The Boy from...Ugh!

[SFJPS]

Posted: 10/6/03 at 5:38pm

Oh my, I saw a preview performance yesterday afternoon. It's like a bad 1970's variety show. I'm not sure American's know enough about Peter Allen to care about this show. And the character development? It's lacking. You wouldn't know from what's on stage that Peter and his partner, Greg, were together for 21 years.
Of course, the crowd loved Hugh and he does perform well--but they're cheering Hugh as Hugh, not as Peter. I found myself more interested in how well the women playing Judy (Isabel Keating) and Liza (Stephanie J. Block) sounded in their impersonations than in their lyrics or the story--that's not a good sign.

What did others think? Updated On: 10/6/03 at 05:38 PM

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 10/6/03 at 5:43pm

It is funny how there are so many different opinions for certain shows. I guess you might be right...Hugh definently is bringing in ticket sales.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/6/03 at 8:50pm

It's kind of poetic since Peter was playing Peter when he was playing Legs Diamond. He was also playing straight when he married Liza Minelli. What would be really interesting would be if Hugh were playing Wolverine when he was playing Peter Allen. "I go to Rio, **snikt** de Janero!"

[newyorkuniq]

Posted: 10/6/03 at 8:55pm

The poster has scared me away.

[PigletH13]

Posted: 10/6/03 at 8:59pm

Namo...that was great!

SFJPS...if you search all over this site, you will see that opinions have been mixed. Some people hate the book, while others of us think it is a great fun show.

Everyone on this board...and many others already knows how I feel about the show. But since you don't...I absolutely loved it. But I was also a huge Peter Allen fan, so it was great fun to see some of his life and his songs played out on stage since I missed his other Bway stuff.

[Tiny_Dancer]

Posted: 10/6/03 at 9:07pm

Peter Allen's life story is entertaining, and people are going to see it for that reason. They want to be entertained. They aren't going to keep tabs on all of the events that were or were not perfectly presented. $10 million in advanced sales prove that.

[JO125]

Posted: 10/6/03 at 10:18pm

My guess would be that $10 million in advance sales for an unreviewed show is probably most reflective of a desire to see a big name movie star sing and dance (and yes it was worth my $100 for that reason alone).

I saw the show Friday night, and sorry to say, I did come away disappointed. Hugh Jackman was wonderful, as were all of the performers. But it really seemed to me that the story was written just to plug songs in, more like a revue of Peter Allen songs than a story. I never felt any heart or emotion in any of the relationships depicted (maybe mother/son), and most of the plot events seemed a bit cliched to me.

Just my opinion. At this point, it does seem that this show is review proof, with that kind of advance and Hugh Jackman in the lead.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/6/03 at 10:27pm

"They want to be entertained."

Uh-oh, I smell a "it doesn't take itself seriously" coming on. Remember, "it's just entertaining" is the first vestige of the scoundrel.

[Tiny_Dancer]

Posted: 10/6/03 at 10:37pm

Peter Allen was ( God rest his soul ) an entertainer after all. I think he would love nothing more than to know that his life is entertaining many a theatre goer. I don't use that word lightly. It isn't always easy to entertain the masses in these days of cynics, skeptics and judges. It was not my intention to play it off as frivolous.

Posted: 10/6/03 at 11:31pm

I think it will be a fun show. I really enjoy the australian cast recording. I listen to it often. His music is wonderful. I loved his stuff.

[BroadwayGypsy]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 1:33am

I wish nothing but the best for this show!

[kec]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 3:26am

I saw one of the early previews, and I really enjoyed it. Yes, Jackman is absolutely amazing, but the rest of the cast is just as good, especially the young actor playing Peter as a child, and Isabel Keating who plays Judy Garland -- you would almost think Judy had come back to life, she was so good! While I did think one song was somewhat misplaced, the rest of it sounded fine to me. I even came close to tears during "I Still Call Australia Home."

I will say also that the play made me interested in Peter Allen himself, and I would be interested in learning more about the man himself.

I have no doubt that the show I saw will be somewhat different when it finally opens. I would love to see the finished product, and hope I have the chance to do so.

[kec]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 3:26am

I saw one of the early previews, and I really enjoyed it. Yes, Jackman is absolutely amazing, but the rest of the cast is just as good, especially the young actor playing Peter as a child, and Isabel Keating who plays Judy Garland -- you would almost think Judy had come back to life, she was so good! While I did think one song was somewhat misplaced, the rest of it sounded fine to me. I even came close to tears during "I Still Call Australia Home."

I will say also that the play made me interested in Peter Allen himself, and I would be interested in learning more about the man himself.

I have no doubt that the show I saw will be somewhat different when it finally opens. I would love to see the finished product, and hope I have the chance to do so.

[kec]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 3:29am

Apologies for the double posting. I got a "action cannot be processed" and thought the first message didn't get through.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 10:53am

I felt the show which is still being changed virtually performance to performance is a few notches above say, Mamma Mia in the Guilty Pleasure Department. One person I have met pronounced it 'critic-proof', and she may have a point. The structure of a full-life story is difficult to bring off in any medium and this is no exception.

But, and this is a very definite point that I want to make. I have rarely if ever seen a male star performance like this one. No matter how one feels about the show, Hugh Jackman come out of this smelling like the sweetest rose in the world.

He is that rare bird--a genuine singer/actor/dancer rather than a singer/actor/moves well. (Plus he can play comedy!) Oh I've seen leads like Harry Groener who can do all the above, but Harry is not a star. This is a major breakout performance the likes of which do not happen often. The show sits squarely on his shoulders alone. He is rarely off-stage even for costume changes.

Think of the film musicals he could do. Zach in A Chorus Line for starters.

He ought to be able to write a few of his own tickets in the future. This was one smart career move.

