The Drowsy Chaperone -

[RentHead2]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 8:46am

I went to see The Drowsy Chaperone yesterday and I am torn what to think: I mean the actors were excellent, but am I the only one who was a little tired of hearing Bob Martin talking throughout the whole show? Again this is just my opinion, but I can't compare a show like Jersey Boys, Wedding Singer, or Spelling Bee....to the likes of Drowsy. Forgive me for saying this but I was somewhat bored with the show....I found myself looking at the clock to see when it was over which I hated to do since I love love love Sutton Foster. HELP, tell me I am not the only one who thought this? And I spent 130 bucks on tickets for this. I could have seen Wedding Singer 5 times instead...DAMNIT!!

[folkyboy]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 8:56am

yes, you are the only one who was tired of him talking throughout the show. but judging from your taste in theatre, i can see why it wouldn't appeal as much for you

[Dotell]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 9:00am

I loved this show. My mom and I saw it the last time we were in NY and thought it was terrific. I understand though what you mean by being bored, but I thought it was magical. Bob Martin was so lovely and layered that I never gre tired of watching him. By the end of the show I was crying and I realized just how much it reminded me of the importance and joy of musical theater in one's life. Great show!

[RentHead2]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 9:02am

Like I said just my opinion but I expected a little better for 130 bucks. I mean I saw Jersey Boys, Wicked, Spelling Bee, Wedding Singer, Dirty Rotten, Hairspray and Rent for much much less. Why are the tickets for this one so expensive. Maybe I just expected more bang for my buck. I expected Wicked effects and Spelling Bee humor maybe. Oh well. At least I got to see Sutton Foster, she is amazing and I did love her "Monkey Number" and "Show Off."

[allofmylife]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 10:02am

Perhaps with the distance of time, maybe in a few decades, you'll look back fondly on the night you saw The Drowsy Chaperone and realize you got your 130 bucks worth, but just in a different fashion than you were expecting.

Broadway shouldn't just be effects and sets and dancing. Broadway is the home of amazing performances by individual actors and wonderously brave decisions by visionary directos.

Bob Martin will move on from this show, probably to richly-deserved fame in films or television and this may be the only show he ever does on Broadway. And you'll be able to tell your kids you saw a show where a man held his own against Sutton Foster, by then the most famous musical star in the world (and with her Oscar for best actress, wow!) without singing more than a few lines onstage. Those were the days.

And your kids will say "and that cost ONLY 130 bucks???!!! Wow."

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 10:32am

First of all, I dunno if you wanted orchestra seats, but there's a discount floating around on BroadwayBox with discounted mid-mezz seats for just under $70.

Did you buy the tickets off of Ticketmaster, and the extra $20 was the added service charges?

Maybe next time, if you honestly didn't think you got your money's worth, you'll think twice before shelling out that much money for Broadway tickets. I recommend BroadwayBox.com because they usually are good with listing discounts. You can also find stuff on Playbill.com and Theatermania.com. And of course there's always rush (moreso student rush, though - dunno if you're a student) and lotto.

[RentHead2]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 10:40am

Well if you need to know why $130 was shelled out, my grandpa has very limited eyesight and needs to be within the first couple of rows, a discount that is never offered through any sites they only offer Mezz. Also, I got the tickets after loving Sutton's performance on the Tony's because I figured if this one won so many tony's it must be great....(plus this was one of the few I have not seen on Broadway) I had to wait 3 months to get tickets in the third row. And, I know all about the discounts, lottos, and rushes since I go to NYC about 3 or 4 times a month since I see shows alot its important to know. I just left the theatre wanting more from the show.

And what really made me mad about the whole thing was the airplane lady (sorry don't know her name) was so talented and they barely used her. And I had no clue that Throughly Modern Millie played there, LOVED THAT SHOW!! AMAZING! Okay I am done ranting.

[zepka102]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 11:39am

the whole point of the show is to understand the man in the chair's love for this show. ALL OF US relate to his character... how many times are you with someone where you're telling them "oh, this is my favorite part right here... i love how this happens... watch for this..." and so on. it was just taken from our everyday lives to the stage.

keep in mind the show-within-a-show takes place in the 1920's where all of the effects didn't exist. it's a classic style, from costumes to sets to style of music. that's what makes the show so great... it's an original piece that celebrates a style not seen anymore.

(i always avoided the threads arguing who should have won, but i'll say it here... i loved Jersey Boys, but i definitely think Drowsy should have won because of the above reasons)

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 11:42am

RentHead, you're thinking of Kecia Lewis-Evans (sp?).

So she really only performs at the beginning during "Fancy Dress" in that snippet and "I Do, I Do in the Sky"?

