The CHAPLIN musical- Page 3
The CHAPLIN musical
#51Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 11:08am
No, I don't think it would have been better as a play, unless it was about the creation of only one of his films or something. It really could have been like a Barnum type show, but the problem is the score isn't strong enough.
The direction also isn't very inspired. A friend texted me today saying what the show needs is a Tommy Tune type at the helm and I couldn't agree more. Chaplin was a visionary director- if a show about his life isn't as brilliant as his movies were it may just leave you wishing you were seeing his films instead.
McClure really needs a comic, solo number where he can do his tramp shtick and completely stop the show. He totally has it in him. The composer just needs to deliver up the song.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
tomatlcm
Chorus Member Joined: 5/31/10
#52Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 11:22amI was there last night and I absolutely loved it!!! I thought McClure was sensational and the whole evening was very enjoyable. I really loved the score paticularly heddas act two number which was very much needed because though the show is fantastic I agree that the score was forgettable at times. Another big money number would be a very wise move!
#53Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 11:27am
Agreed with those who feel that McClure is great, while the material is baffling. Every time the audience got a tiny few seconds of vintage Chaplin, we were salivating to see McClure do a full scene of it. He never, ever gets to. So much of the show is dedicated to psychodrama, but it's SO two-dimensional and always avoids asking the hard questions about our hero. e.g.: His taste for underage girls is played as always in fun, and never really his fault. But the girls themselves? Little bimbos!
The score has a couple of pleasant melodies, but it's mostly forgettable and the lyrics are consistently shoddy. Like, REALLY shoddy. And considering that the composer/lyricist also worked on the book, it is absolutely shocking how often people simply begin to launch into a ballad for no discernible reason in the middle of a scene. I liked the direction (some of the devices were clever) and the design (though I understand that it might strain others' eyes).
Bottom line: this could be a real star-making turn for Rob McClure if the material allowed it. Even if the show were just okay, he could sell it. But as it is, it's a damp squib. Hopefully they use the preview period wisely. The producers should seriously consider finding a new lyricist and book doctor. (Nothing will fix the fact that it simply should not be a musical.)
Updated On: 8/22/12 at 11:27 AM
#54Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 12:09pmThis sounds like the standard biography fare: a great life reduced to a few hours with all the complexity squeezed out of it in order to hit the bullet points. Would I be wrong in that assumption?
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#56Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 12:19pm
You're absolutely correct Kad.
Scarywarhol brings up a good point about the young wives/lovers too. They keep mentioning that Chaplin has slept with half of California, but they never dig any deeper into why he has all these teenager lovers, and none of his children make an appearance. According to this he's just a hopeless romantic looking for the right girl. The first three wives were out to trick him and get his money!
Also according to this production Hedda Hopper wasn't out to name names in the communist witch hunts. She was just angry that Chaplin wouldn't appear on her radio show and she had to retaliate somehow so she decided to spread a little rumor to harm his career.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#57Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 12:23pmI guess I see the appeal in telling an epic biography, but how many of those actually are effective? In the end, focusing on a single chapter of a historical figure's life narrows the topic and allows for deeper exploration, as opposed to being a Wikipedia article with songs.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
CurtainPullDowner
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/4/04
#59Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 12:33pm
^Exactly.
Although, I do think a Wikipedia article with songs can work if you allow your lead to have enough of a star turn to carry the show. If they wanted nothing more than a silly excuse to showcase McClure's talent it would have been better. We can forgive the book of Funny Girl because the score and Streisand's performance are so wonderful. As Scarywarhol mentions this production far too concerned with psychodrama to allow the fun star turn to happen.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#61Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 1:26pm
"If they wanted nothing more than a silly excuse to showcase McClure's talent it would have been better."
Except, until the La Jolla tryout, wasn't it being written to showcase Euan Morton's talents? Perhaps they shouldn't have changed horses so far across the stream?
CurtainPullDowner
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/4/04
Phyllis Rogers Stone
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/16/07
#65Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 3:32pm
Although, I do think a Wikipedia article with songs can work if you allow your lead to have enough of a star turn to carry the show.
Hugh Jackman in The Boy From Oz is a perfect example of that. But it sounds like this show may go the way of Legs Diamond (though I admit I love the Legs Diamond score).