Fearless.

[kec]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 11:11am

How about the Demon Barber of Fleet Street? I heard a rumor he was interested in that.

I agree with you about Hugh -- he's a true triple threat.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 4:03pm

WOSQ did U mean another character besides Zach in ACL? Zach is mainly just a voice on a mic and sometimes dances the finale. He has no real songs at all...

[WOSQ]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 4:37pm

Zach still has to dance and Michael Douglas (who gives me a general case of the willies anyway) can't dance a lick and embarrassed himself trying to look remotely graceful in Attenborough's fiaso.

Zach is the workhorse of A Chorus Line--he drives the show and he must have gravitas certainly, but we, the audience, also need to see that he is, well, Michael Bennett. Jackman could do that.

Thgere are plenty of other roles that Jackman could play. This is but an example.

[JO125]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 7:26pm

Actually, I could see him as the emcee in "Cabaret". He could certainly act it, sing it, dance it, and would look GREAT in the costumes. And judging by his performance in The Boy From Oz, he would be terrific with the audience interaction aspect. He was just really so natural addressing the audience. I know this won't happen, but hey, it's a thought.

[jo]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 8:02pm

And how many triple threats can play the piano and are gorgeous-looking to boot

If you have seen him in OKLAHOMA!, you know he can also handle roles from the traditional musical theatre genre. But what will further surprise theatre audiences is if he accepts a role in a straight play . Despite the themes of the movies he has been involved in - he is a very fine actor ( one of his best works is a little known Australian movie called ERSKINEVILLE KINGS, which seems more like a dramatic one-act play than a movie). Someday, I would like to see him tackling a dramatic role whether on stage or in the movies. He has mentioned that his favourite play is Shakespeare's HENRY V - it should be interesting to see him in a classical play, too.

Stage musicals - Valjean, the Phantom, Sweeney Todd, Billy Bigelow ( in a full-blown version), Don Quijote, Petruchio, King of Siam, Captain Von Trapp, Guido, maybe even Bialystock or Tracy's Mom -- what roles can't he really handle on stage ?

The problem is -- there are too many film scripts awaiting him after this star turn on Broadway!

Jo Updated On: 10/7/03 at 08:02 PM

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 8:10pm

WOSQ i just think Hugh's great singing voice would be wasted as Zach, that's all. Doubtless he could sing it and act it. How about a lesser known musical, or a play with music? Anyone remember THE ENTERTAINER, the Olivier vehicle about the music hall performer? and what was that musical of Henry the VIII? OH SWEET HENRY maybe? or archy & mehitabel? or in the Danny Kaye role in LADY IN THE DARK?

and if the GUYS & DOLLS movie remake doesn't pursue him, they're just crazy!

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 8:14pm

a little history on the ARCHY idea:

Darion and Kleinsinger first presented their musical, "Archy and Mehitabel," at New York's Town Hall in December 1954 with tenor Jonathan Anderson as Archy and soprano Mignon Dunn as Mehitabel. At about the same time they produced a marvelous LP record, "archy and mehitabel: a back-alley opera," that featured the voices of Carol Channing as Mehitabel and Eddie Bracken as Archy, with an additional, spoken-word performance by David Wayne titled "echoes of archy" (Columbia ML 4963). Theatre Arts magazine said of the record: "Bracken is every inch a cockroach, and Miss Channing is perfection as the female feline who chose Shinbone Alley over the comforts of domestication." The record can occasionally be found today in used-record stores and online auctions, as can a two-record, 45-rpm version (Columbia A-1107).

Two years later Darion and Kleinsinger reworked "archy and mehitabel" with the help of a young humor writer who would go on to achieve fame in his own right, Mel Brooks. They renamed the production "Shinbone Alley" and presented it as a full-scale Broadway musical in April 1957, with Bracken again playing Archy and Eartha Kitt as a raucus Mehitabel. Brooks Atkinson, writing in the New York Times, praised the effort -- particularly Kleinsinger's engaging score -- but said the writers erred by "taking the line of least resistance on the musical stage" and portraying Archy as being in love with Mehitabel. "A cat and a cockroach do not make attractive lovers," he wrote. "Nor does a romantic attachment have anything like the distinction of archy's sardonic attitude toward mehitabel in the original poems. Although archy was fascinated by her, he disapproved of her wanton behavior." Atkinson concluded: "There is a lot of fresh and amusing stuff in 'Shinbone Alley,' particularly notable in a stale season like this one. But the basic problem of how to make a theatre piece out of a book of random verse has not been solved."

courtesy of donmarquis.com. Let's hope Hugh or someone who has his ear lurks on this site (see the NY Times article about these boards).

[John4763]

Posted: 10/7/03 at 8:33pm

Many years ago there was a Peter Allen show called "Legs Diamond"

The advance hype was so incredibly strong that it broke all kinds of records for advance ticket sales. It was considered "critic proof", since the show was sold out for so many months in advance.

Then the show opened, the reviews were terrible, the word of mouth was terrible, theatre parties canceled, and the show closed pretty quickly after that.

I bring this up because I'm hearing people say that "Boy from Oz" is critic proof due to its strong advance sales.

[kec]

Posted: 10/8/03 at 3:23am

But is it just because of the advance sale they're saying it's critic-proof? I would think the word of Jackman's spectacular performance would also have something to do with it.

[alterego]

Posted: 10/8/03 at 9:25am

I saw The Boy from Oz in Australia and it was no world beater then. Minimal sets and all.Though a different designer. I've noticed with interest that the original song list for NY had quite a few changes but bit by bit has been changed back to what it was in Oz. I doubt that without Hugh the show would last too long. As for audience response, as long as they leave on a high ( I Go To Rio) they will at least won't be too dismissive of it.