#126
Posted: 8/30/12 at 9:01pm
I'm pretty interested in going just to check it out, at least. How is the Warren Carlyle choreography?
The CHAPLIN musical — Page 6
#127
Posted: 8/30/12 at 10:18pm
Honestly, I find myself rooting for Chaplin simply because I love seeing original musicals that aren't relying on some cheesy factor to succeed do well. Plus so many in the show are debuting or new to broadway, and I'd love to see them do well based purely on their talent.
#128
Posted: 8/31/12 at 12:13am
@WhizzerMarvin-- I was thinking the exact same thing about the whole "Scene 1, Take 2" element that the show seemed to incorporate in the first act and some of the second act, but then somehow that whole element disappeared from the show. I think that they should either use it more frequently or remove it entirely cause right now it's just there, and I don't really see why it is.
@shrekster224-- I saw Newsies the previous night, so I wasn't exactly blown away by the choreography. There was a dance number when Chaplin meets his first wife that featured the most dancing in the show, and the choreography was pretty simplistic.
@WickedFanatic--To answer your questions:
Yes, the panels are gone. The set is basically inside a production studio with a turn table.
The show opens with a video projection of Charlie Chaplin walking on a tight rope, and as he does the screen transitions into Rob McClure walking on a tight rope on the stage. It ends with an old Chaplin walking into one of his movies.
And here is the song list:
ACT ONE
"Overture/Prologue"--Full Company
"Look At All the People"--Hannah
"What'cha Gonna Do?"--Hannah, Young Charlie, Charlie, Ensemble
"If I Left London"--Charlie
"Sennett Song"--Mack Sennett
"Look At All the People (Reprise)/Tramp Discovery"--Charlie, Hannah
"Tramp Shuffle, Pt. 1"--Charlie, Mack Sennett, Usher
"Tramp Shuffle, Pt. 2"--Reporters, Charlie, Usher, Ensemble
"Life Can Be Like the Movies"--Charlie, Sydney, Mildred, Ensemble
"The Look-a-Like Contest"--Charlie, Ensemble
ACT TWO
"Just Another Day in Hollywood"--Charlie, Hedda, Ensemble
"The Life That You Wished For"--Charlie
"All Falls Down"--Hedda
"Man of All Countries"--Hedda, McGranery
"What Only Love Can See"--Oona
"Pre-Exile"--Hedda, McGranery, Ensemble
"The Exile"--Hedda, Ensemble
"Where Are All the People?"--Charlie
"What Only Love Can See (Reprise)"--Oona, Charlie
"This Man"--Full Company
"Finale/Tramp Reprise"--Full Company
@shrekster224-- I saw Newsies the previous night, so I wasn't exactly blown away by the choreography. There was a dance number when Chaplin meets his first wife that featured the most dancing in the show, and the choreography was pretty simplistic.
@WickedFanatic--To answer your questions:
Yes, the panels are gone. The set is basically inside a production studio with a turn table.
The show opens with a video projection of Charlie Chaplin walking on a tight rope, and as he does the screen transitions into Rob McClure walking on a tight rope on the stage. It ends with an old Chaplin walking into one of his movies.
