THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES musical will have pre-Bway tryout this summer in Boston — Page 7

Having been familiar with Jackie Siegel for years and the documentary, I never bothered to watch it - until last night. Her persona has always been charming and humble but very much on the surface never with any depth, and this is how she is in the documentary as well. Only during one moment towards the end of the documentary does a huge chunk of Jackie and David’s relationship show its true colors. That’s it. As many have mentioned on here, I also don’t see what merits a musical out of the documentary. Jackie just comes across as a sweet humble woman who married into money and just got carried away in the nonsense of it all. Even when the economy collapsed in 2008, their money issues were just a suggestion as she still continued spending money on nonsense. David and her late daughter Victoria were the only ones who showed any depth, not Jackie.

Jackie’s intentions are definitely heartfelt and well intended but she’s so on the surface with everything, there’s never any emotional depth to her. Even with her thrift store and all the things she’s started in the memory of Victoria. It’s as if she’s oblivious to everything and is just putting things into fruition unaware of the work others are doing on her behalf regarding these projects. Her “oh, I didn’t know because no one told me” attitude is prevalent on everything she does.

To answer your question above, no. That’s not mentioned. I had no idea until you asked. There's a hint of of it when Fox News is shown on a big TV, but that's it.

I’ve now seen this a few times and have more mixed feelings. Cheno really is wonderful in this (it’s truly fantastic work she’s doing) but the show feels extremely unfocused. It’s about this rich lady who…what? Wants to be rich and she is. There’s no “real” conflict until the end and then as I mentioned, all good will I had for the woman just went out the window.

I’m extremely curious to know how much the real Jackie has a say in how she’s presented here and what can and can not be dramatized. But as of right now it’s mainly just about a billionaire who has some tough billionaire problems and in the end learns nothing except even billionaires lose people and have their kids move out when they get older?

I just don’t know.

Updated On: 7/23/24 at 10:39 PM

After seeing the original doc I was intrigued by Jackie but subsequent media and interviews have led me to find her quite off putting. Vapid, immature and quite callous. I have no idea who wanted this musical as well as who will want to see it after the Cheno fans have. I’m sure Kristin is great but it makes me sad this is what she is being offered. I’m sure she elevates the material. My friend saw it over the weekend and left scratching her head wondering what was the point and who is the audience. She said Cheno is a masterclass but the show was meh. I guess time will tell,

Another thought I had was about the character of her husband, David. I don't know if the role was written for F. Murray Abraham or not but the fact that David doesn't sing is a big problem. He has one "song" where he sings a few lines and another song (The "Rodeo" number) that's about him and he's there for but doesn't sing, but other than that it's a speaking role only. So in a musical, where so much of the story/conflict is done in song, the other leading role is completely absent.

The other thing I couldn't get out of my head is how the last song "This Time Next Year" (or whatever it's called) sounds a lot like "This Time" from Kimberly Akimbo to me. But she needs a BIGGER song for that finale, as others have pointed out. Even though the character hasn't earned it, she does need a real showstopping number that ends the show.

Updated On: 7/23/24 at 11:51 AM

I am going to see this next week -- months ago I organized an outing for myself and 7 other people, four of whom rarely attend the theatre. I figured Stephen Schwartz and Kristin Chenoweth. .When it was announced, I must admit that I expected it to be a satire of some sort. Based on the feedback here, I am already squirming a little about how the evening is going to go.

It is really sounding like one of those 'why the hell did Stephen Schwartz decide to musicalize this?' properties. If it is being done 'straight', why did they think that it would attract a large audience in the first place? A musical about a person who sounds shallow, unsympathetic, and does not change. It will be interesting what the critics' take on this is.

While I haven't seen this yet, after reading everything, it seems to me that Schwartz and Chenoweth wanted to do a big, glamorous musical vehicle for her -- but with some pathos! -- yet...didn't fully think out their chosen subject. I can't help but think they should have ditched the whole Jackie Siegel idea and gone with a big, beautiful satire of the ACTUAL Queen of Versailles, Marie Antoinette. The framing device could have more opportunities for dramatic development, combining with broad comedy that Cheno is known for.

(And fair enough, Schwartz's milieu isn't as "On the Twentieth Century" as such a production could be, and Marie Antoinette ain't sympathetic either. But as a deep satire or "Wicked"-like twist, it could work.)

I caught this last night, and I'm struggling. Act I was really fun and Act II just bored me to tears.

Cheno is a dynamo, no doubt, but by the end of Act II, it just felt like: Look at me! Look at me!

F Murray Abraham should not sing in public. Period. And what a waste of his talents. ( A phrase I don't use easily)

We could well do without the framing device if the Actual French Versailles. A big waste of money, right there.

The set, while vast and eventually beautiful, took up far too much stage leaving all scenes fairly cramped in a fraction of the stage.

Also, for all the set pieces, constantly coming in and out, the scenes are far too shallow and short.

I know this has been said - but why did the daughters get so much Act II time? Neither sounded great singing and it was definitely a time stopper. A Lizard song?????

The audience ate it the f up, though, at least on Monday night.

