THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES with Kristin Chenowith & F. Murray Abraham to open at St. James in November

[KevinKlawitter]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 9:04am

Additional casting tba

Updated On: 3/10/25 at 09:04 AM

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 9:14am

I’ve known it’s had this house since early in the year. Should run long enough to pass the time before THE PRODUCERS transfers. 

[Musigamist]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 9:19am

KevinKlawitter said: "Additional casting tba"

I wish this show well, but unless they’ve made changes since Boston, there’s no way this makes it through spring in that theater.

Kristin is excellent though, as are the set and costumes, but a lot of the book needs an overhaul. Specifically, it needs a clear pov on Jackie Sehgal, tweaks to the nurse/nanny, and to actually have an arc for some of the other supporting characters.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 9:27am

EDSOSLO858 said: "Should run long enough to pass the time before THE PRODUCERS transfers."

…..isn’t this production of The Producers deliberately small? The Garrick Theatre has 732 seats. 

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 9:27am

Also, the St. James is going from "This Time Next Year" to "This Time Next Year."

Time really is a flat circle.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 10:37am

This was not that well-received out of town…Are they hoping that the Wicked movie craze is going to motivate people to buy tickets to see the original Glinda? Seems like a risky venture to say the least…

[ACL2006]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 11:02am

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "EDSOSLO858 said: "Should run long enough to pass the time before THE PRODUCERS transfers."

…..isn’t this production of The Producers deliberately small? The Garrick Theatre has 732 seats."

That Producers revival needs to pick a smaller theater. Especially if they don't plan to cast a name or two.

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 11:05am

Curious too.  Friends didn't respond well to this in Boston mentioning weak book, poor directorial development of material and a non-memorable score?  We heard the dog was cute, Chenoweth was Chenoweth-ing and, again, a big set is covering blah material?  Was this a good show to transfer or just already in motion with the St. James booked before Boston?

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 11:16am

I trust Michael Arden can turn this show around.

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 11:20am

There’s no way Greg Nobile and the Menier people want the St James, is there? The Booth or the Golden would be a match for the Garrick, but I guess La Cage went to the Longacre so that may work for size.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 11:22am

Seems I'm in the minority here but I thought this showed a LOT of promise out of town and felt that it was better put together than some other shows that have made it to Broadway (but perhaps that's not saying much).  There's definitely tweaks they can do with the book and direction but I'm excited to see it again.

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 11:31am

Call_me_jorge said: "I trust Michael Arden can turn this show around."

It will be interesting to see.  He's known for revivals with no track record for developing new musicals.  Maybe Happy Ending was developed in Korea and just changed to English - an English "revival" of sorts.  I have no doubt his set designer will pull out all the stops.

Updated On: 3/10/25 at 11:31 AM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 12:04pm

I think Michael Arden's direction of "Maybe Happy Ending" is his most impressive Broadway work to date. While not a revival, it's important to acknowledge that Arden benefited from joining the project after its successful development with other creatives. Even some of the show's most striking directorial moments seem to have originated in earlier productions under different directors.

It seems to me that the situation with "Queen of Versailles" is quite different. Most criticisms of "QOV" suggest that the show's concept itself is the root of its problems. No director can overcome that without the unified vision of their collaborators. 

Given the massive production already in place, I believe there will be significant obstacles to making the foundational changes that the show likely needs to see substantial improvement. It's ironic, considering the show's theme of hubris. I think there was certainly hubris in rushing this show into a full-fledged Broadway tryout, rather than opting for a more traditional development trajectory with regional audiences, which would have provided a better opportunity to course correct.

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 12:13pm

Yes, Arden uses the same team who choreograph, stage and do musical staging for his shows.  The designers are often the same too.  It'll be interesting to see how their work will fare with more risk in different collaborators.

How was the cast outside of Chenoweth?  Abraham, White etc?

Updated On: 3/10/25 at 12:13 PM

[BETTY22]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 12:41pm

I am so excited to see this. 

[getatme]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 1:03pm

I thought this showed a lot of promise in Boston and was bolstered by some career-best work from Chenoweth. The book definitely needs some tweaking and refining, but the score was the biggest problem. The only truly great number is the finale, everything preceding it ranges from fine to bad.

[marytylermoore]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 2:43pm

I'm so thankful that they took the time and money to open this show out-of-town before bringing it to New York. I am rooting for this big musical with an original score—so sad that this is such a rarity, but I have hopes that they can fix whatever was wrong in Boston. And if they can't, I'll take ten more original flops than one more jukebox musical. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 3:37pm

The book and score don’t just need tweaking, they need almost a total overhaul which I don’t think anyone nowadays expects a show to do. It COULD be a very good musical but they have to do so much work on it. 

[inception]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 3:41pm

How did what played Boston compare to Tammy Faye or Lempicka?

[Ensemble1741630406]

Posted: 3/10/25 at 7:19pm

I don't want to sound insensitive but I simply cannot root for this show. It's another one of those "why TF does that need a musical?" musicals. Also, Kristin looks way too old for the part.

[perfectliar]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 8:06am

Ensemble1741630406 said: "I don't want to sound insensitive but I simply cannot root for this show. It's another one of those "why TF does that need a musical?" musicals. Also, Kristin looks way too old for the part."

Just for the record, she's younger than Jackie Segel.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 9:01am

Don’t want to sound insensitive then comments on someone’s age, copy. Copy. 

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 9:38am

My biggest issue in Boston was the heroine’s lack of agency. She’s dragged around by her husbands in act one. Then reacting to her daughter in act two. She wants material things. She goes on shopping sprees. But she never accomplishes anything. It’s hard to build a musical around that.

[Bwaygurl2]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 9:58am

MrsSallyAdams said: "My biggest issue in Boston was the heroine’s lack of agency. She’s dragged around by her husbands in act one. Then reacting to her daughter in act two. She wants material things. She goes on shopping sprees. But she never accomplishes anything. It’s hard to build a musical around that."

It seems like the main problem is the source material. That can't be fixed with a few tweaks or even extensive rewriting. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 10:06am

Chenoweth is two years younger than the real Jackie Segal but for most of the musical is playing Jackie Segal in her 20s-40s.