And here is the song list:
ACT ONE
"Overture/Prologue"--Full Company
"Look At All the People"--Hannah
"What'cha Gonna Do?"--Hannah, Young Charlie, Charlie, Ensemble
"If I Left London"--Charlie
"Sennett Song"--Mack Sennett
"Look At All the People (Reprise)/Tramp Discovery"--Charlie, Hannah
"Tramp Shuffle, Pt. 1"--Charlie, Mack Sennett, Usher
"Tramp Shuffle, Pt. 2"--Reporters, Charlie, Usher, Ensemble
"Life Can Be Like the Movies"--Charlie, Sydney, Mildred, Ensemble
"The Look-a-Like Contest"--Charlie, Ensemble
ACT TWO
"Just Another Day in Hollywood"--Charlie, Hedda, Ensemble
"The Life That You Wished For"--Charlie
"All Falls Down"--Hedda
"Man of All Countries"--Hedda, McGranery
"What Only Love Can See"--Oona
"Pre-Exile"--Hedda, McGranery, Ensemble
"The Exile"--Hedda, Ensemble
"Where Are All the People?"--Charlie
"What Only Love Can See (Reprise)"--Oona, Charlie
"This Man"--Full Company
"Finale/Tramp Reprise"--Full Company
#129
Posted: 8/31/12 at 1:53am
"I have been wondering about this as well. WHY are there month long preview periods when it seems like next to nothing is changed? Shows that have had long preview periods that needed changes have just not taken advantage of their preview periods. "
Is part of the problem the fact that these shows often have had, sometimes, vastly different productions in other cities before. I suspect, in the case of Leap of Faith, or Wonderland, or Bonnie and Clyde, and other shows named here, the producers and creative team, largely think their show is frozen by the time it gets to New York, and use the time, as Whizzer, said to focus more on working out technical kinks.
I suppose "back in the day" with shows that were vastly worked on out of town (Seesaw comes to mind), in a way that's a similar system, as the shows usually didn't change all that much in New York, though they did have a better take of working on it all in one chunk--and not, say, doing a production in LaJolla 2 years back, and then opening a different production blindly, suddenly in New York, without actually working on changes in front of an audience. If that makes sense.
Is part of the problem the fact that these shows often have had, sometimes, vastly different productions in other cities before. I suspect, in the case of Leap of Faith, or Wonderland, or Bonnie and Clyde, and other shows named here, the producers and creative team, largely think their show is frozen by the time it gets to New York, and use the time, as Whizzer, said to focus more on working out technical kinks.
I suppose "back in the day" with shows that were vastly worked on out of town (Seesaw comes to mind), in a way that's a similar system, as the shows usually didn't change all that much in New York, though they did have a better take of working on it all in one chunk--and not, say, doing a production in LaJolla 2 years back, and then opening a different production blindly, suddenly in New York, without actually working on changes in front of an audience. If that makes sense.
#130
Posted: 8/31/12 at 2:00am
"I was thinking the exact same thing about the whole "Scene 1, Take 2" element that the show seemed to incorporate in the first act and some of the second act, but then somehow that whole element disappeared from the show."
Half hearted concepts like this always bug me. Even the common one of opening a show or movie with a flashback and then often forgetting they did that entirely, by the end. It sounds like the stylized circus staging is another half assed concept.
Half hearted concepts like this always bug me. Even the common one of opening a show or movie with a flashback and then often forgetting they did that entirely, by the end. It sounds like the stylized circus staging is another half assed concept.
#131
Posted: 9/6/12 at 4:45pm
This video preview actually makes it look pretty good! Definitely interested. http://www.broadway.com/videos/154278/video-exclusive-get-a-whimsical-first-look-at-rob-mcclure-and-the-cast-of-chaplin/
#132
Posted: 9/6/12 at 4:58pm
I joined TheaterMania Gold Club after the discussion here last week, and I'm getting two tickets to Chaplin for later this month. Like Oliviacecilia, who posted above, I also think it's nice to go to an original musical, one that's not based on a movie, and I'm trying to keep an open mind.
#133
Posted: 9/6/12 at 6:13pm
I saw yesterday's matinee, and I enjoyed this production tremendously. The first two minutes are possibly the best opening of any musical that I have seen in years. McClure is fabulous, and I have no reservations about his performance at all. His 11 o'clock number is an amazing one, beautifully sung and intelligently acted. The young boy who plays the young Charlie/Jackie Coogan is extraordinary. Some of the music is a little "by the numbers" but the songs that have to carry the dramatic weight do it well. I anticipate that it will be reviewed well (no jinx), and be appealing to a lot of musical and non-musical audience types. My one concern going in was that people who have little knowledge about Chaplin might be lost, but his story is carefully crafted (even if the more sordid interpretations are avoided, to keep him sympathetic). I say, go see it. It is worthwhile.