[pianoman215]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 11:46am

Comparing The Drowsy Singer to the likes of The Wedding Singer is like comparing filet mignon to a pile of dog sh*t. Drowsy was the most refreshing piece of theatre I've seen in a long time. The Wedding Singer was a piece of garbage. My opinion.

[RentHead2]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 11:47am

Yep thats her, but the songs were not only her she had snippets and that annoyed me, her voice was very fresh. I really enjoyed her performance. I did like the ending to it, very cute with the super who is fixing the electric. Cute!

The thing I really liked was how effortlessly Sutton Foster sings these songs. I was looking closely, I did not see her during the belting parts, form a fist or even raise her hands to get the rest of it out. She just looked like she could belt on forever. She is such an amazing talent. Can't wait to see the next show she is in!

[Theatreboy49]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 11:47am

I never got sick of his talking. He was hysterical. I loved everything in that show.

[RentHead2]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 11:48am

Pianoman, there are many many people on this board who disagree with your opinion. Just a thread with over 1,000 posts! But again, your opinion. I really enjoyed Wedding Singer...

[pianoman215]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 11:51am

As stated, it is my opinion. TWS was truly one of the worst things I've seen. Except for the lead performance, I was bored silly.

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 11:52am

Renthead -- you mentioned how effortless Sutton's singing appeared to be . . . I was blown away by how effortless the entire performance was for her. She seems to be completely unfazed by what she's going to have to do during the show. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that she's now part of an ensemble piece instead of her last 2 shows where she was basically carrying the entire show.

[RentHead2]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 11:54am

Hanna, I completely agree with you but I love her carrying the whole show (maybe not little women as much as throughly modern). I was just very impressed with her voice and how easy it all seemed to just belt out for her.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 11:56am

I got comps, so at least i don't regret wasting my money. Thank god! I was bored out of my mind when i saw this show. I was checking my watch every 2 minutes. Ugh.

[pianoman215]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 12:02pm

I realize that one's opinion is just that and I respect that, but how anyone can not be charmed by The Drowsy Chaperone is beyond me.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 12:14pm

I loved Sutton in TMM, and sure I'm gonna love her in Drowsy, but I want to see her take the lead in another musical besides a 20s old fashioned type of musical (and besides Little Women). This actress deserves another Tony!

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 12:31pm

It's just the difference between liking to see good theater as opposed to spectacle trash. If you're looking to see on stage what you find on television or in the latest low brow comedy showing at the local cineplex, then a show like THE WEDDING SINGER is for you. But really, why waste the money coming to see a Broadway show when you can just spend 10 bucks (probably cheaper where you are) at a movie theater or stay home and turn on the TV for free?

Updated On: 8/14/06 at 12:31 PM

[RentHead2]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 12:49pm

Wanna...interesting point you make. So, your basically saying because I liked the Wedding Singer my taste in theatre is trash. So I guess my taste for the Last 5 Years, Jersey Boys, Thou Shalt Not, See What I Wanna See, Spelling Bee....is also trash?? The point you are making is completely over the top.

As farr as Drowsy, I just did not care for it and NO that doesn't mean my taste is for trashy theatre. But thanks for the compliment wanna.

[Hawker]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 1:24pm

Give it a rest.

This poster's preferred musicals included two critically acclaimed shows and one which has its share of devotees.

[Hawker]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 1:30pm

How can individual preferences for art be beyond any reasonable individual's understanding?

There are people who would kill for a ticket to Wagner's Ring Cycle at the Met; others who wouldn't go if given a ticket.

I've got absolutely no use for Rap but I can intellectually appreciate that others enjoy it.

[Hawker]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 1:38pm

"Wanna...interesting point you make. So, your basically saying because I liked the Wedding Singer my taste in theatre is trash."

I'm not so sure that's the tacit meaning. It's probably being sugested (again) that it's incomprehensible to one who adored the show that another person who saw it could actually enjoy it.

No matter how you cut it, though, it's a sermon: you're being chastised for confessing appreciation for what some consider theatrical heresy.

Save yourself. Turn back before it's too late and in the future refer to this board before you stray from the straight and narrow again or risk being verbally stoned.

[ThereIs1Director]

Posted: 8/14/06 at 1:40pm

well, obiviously anyone who has the audacity to have a "musical" like RENT in a screen name has no taste in theatre at all. The Drowsy Chaperone is the most fantastic thing on Broadway right now. Shows like Wedding Singer and especially RENT have no point being compared with it. Everything about the Drowsy Chaperone is perfect. From Bob Martin's flawless performance, to Casey's spectacular direction and choreography. I agree with Zepka...well put. Get a clue.
Updated On: 8/14/06 at 01:40 PM