THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES with Kristin Chenowith & F. Murray Abraham to open at St. James in November- Page 2

[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.  

[Voter]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 11:41am

CoffeeBreak said: "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 wasdeveloped 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."

Actually, not that it really matters, but the English version of Maybe Happy Ending has several significant changes from the Korean and was not "translated" but actually a version they wrote alongside of the Korean version. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 11:50am

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

The beginning is total camp when she’s what, like 16 years old? It’s like the beginning of “Scandalous” when Carolee was 12.  

[Jarethan]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 11:59am

I am sure that Kristin is dying to open in a new musical; however, unless they are starting all over again, this is not it.  Jackie Segal is just not the person to build a musical about.  Kristin is likeable, Jackie is not.  They do make a point of letting us know that she is really smart and not just shallow, but to me the only thing that came across is her shallowness.  Time will tell.  I have been wrong before (I was sure that Annie was going to run 6 months

[marytylermoore]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 2:35pm

I haven't seen the musical (as shown in my previous comment), but I really don't think the documentary is terrible source material. I haven't seen it in a few years but I remember it being a fascinating look at the financial crisis from the POV of America's (likely) most out-of-touch woman. That's not nothin'! What is terrible is Jackie Siegel's involvement in this musical. Without her involved, I'm sure they'd be able to actually make substantial commentary (whether that be damning or not—most likely damning...which is the correct answer when it comes to her) on Jackie the person and Jackie the character in this musical, but with her in the rehearsal room it's hard to have a show that has something to say about its central character other than "look at this crazy woman who shopped a lot during the recession!". Surely they didn't go out of their way to have her involved. There must've been some sort of clause in optioning the rights to the documentary that gave Jackie agency over her likeness—or something. That's the real shame here.

Also if Stephen was writing an original musical with one of his Witches in mind, I will say that to anyone familiar with Jackie Siegel in both stature and demeanor, Idina is a much more appropriate casting choice, but ah well! 

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 3/11/25 at 2:55pm

marytylermoore said: "I haven't seen the musical (as shown in my previous comment), but I really don't think the documentary is terrible source material. I haven't seen it in a few years but I remember it being a fascinating look at the financial crisis from the POV of America's (likely) most out-of-touch woman. That's not nothin'!Whatisterrible is Jackie Siegel's involvement in this musical. Without her involved, I'm sure they'd be able to actually make substantial commentary (whether that be damning or not—most likely damning...which is the correct answer when it comes to her) on Jackie the person and Jackie the character in this musical, but with her in the rehearsal room it's hard to have a show that has something to say about its central character other than "look at this crazy woman who shopped a lot during the recession!". Surely they didn't go out of their way to have her involved. There must've beensome sort of clause in optioning the rights to the documentary that gave Jackie agency over her likeness—or something. That's the real shame here."

I do think this hits on what I think is one of the musical's biggest flaws.  I actually think Kristin has done an incredible job of diving into the character of Jackie and figuring out what makes her interesting to watch (of course it also helps that she's a very charismatic performer), but it seems that the book/direction don't fully meet her at the logical end of Jackie's arc at the end of the show where it shows you just how little meaning she actually has left in her life.  I hadn't seen the documentary but from just the musical I found it a really fascinating look into someone who was so fixated on her idea of the American dream that she lost sight of what actually mattered (ie family).  In her own way she's just as stuck in her own delusions and misguided path as Rose in Gypsy.

If the show TRULY wanted to be great, I think what they should've done was tell act 1 from her daughter's point of view, growing up in luxury and discovering her mother's (and her own) roots and trying to reconcile the two, and then act 2 being from Jackie's point of view after the major event involving her daughter, and realizing (or rather, failing to realize) how far she drifted from what was once important to her and what her daughter wanted.  But the show was also written to be a showcase for a leading lady so I don't think they'd want to go that route.