#134
Posted: 9/6/12 at 6:15pm
I saw this show last night and I REALLY enjoyed parts of it and thought other parts were okay. Nothing was bad about the show. The music is ok, but a bit stock. 2nd act dragged a bit. Rob McClure is amazing at Chaplin. He's got his movements down. I would recommend this show.
Smoke bomb!
#135
Posted: 9/8/12 at 5:56pm
has there been a cast recording announced?
i saw it today and actually loved it!
i saw it today and actually loved it!
#136
Posted: 9/8/12 at 6:08pm
Having watched the Broadway.com video preview it looks like it's probably a decent show.
But please please PLEASE, Broadway lyricists - if your musical is about someone with a British accent, don't rhyme "romance" and "dance" unless they're Northern. Rob McClure's accent is okay, but then he uses American vowel sounds to rhyme those two words and it takes me out of the song completely
But please please PLEASE, Broadway lyricists - if your musical is about someone with a British accent, don't rhyme "romance" and "dance" unless they're Northern. Rob McClure's accent is okay, but then he uses American vowel sounds to rhyme those two words and it takes me out of the song completely
#137
Posted: 9/9/12 at 9:58am
Did Liza see After the Rainbow?
Will Geraldine see this?
Will she also see the new musical LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO THE 11 O'CLOCK NUMBER?
Will Chiara Mastroianni see the new musical LA DOLCE REPULSION?
Will Mariel Hemingway see the new musical KEY WEST SUNRISE?
Will Jamie Leigh Curtis see the new musical I'M SPARTACUS AND I'M GOES PSYCHO!?
Will Jennifer Jason Leigh see the new musical HELICOPTERl?
Will Geraldine see this?
Will she also see the new musical LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO THE 11 O'CLOCK NUMBER?
Will Chiara Mastroianni see the new musical LA DOLCE REPULSION?
Will Mariel Hemingway see the new musical KEY WEST SUNRISE?
Will Jamie Leigh Curtis see the new musical I'M SPARTACUS AND I'M GOES PSYCHO!?
Will Jennifer Jason Leigh see the new musical HELICOPTERl?
#138
Posted: 9/9/12 at 12:03pm
I saw this show yesterday. I liked it, although not madly so. McClure was great in the title role though.
I went into this show knowing very little about it. I try to do that as a rule, avoiding reading too much about a show, at least anything too detailed about it. (I don't always end up doing that, but did this time.) I am a huge movie buff, and have been even before becoming an equally huge live theatre buff. I am also a huge Chaplin fan, and have seen lots of his movies, certainly all his major works, and even a lot of his early silent shorts. I don't believe that young people even know who Chaplin was, perhaps just knowing the name and that's it, and not having seen any of his films (exceptions exist obviously). I went into this show not knowing if it would focus on his early Hollywood days and his rise to fame, or attempt to cover his total life. It was pretty much the latter, from his being a kid in the music halls, up to his triumphant return to the USA to accept an Oscar in 1972 (an event that I recall vividly watching on TV). All in 150 minutes (counting the intermission). There were many inaccuracies in the play, but "dramatic license" is hardly a new thing! But I'm not sure that anyone watching this show, who is not at least somewhat familiar with the man and/or his body of work, could really grasp his impact, nor the greatness of his film career. It seemed to me that this was more just stated versus being shown. I found the play to be a bit unfocused due to its attempt to jam so much of his life into it.
Quick comments: The boxing scene with the exes reminded me for some reason of the super-villain fashion runway in the Spider-Man musical, Version 1. Just saying. And I thought the way they portrayed how Chaplin came up with the Little Tramp was quite clever, stylistically quite well done.
This opens tomorrow. I hope that I am wrong, but I don't see this show catching on with the public at large. And my gut tells me that the critics will not be kind to it. We shall see, of course.
