THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES To Close January 4, 2026- Page 6

[joevitus]

Posted: 12/2/25 at 11:41pm

Any insider dish on the gestation of this work? I'm reading a Schwartz biography now, and he seems to want to control all aspects of a production. Do we know how much control he had over this one? The impression I get is they wanted to tell a campy story about a vain, self-important woman's version of the Cinderella story but that the final product didn't seem to either be that or not be that.

It does sound from the unanimously bad reviews that this wasn't sunk because of Chenoweth's social media comment but because it was a bad show. Maybe a good show would have had to fight some bad buzz, but this show apparenlty was never a good one. I'm kinda sorrry. It often feels like Schwartz misses more often than he hits.

[RGDT]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 1:02pm

When a show closes, the reactions tend to swing wildly, and the buzz around The Queen of Versailles has brought that into sharp focus. I’ve been seeing people celebrate the closure, while others scold them for being insensitive because a company is suddenly out of work. Both reactions skip over something that feels obvious to anyone who’s worked in this business for more than a minute.

A closing isn’t the end of employment on that stage. It’s a handoff.

That theater will light up again. A new crew will load in. Artists, musicians, stagehands, ushers, wardrobe teams — all of them find their next paycheck because Broadway keeps moving. It’s the cycle that’s built into the industry. Shows open, shows close, and the people who make them happen continue to work.

So while it may feel harsh to see folks cheering, the truth is often more complicated. The disappointment for any company losing a job is real, absolutely — you feel it in the pit of your stomach when it happens to you. But the arrival of another production means the ecosystem stays alive, and that is how the community survives.

The story of Broadway isn’t one show. It’s the constant passing of the torch.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 1:39pm

Really, Paul? Really?!!!



 

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 1:41pm

BrodyFosse123 said: "Really, Paul? Really?!!!



"

This is exactly why this show flopped. If the actual producers of this show had any sense, Jackie herself would have been kept far, far away from it. Instead, she’s promoting it like it’s the Dolly musical. Barf.

[MysteriousLady]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 1:55pm

RGDT said: "When a show closes, the reactions tend to swing wildly, and the buzz aroundThe Queen of Versailleshas brought that into sharp focus. I’ve been seeing people celebrate the closure, while others scold them for being insensitive because a company is suddenly out of work. Both reactions skip over something that feels obvious to anyone who’s worked in this business for more than a minute.

A closing isn’t the end of employment on that stage. It’s a handoff.

That theater will light up again. A new crew will load in. Artists, musicians, stagehands, ushers, wardrobe teams — all of them find their next paycheck because Broadway keeps moving. It’s the cycle that’s built into the industry. Shows open, shows close, and the people who make them happen continue to work.

So while it may feel harsh to see folks cheering, the truth is often more complicated. The disappointment for any company losing a job is real, absolutely — you feel it in the pit of your stomach when it happens to you. But the arrival of another production means the ecosystem stays alive, and that is how the community survives.

The story of Broadway isn’t one show. It’s the constant passing of the torch."

Isn't it funny how you can just smell when something is AI written? 

[Kad]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 2:05pm

Jackie is a fame-hungry opportunist who tried to capitalize on the documentary immediately. She even parleyed it into a sequel reality series a few years ago (that nobody cared about). 

I'm not convinced she couldn't make a good topic for a piece of theatre, but that seems like an impossible prospect while she is still alive. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 4:41pm

Kad said: "Jackie is a fame-hungry opportunist who tried to capitalize on the documentary immediately. She even parleyed it into a sequel reality series a few years ago (that nobody cared about).

I'm not convinced she couldn't make a good topic for a piece of theatre, but that seems like an impossible prospect while she is still alive."

I think she could be a good focus of a straight play that analyzes what makes someone become like that and how it affects not just her, but the people around her.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 5:33pm

Sherie was phenomenal today. Honestly, just the weirdest thing to see this show again and really enjoy it. She plays the role with so much humor and really leans into satire and it just…works. Yes the show itself still has a lot of issues but I’ll be damned if how she plays the role doesn’t just mask (most of) them. This was truly one of the most interesting afternoons I’ve maybe ever spent at the theater. 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 5:38pm

Several people have fairly raised Evita as a parallel subject, likely because like Jackie Eva possessed a bigger than life ruthlessness. Yet Eva Peron harnessed ambition and tied it to a nation's hunger for a proxy in government, or at least adjacency to the seat of power. Eva honed a message, against staggering odds (gender, class) became a communicator, and forged a connection to a swath of her culture that made her rise the stuff of myths. Eva was compromised and arguably criminal in her handling of money. Yet she's compelling because she moved so many to follow her. Jackie's singular goal remains narrow personal achievement. She becomes more entitled and closes the first act insisting that a recession/crash won't stop her. But stop her from what? It's not up there with "A New Argentina" or its obvious structural model, "Everything's Coming Up Roses," because she's reiterating the same narcissistic motive. 

[quizking101]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 5:39pm

One of my friends secured a comp for this afternoon after ai basically twisted his arm, since he originally told me “you couldn’t pay me to go back”.

He described her as “far superior” and “definitely ditzy, but with Elle Woods energy” and ended up enjoying himself far more than the first time.

I’m going to the evening show tonight - caught a Chess matinee 

[joevitus]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 5:51pm

Auggie27 said: "Several people have fairly raised Evita as a parallel subject, likely because like Jackie Evapossessed a bigger than life ruthlessness. Yet Eva Peron harnessed ambition and tied it to a nation's hunger for a proxy in government, or at least adjacency to the seat of power. Eva honeda message, against staggering odds (gender, class) became a communicator, and forged a connection to a swath of her culture that made her rise the stuff of myths. Eva was compromised and arguably criminal in her handling of money. Yet she's compelling because she moved so many to follow her. Jackie's singular goal remains narrow personal achievement. She becomes more entitled and closes the first act insisting that a recession/crash won't stop her. But stop her from what?It's not up there with "A New Argentina" or its obvious structural model, "Everything's Coming Up Roses," because she's reiterating the same narcissistic motive."

Totally agree with this, but also when one looks at how the real Eva Peron's reputation has been rehabilitated--I'd say based on the popularity of Evita--it's easy to see why the story of another social-climbing narcissist would suggest a good basis for a musical. Doesn't remotely mean a good musical came of it. I'd kinda like to hear the score, out of curiosity.  

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 6:24pm

This was my first encounter with the show, so I had nothing to compare it to, but I find it impossible to believe the show is anything but improved by Sherie. Her charisma, the kind of edge and wit and bite you always see working underneath with her, was really the show's only consistent asset other than her voice. She did far more than the text to try to wring an interesting character out of this tacky ghoul, whom we can't even really have any fun with.

It's a truly dreadful musical. I have seen shows that were far worse in any one element (score, design, etc.) but in terms of overall effect this was the biggest slog I've ever had with a musical. Utterly tedious. How can something so bad also be so very boring? How can something completely lacking in point of view feel so offensive? Yikes. I felt pretty insulted on several levels. And certainly this could not be further off the zeitgeist of the moment. 

 

But again, wonderful to see Sherie in a new musical. She is a really fantastic performer.