"There’s something else that didn’t sit well with me and curious if others feel the same way"



Jordan, That's how I left the show feeling; I just wanted nothing good for her once that moment hit, and I had already been trying to hold back my biases, knowing their MAGA ties (another slight nod to her true character, other than Fox News on the TV, was her blatantly refusing to hug or touch the Black contestant in the Mrs. Florida pageant.)

Then, upon reflection, maybe it was more of a happy ending for us the audience, seeing the type of person who would sell pretty much anything for a buck realize that money can't buy it all.

Updated On: 7/24/24 at 07:05 PM

Kad said: "They have compelling reasons not to sing much, and their lack of music is just as informative about who they are as the music of those around them. Tewfiq lives in his quiet grief, in contrast to Dina's musical fantasies of an exotic life."

That is beautifully put. Thank you!

Herbie also sings in "Small World" and "You'll Never Get Away From Me" - and in most productions he gets a few sung lines in "Mr. Goldstone."

I saw the show over the weekend (Saturday evening) and overall, I enjoyed myself and I think it could be something great, but right now there is just so much standing in the way of that.

Kristin is truly phenomenal. It is a behemoth of a role, I think there's maybe 3 or 4 songs total where she isn't onstage at all, and I imagine most of her offstage time is spent changing into her next costume. She looks incredible--clearly no expense was spared when it came to her wardrobe--and she sounds better than ever. She tackles the performance with wit, humor, and her signature charm. And if there was ever any doubt why she is the star that she is, this performance explains it.

But that's sort of where the clear positives end because the rest of the show is a mixed bag.

The book in act 1 is played as a straight up comedy, there are allusions to the darkness of Jackie's life that helped shape her and her dreams, but they are quickly done away with. Act 2 gets more serious, and for me that actually worked. Act 2 felt more focused and centralized on a storyline: How do we get back on top? I wouldn't say the book is great, maybe not even good, but it is solid.

The score is the biggest problem. It all sounds incredibly generic, and the majority of the songs are really about the same thing, "We're rich and we love it." While it's easy to listen to and largely well performed, it's not interesting to see the same idea played out in every single scene. The songs that deviate from this (the daughter and the niece's songs) make me think Stephen Schwartz has never once heard a teenager speak in his life. The daughter calling her diary "my book of random"? I didn't really have high expectations as I've not been blown away by Schwartz's recent work, but a lot of this felt like cut songs from a cut show. If the composer were someone a little more capable at nuance, I think it could be better.

There are also moments where it felt like a song could go and then it just...didn't. Most notably when Melody Butiu as the nanny says she hasn't been back to the Philippines in years, there was even a breath before the next moment and it felt like a song was starting. And in a show where there were SO MANY SONGS, not giving that character that moment to sing felt odd.

The cast is all good. They're doing solid work with what they're given, but as a previous poster said, every single person aside from Kristin is playing an under-written supporting role. Even F. Murray Abraham doesn't feel like he's in a leading role. And they're all just orbiting around Jackie and popping in and out.

The Versailles/historical stuff felt like it was verging on legendary flop territory. Opening both acts with it I think works, but we don't need to be beat over the head with it in multiple scenes in between. We see the connection. We get it.

I thought the direction was mostly clever, though it grew a bit stale in act 2.

Overall, it's not a complete trainwreck, but it feels like a first step with a loooooooong ways to go before it should come to NY.

Apropos of a few comments (even if this doesn't change anything,) from the Boston Globe article, apparently the idea for a musical based on this was the book writer, and playwright (though she doesn't seem to have written any other musicals,) Lindsey Ferrentino who said when she saw the doc ten years ago, she thought the larger than life character just needed a musical. Schwartz and then Chenoweth were subsequently approached.



TheatreMonkey said: "While I haven't seen this yet, after reading everything, it seems to me that Schwartz and Chenoweth wanted to do a big, glamorous musical vehicle for her -- but with some pathos! -- yet...didn't fully think out their chosen subject. I can't help but think they should have ditched the whole Jackie Siegel idea and gone with a big, beautiful satire of the ACTUAL Queen of Versailles, Marie Antoinette. The framing device could have more opportunities for dramatic development, combining with broad comedy that Cheno is known for.

(And fair enough, Schwartz's milieu isn't as "On the Twentieth Century" as such a production could be, and Marie Antoinette ain't sympathetic either. But as a deep satire or "Wicked"-like twist, it could work.)"

I saw the musical Schwartz did for VBW productions in Vienna with Trevor Nunn, Schikaneder back in 2016. I absolutely loved the production and the score which leans very much into mostly what I'd call light opera pastiche. (To be fair, I know others who didn't love it nearly as much.) And thought it was the best thing either man has done in ages (I can't really comment on Schwartz' lyrics though as I've only heard some brief demo excerpts--in the theatre, of course, they were in German with English surtitles that were often, as expected, a bit awkward.) I only bring this up because Schikaneder was the librettist of The Magic Flute for Mozart, and a larger than life theatre person from that era, and that era overlaps with Marie Antoinette and that era in Versailles, so I think Schwartz would be up for the challenge. (There's still some talk about an English production of the musical--right now the completely awful working title is Making Magic--but I think the fear is just that Schikaneder himself is too obscure a figure outside--arguably--of Austria.)