I went into this show knowing very little about it. I try to do that as a rule, avoiding reading too much about a show, at least anything too detailed about it. (I don't always end up doing that, but did this time.) I am a huge movie buff, and have been even before becoming an equally huge live theatre buff. I am also a huge Chaplin fan, and have seen lots of his movies, certainly all his major works, and even a lot of his early silent shorts. I don't believe that young people even know who Chaplin was, perhaps just knowing the name and that's it, and not having seen any of his films (exceptions exist obviously). I went into this show not knowing if it would focus on his early Hollywood days and his rise to fame, or attempt to cover his total life. It was pretty much the latter, from his being a kid in the music halls, up to his triumphant return to the USA to accept an Oscar in 1972 (an event that I recall vividly watching on TV). All in 150 minutes (counting the intermission). There were many inaccuracies in the play, but "dramatic license" is hardly a new thing! But I'm not sure that anyone watching this show, who is not at least somewhat familiar with the man and/or his body of work, could really grasp his impact, nor the greatness of his film career. It seemed to me that this was more just stated versus being shown. I found the play to be a bit unfocused due to its attempt to jam so much of his life into it.
Quick comments: The boxing scene with the exes reminded me for some reason of the super-villain fashion runway in the Spider-Man musical, Version 1. Just saying. And I thought the way they portrayed how Chaplin came up with the Little Tramp was quite clever, stylistically quite well done.
This opens tomorrow. I hope that I am wrong, but I don't see this show catching on with the public at large. And my gut tells me that the critics will not be kind to it. We shall see, of course.
#139
Posted: 9/9/12 at 12:10pm
And I was really, really wanting the globe scene from "The Great Dictator" to be replicated on stage! That would have been cool.
#140
Posted: 9/9/12 at 12:30pm
I, too, had hoped for the globe scene from THE LITTLE DICTATOR, but there was so much story to tell that they probably thought they couldn't add sketches from particular movies.
SPOILERS AHEAD:
I thought the story telling arc was a good one, and doesn't require any previous knowledge of who Chaplin is. The first act is pretty much "I don't like being poor and unknown, so how do I become famous for being someone other than me?" (actual song with that title.) He devises the Little Tramp character, and is a roaring success, with multiple wives and a fair amount of notoriety. The second act is "do people love my fame and the Little Tramp, and not the real "me" underneath?" (answer: apparently). So when the fame is gone, he feels that what is left is worthless. The ending with the marriage to Oona and the honorary Oscar are the results of his finally finding someone who does love him for himself, AND some recognition of the fame he deserved.
SPOILERS AHEAD:
I thought the story telling arc was a good one, and doesn't require any previous knowledge of who Chaplin is. The first act is pretty much "I don't like being poor and unknown, so how do I become famous for being someone other than me?" (actual song with that title.) He devises the Little Tramp character, and is a roaring success, with multiple wives and a fair amount of notoriety. The second act is "do people love my fame and the Little Tramp, and not the real "me" underneath?" (answer: apparently). So when the fame is gone, he feels that what is left is worthless. The ending with the marriage to Oona and the honorary Oscar are the results of his finally finding someone who does love him for himself, AND some recognition of the fame he deserved.
#141
Posted: 9/10/12 at 11:10am
"And I was really, really wanting the globe scene from "The Great Dictator" to be replicated on stage!"
And there, in a nutshell, is the reason so many musicals are awful. The desire to merely "replicate" what can be seen (better) elsewhere.
And there, in a nutshell, is the reason so many musicals are awful. The desire to merely "replicate" what can be seen (better) elsewhere.
#142
Posted: 9/10/12 at 11:57am
The point is not that replication is necessarily a good thing, but that a particular scene reflects beautifully the nature of Chaplin's unique balance of pathos and whimsy. I saw SINGING IN THE RAIN in London last spring - that is a virtual 99% replication of the superior movie, so there I would agree with you. But Chaplin is known for things that are to be presented in presenting his story. Big difference.
#143
Posted: 9/10/12 at 12:13pm
Neither Gypsy nor Funny Girl, arguably the two best and most successful bio-musicals written, stoop to mere "replication" of any moment of their subjects' careers.
The reason those shows succeeded is because they created compelling (semi-fictionalized) theatrical versions of the lives of Fanny Brice and Gypsy Rose Lee.
