co-written by her “Wicked” composer-lyricist, Stephen Schwartz... Act I fizzes entertainingly along, striking just the right tone, Chenoweth’s playfulness and charm endearing Jackie to us. And the show, which starts with and occasionally returns to the original Versailles, looks great..

Wait. And yet:

"But in Act II, the tone flails, even descending briefly into sentimentality with a song called “Little Houses.” The cast is rock solid, and Chenoweth gives a fiercely intelligent performance, emotionally nuanced and deep. The narrative ground beneath the actors is unsteady, though. The darkness has — for now, at least — thrown the show’s creators off..."

It is startling, and yet, as we've discussed on here endlessly, it seems with these shows that have an out of town tryout, that little work does get done between it and their Broadway run, despite the long break. The book writer did say that two songs have been added, but since in Boston there was no song list, and the few people on here who had seen it there and have seen the previews haven't mentioned any new songs (that they noticed anyway) I'm... curious if that made any impact (or even happened lol)

I'll revisit to one of my original posts (10/1) that posited that this material's DNA is fundamentally flawed as a musical foundation. I made a case that this biography doesn't have the root-for, compelling obstacles, or reversals that invite investment through (ir)resolution.. The documentary is an admittedly compelling glimpse at a curiosity. But it's not Grey Gardens, which presents a bona fide anti-hero's journey with genuine heartbreak. This origin story's socioeconomic tropes - particularly in traumatic 2025 in America - are more likely to put off an audience than welcome emotional participation. It may have proven unfixable.

More development" - even late stage - is often cited as a panacea for all troubled musicals. But how many shows are DOA from inception, because they musicalize a tale lacking a dramatic question in a compelling human being's narrative that no one cares to have answered? The root cause of "root for" in all storytelling, from the Greeks?

If a concept is flawed thus - impossible to explore and amplify in theatrical terms - it's often traced to this foundational issue of a dramatic question. Why did this person want what she/he wanted, and why did/didn't he/she attain it? We can all point to numerous musicals missing such a basic component in their DNA. A sound example of a show that found "the question" in reality-based source material might be Grey Gardens, a theater piece that carved a haunting first act out of the excavated clues only hinted at in the iconic documentary. It sounds so simplistic, but "How did Little Edie become Little Edie, and why" is a helluva arc, and it invites emotion-driven songs.

I would posit that such is the underlying problem here: Jackie's trajectory is untethered to an answerable question that anyone gives a damn about. Is that fixable, ever? I'd opine that it is not.

Updated On: 10/22/25 at 11:03 PM

DiscoCrows said: "There is still plenty ofMarie Antoinette but I didn’t see it in Boston so I can’t comment on how that may have shifted.

The stewardess gives a spectacular monologue about her life back home and I am sad I can’t remember her name as I type this. It feels incredibly loyal to the documentary."



I saw the show last night and I literally have zero memory of a stewardess. Was that cut since starting previews? God this show was insufferably terrible. I was very close to leaving at intermission but felt it would not be fair to judge the show so stayed. Act II was better, but still did not make for an enjoyable night. My main problem is just. why the hell am I supposed to care about these people at all!? Jackie did nothing but get a boob job and then marry a billionaire. That's not a compelling story. And having Fox News playing on a gigantic TV screen in the center of the stage, just who is the audience for this thing?? Maybe it would have played different a few years ago but it was all so tone deaf. It felt like the book was trying to make us feel bad for Jackie, but sorry no. Oh no, the market crash made these obscenely wealthy billionaires just mere millionaires, how devastating. The only things I thought were good were the set, the daughter and the housekeeper. Those two characters were actually interesting.

The show started at 7:30 and bows finished at 10:11pm.

Updated On: 10/23/25 at 11:21 AM

Auggie, now that cheap tickets are appearing, please tell me you're going. After all your insightful takes on this show, and obvious interest, yours is the opinion on here I'd most like to read

Haven’t seen it yet (might on our upcoming trip), but I wonder how much of it is that it’s just coming in at the wrong time. Maybe all those questions had great answers years ago. Something about the premise (and honestly a new Schwartz score) draws me in but these reports are making me reconsider.