The Producers...

Has anyone else ever wondered why this show won the most Tony's ever? I fell asleep when I saw it on tour and thought, hey... maybe it was Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane that made it great, even though I am a big fan of Hunter Foster. But I watched the movie today and also fell asleep! Was it just a really slow year for Broadway or am I missing something?

Well I wont say why i think it won... that would be offensive. I do not know what it was up against, but it was a nice return to musical comedy. Lane and Broderick were so much fun to see. The music was aweful and I never hear anyone sharing my feelings on that. I think I remember it being like ABABABA for each song.

The movie version was just a snore.. but I guess it was one of the best film adaptations you could hope for. It has everything the stage show does and never tries to leap beyond it. I wish it would do what Broadway shows do best, close.

Updated On: 5/8/06 at 12:10 PM

It had literally no competition, and it was "the" show of the year. It's only competition was THE FULL MONTY (which has a better book, score, and is just a better musical), but THE PRODUCERS is one of those well-made musicals that Broadway hadn't seen for a while. It was a valentine not only to musical comedy, but the golden age of Broadway. Even though I don't think it's incredibly funny, and I've never been impressed with the OBC (Cady Huffman's Tony win will forever baffle me), it's not a BAD show, it's just not really wonderful.

All the stars were aligned for the show that year. In another year, it still would have won a lot, but probably not the most EVER.

---

1) Just my opinion, but I would say Phantom was the bigger hit of the eighties. I mean, you don't have to like it, but you can't deny it's a bigger hit if it went on to become the longest running musical. Just a thought...

2) I can totally understand why The Producers won at least most of the Tonys it did. It was an original musical (which, let's face it, is unfortunately and increasingly rare these days) which was well cast, had upbeat, funny songs with lots of dancing and good jokes. It's the type of musical you don't see much of anymore outside of revivals. One of my pet peeves is when a show that is fairly subtle and straight-forward is pinned as uninteresting. It may not be profound or existential, but it's cute, entertaining, fun, and has lots of hummable tunes. Not to mention the talent (I, personally, do believe Cady Huffman deserved the Tony... did you see her or the touring Ulla?) was amazing. Say what you will, but I will always have a soft spot for Nathan :) (No gay jokes, please, although that seems an opportune comment...)

---

Wicked Mimi, while I do think you are missing something, let me offer my explanation of why one of my absolutley favorite shows may not appeal marginally to some.

1) Mel Brooks. While he is a comic genius, the type of humor the show consists of is mostly offensive, crude, or satirical. If you cannot handle those very specific genres of jokes, then there's little chance you may be able to relish in the delights of the show.

2) The show is purposely old-fashioned. While working in the confines of June 1959, the show evokes a very classic traditional musical comedy feel, like that of Guys & Dolls. It is no wonder, then, that the score is a limiting factor in terms of audience.

3) There's no spectacle gimmick, like that of a chandelier or flying harness. Other than the fantasy sequence, the monstrous sets never step out of theatres or offices in New York.

It's always best to know what you're getting yourself into. I really can't relate to people who blindly buy tickets without at least a smidge of background on the show. Some may decide at that point that there's no need to proceed. Of course, it's all a matter of personal taste. Though, I can't imagine not buying into at least a touch of the show's outlandish fun.

---

Obviously you are all entitled to your own opinions. I'm kind of happy to see musicals like The Producers, Ave Q, and Spamalot appearing more and more, simply because it's just fun. Don't get me wrong, I love a show that makes me think, but I also really love a show I can go to just to laugh and have a good time. And like rufussars said, they are, in some ways, satirizing shows from many different genres and eras, and also embracing them. I don't think they are overrated, but rather a nice balance to the Sweeney Todds and Phantoms.

---

The only other respectable new musical that opened that year was The Full Monty.