Even when they went cheap in the film of Funny Girl and added "My Man," it still was adapted and performed in a way not remotely like Brice's.
If you want to see footage of a great performer's great performances, those already exist and don't need to be cheaply imitated on stage.
The reason those shows succeeded is because they created compelling (semi-fictionalized) theatrical versions of the lives of Fanny Brice and Gypsy Rose Lee.
Even when they went cheap in the film of Funny Girl and added "My Man," it still was adapted and performed in a way not remotely like Brice's.
If you want to see footage of a great performer's great performances, those already exist and don't need to be cheaply imitated on stage.
Updated On: 9/10/12 at 12:13 PM
#144
Posted: 9/10/12 at 7:06pm
I always have to laugh when FUNNY GIRL is cited as a successful musical bio. I loved Streisand but whole stretches of that musical were dull as paint.
Updated On: 9/10/12 at 07:06 PM
#145
Posted: 9/11/12 at 9:17am
I find fault with Act II of Funny Girl as well, but you have to admit the show was a success; perhaps due to Streisand, but it was a success. Clearly McClure is not going to work similar star magic on Chaplin.
And, dull as Funny Girl's 2nd act may be, the approach is what works - it's not a by-the-numbers documentary retelling of Fanny Brice's life; it's a theatrical fictionalization that entertains.
And, dull as Funny Girl's 2nd act may be, the approach is what works - it's not a by-the-numbers documentary retelling of Fanny Brice's life; it's a theatrical fictionalization that entertains.
#146
Posted: 9/16/12 at 8:41pm
Although Funny Girl isn't great musical theatre, it succeeds because you care for Fanny and root for her success and her love with Nicky Arnstein. It took its time to put the problem out there... she was an ugly ducking with talent who had to prove herself both onstage and romantically.
I was routing for Chaplin because it is an original musical.
The problem with Chaplin the musical is that Act one is like the Wikepedia. In whirlwind speed (despite an impressive opening on a high wire) Charlie is a little kid, his mother performs, his mother gets ill, she gets put in an insane asylum, he magically goes to New York, he magically goes back to London, he gets hired by Mack Sennett in Hollywood, almost gets fired until he develops the little tramp, he gets married, gets divorceed, gets married gets divorced, gets married, gets divorced and gets impersonated en masse in a look alike contest. (I actually liked the look alike number because it showed his popularity with the masses)
But the story is done so fast and so slip shod that it is dull, exhausting and you simply don't care.
For someone moments in Act Two, the damn thing works because Hedda Hopper becomes the antagonist and successfully takes him down. They allowed that to
develop but not quite enough. And then they go back to the encyclopedia. He meets Oona, Has children, moves to Sweden and is exhiled and comes back to the states to get an honorary Oscar. The end. Happily ever after.
80 years in 2 and one half hours. It was dull and exhausting and didn't have a core or a point albeit a few nice moments.
Unfortunately a few nice moments do not a great musical make.
I was routing for Chaplin because it is an original musical.
The problem with Chaplin the musical is that Act one is like the Wikepedia. In whirlwind speed (despite an impressive opening on a high wire) Charlie is a little kid, his mother performs, his mother gets ill, she gets put in an insane asylum, he magically goes to New York, he magically goes back to London, he gets hired by Mack Sennett in Hollywood, almost gets fired until he develops the little tramp, he gets married, gets divorceed, gets married gets divorced, gets married, gets divorced and gets impersonated en masse in a look alike contest. (I actually liked the look alike number because it showed his popularity with the masses)
But the story is done so fast and so slip shod that it is dull, exhausting and you simply don't care.
For someone moments in Act Two, the damn thing works because Hedda Hopper becomes the antagonist and successfully takes him down. They allowed that to
develop but not quite enough. And then they go back to the encyclopedia. He meets Oona, Has children, moves to Sweden and is exhiled and comes back to the states to get an honorary Oscar. The end. Happily ever after.
80 years in 2 and one half hours. It was dull and exhausting and didn't have a core or a point albeit a few nice moments.
Unfortunately a few nice moments do not a great musical make.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95