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#66Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 3:47pm
newintown, I found this in the archives of Euan Morton's blog:
"My job can be so wonderful and exciting, never knowing what opportunities it will afford but it can really break your heart as much as it can thrill sometimes. Lately, I have been experiencing the thrill and the heartbreak in equal measure. You may have heard me mention in previous journals another show that I have been working on for some years. It is called Behind The Limelight and is about the life of Charlie Chaplin. I had the privilege of playing the great Chaplin himself over several workshops and fund raising events and have been looking forward to playing this role in production for such a long time. There have been many false starts and times when I thought the show was surely going to happen, only to be disappointed that something didn't work out and the production fell through. I came to count everyone involved in Limelight as valued friends and felt certain that someday the show would happen. Well, my certainty was right. This wonderful show finally has a public life. Out in San Diego at La Jolla theatre. Now, for the sad part. I can't be there as it runs concurrently with the Chess production!! When I found out that Chess and Limelight would overlap and there was absolutely no way I could do both I was naturally very upset. I couldn't believe that I was in this position. I know it is a position that many actors would envy-- too many great jobs to choose from! I partly wish I could be in this position more often but to have to make a choice between two projects that I care so much about was very, very difficult. In the end, I had to turn Limelight down. I was all signed up to Chess and was raring to go so that was that. You just never know what's around the corner eh? And I'm not going to let being too busy ruin my summer fun and my bliss at singing Benny and Björn's excellent score and working in a theatre I have always wanted to work in with my dear friend Eric. There was really no wrong choice just a hard one..."
I don't think it had much to do with his dropping. I mean, really, Chaplin is about Charlie Chaplin. While they may have written around his vocal talents a bit, I don't really see how they could write the show around his talents enough for it to be a problem to replace him at all... and honestly, I've heard Euan sing the score, and Rob was a blessing in disguise. Just so perfectly perfect for CHAPLIN.
#67Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 3:56pm
All I said was Morton was associated with the development of the show for years. I would imagine that much of the show was created based on what he was doing in those workshops and rehearsals.
"Chaplin is about Charlie Chaplin."
Undeniable. Funny Girl is about Fanny Brice. Gypsy is about Rose Hovick. But they're also "about" Barbra Streisand and Ethel Merman.
ZiggyCringe
Leading Actor Joined: 5/16/05
#68Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 4:25pm
If there was just the material there, which there is not. Chaplin is a cypher in this musical, and worse than that, he's a cypher that doesn't sing. He may have been mysterious in real life, but why write a musical about him if you're not going to illuminate him?
I don't get it.
#69Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 4:48pm
"But they're also 'about' Barbra Streisand and Ethel Merman."
This is the key to the distinction of what makes a musical or play a star vehicle.
A big misstep in Chaplin that illuminates the difference is that the act one finale centers on a Chaplin look-a-like contest. The entire cast is dressed up like Chaplin (much like all the Alices in Wonderland, though this isn't campy/in poor taste). The act ends with all the "Chaplins" doing the roll dance from "The Gold Rush" and singing a song. McClure is nowhere to be seen. He should be doing the dance and singing by himself and bring down the house (and the curtain) for the act one finale. Let McClure be the star of the show like he is more than capable of being.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
Rodgerdodger
Chorus Member Joined: 8/17/12
#71Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 7:16pm
I still don't understand how his being involved, then having to be recast, (changing horses, if you will) would have anything to do with the changing of the show itself, though. Don't think I'm arguing or being snippy - I just genuinely don't get how replacing a star three years before the show even gets to Broadway would hurt the show at all. Because, as many people have said, the material doesn't so much rely on the star, as it does the subject matter - Charlie Chaplin. What would Euan be doing different or better than Rob? They'd both be playing Charlie Chaplin with the same material (more or less). How does his being recast affect the show at all?
Ethel as Rose was about Ethel. Barbara as Fanny was about Barbra. So, Rob as Chaplin is about Rob as Chaplin. Problem?
Like I said, not arguing or anything - just giving my opinion and whatnot...
#72Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 7:23pm
I think the argument was that the show wasn't written or initially intended to be a star vehicle for McClure like Funny Girl was for Streisand and Gypsy was for Merman.
The part of your equation that's missing is the intent of the piece. Ethel as Rose was certainly about Ethel. Barbara as Fanny was certainly about Barbara. However, Rob as Chaplin isn't necessarily enough about Rob. It seems like a weird comment in a way as some would consider that a positive attribute of a show - that it shouldn't be about the actor but rather about the material. However, in a show like this, the interest is certainly supposed to be on an actor ready to make a star turn just like the aforementioned examples. McClure, to no fault of his own, isn't able to accomplish that with this material.
Scratch and claw for every day you're worth!
Make them drag you screaming from life, keep dreaming
You'll live forever here on earth.
leefowler
Broadway Star Joined: 7/13/04
CurtainPullDowner
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/4/04
#74Whaaat?
Posted: 8/22/12 at 7:45pm
Well maybe if Euan was still involved, they could have written bigger, showier tunes, cause that cat (Euan) can sing.
I've not heard Rob sing, so I could be wrong.
A lot of the buzz about the show has been about Rob's performance so it's strange to hear he isn't making that big an impression, so far).
Videos