THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES To Close December 21, 2025- 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. 

[quizking101]

Posted: 12/3/25 at 11:27pm

Once again, Sherie understood the assignment and knocked it out of the park. Even Michael Arden and Stephen Schwartz were in the audience tonight.

I really hopes she gets a few more shows during the holidays so more people can get a chance to see her. I’d also be curious to go back if Ryah goes on. All I know is that, if I never see that show again, at least I’ll go out on a high with Sherie 

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 1:00am

Sherie did great job tonight and understood how to make this horrible direction & bad material work the best it can (which isn't a lot).  She helped find a more solid character tone for Jackie that the creative team couldn't write into the role - or the director forge in Kristin, the writers or the the rest of the show in general .  That said, the show is still BAD in every other aspect - but at least the leading lady got it more - with her winning performance and natural Sherie comedy chops, edge and timing.

The super slow standing ovation was obviously close friends of the cast and the some of show's producers trying to help their show, in the beginning.  The audience was 3/4s up with Sherie's entrance.  A little less tepid response from the previous time we saw it - but Sherie helped this belabored curtain call get some new (if brief) energy.

Updated On: 12/4/25 at 01:00 AM

[Observation]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 10:30am

CoffeeBreak said: "Sherie did great job tonight and understood how to make this horribledirection & bad materialwork the best it can (which isn't a lot). She helped find a more solid character tone for Jackie that the creative team couldn't write into the role - or the director forge in Kristin, the writers or the the rest of the show in general .That said, the show is still BAD in every other aspect - but at least the leading lady got it more- with herwinning performance and natural Sherie comedy chops, edgeand timing.

The super slow standing ovation was obviously close friends of the cast and the some of show's producers trying to help their show, in the beginning. The audience was 3/4s up with Sherie's entrance. A little less tepidresponse from the previous time we saw it - but Sherie helped this belaboredcurtain call get some new (if brief) energy."

Laughing at the last sentence. That curtain call has to be the longest bows on Broadway, it is insane to me! 

[60'splayoff]

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

Can anyone who was there last night confirm what happened before the 11 o'clock number? I'm seeing online from multiple sources that some idiot whistled the beginning of Rose's Turn after she screams "I will never stop building this house!"

[BoringBoredBoard40]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 12:57pm

60'splayoff said: "Can anyone who was there last night confirm what happened before the 11 o'clock number? I'm seeing online from multiple sources that some idiot whistled the beginning of Rose's Turn after she screams "I will never stop building this house!""

are you ok?

[Robbie2]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 1:14pm

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


That's his job and he loves everything and everyone in the biz and he kisses eveyone's butt in the industry so that's why they all love him. How does he live this life all fake lies just look at his social pages. 
"

 

[LoveIsMyLegs2]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 1:40pm

60'splayoff said: "Can anyone who was there last night confirm what happened before the 11 o'clock number? I'm seeing online from multiple sources that some idiot whistled the beginning of Rose's Turn after she screams "I will never stop building this house!""

This is 100% true. Someone in the orchestra whistled the couple bars of music that leads into "Why did I do it? What did it get me?" in the silence after that line.

Updated On: 12/4/25 at 01:40 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 1:43pm

That's some loud whistling. 

[LoveIsMyLegs2]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 1:47pm

Kad said: "That's some loud whistling."

It seemed rather quiet, and I thought it was maybe 3 rows back from me in the left orchestra, but I had friends in the center and right orch who also heard it. Maybe it was PTO in one of the boxes. Wrong theater, but there's nothing to haunt in the Majestic across the street right now.

Updated On: 12/4/25 at 01:47 PM

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 1:53pm

Didn't realize the time Sherie is scheduled isn't until January 20th. Any chances they'll bring her in for another date before it closes?

[Dom King]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 2:06pm

No she’s done. It’s Kristin’s show 

[quizking101]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 3:29pm

everythingtaboo said: "Didn't realize the time Sherie is scheduled isn't until January 20th. Any chances they'll bring her in for another date before it closes?"

Never say never. I remember when Autumn Hurlbert was scheduled for performances of Tammy Faye and they tried to make sure she got one or two more performances in before they closed aside from the pre-scheduled Sunday evenings.

Considering Sherie has been getting a great reception from those on and offline, maybe they will throw her an odd holiday matinee or two for those who missed her, especially since she’s down one performance from her original schedule.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/4/25 at 3:42pm

Get Sherie into “Oh, Mary!” because not only would she be hilarious but billboards could say “Oh, Sherie!” and I want that poster.