The Producers - Thoughts?

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 2:40am

So I just saw a live production of The Producers tonight. It was my first time seeing it live. I have seen the movie adaptation and listened to the cast recording. They both left me feeling "meh". I thought seeing it live might allow me to see what the hype was. The production I was not terrific by any means, but it was adequate. I walked out of the theatre STILL not getting what the hype was about this thing when it was on Broadway. The book and score are borderline terrible IMO. The second act drags on and on and on. For those who saw this on Broadway, what did you think?

[east side story]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 3:42am

The show was a sensation when it first opened, as we all know. However, I saw the production at the St. James in 2005, and thought the whole shebang was a snoozefest. The original cast had vanished, naturally, at that point. The magic seemed to have been gone, which lends itself to the argument that the show really is not that great after all.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 4:11am

Nathan and Mathew

[SNAFU]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 4:34am

Saw it after Nathan and Broderick left and found it strove for mediocrity and managed to barely achieve it.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 4:50am

I saw it twice...once in previews, and thought it was an absolute hoot (I laughed so hard the people in front of me turned and looked at me oddly) and once without -- and whiile I still liked it with the replacement cast, I did not enjoy it as much. I had a large group with me (about 80) and, on the whole, they didn't care for it.

I would suggest, that not liking the movie (one of my favorites) would have been a huge indicator that you wouldn't care for this.

I have oft wondered if Mel Brooks' humor simply does NOT appeal to younger generations. I wouldn't have thought it possible since I fell in love with him the very first time I watched Young Frankenstien with my dad when I was 12 (or so).

[SweetLips]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 5:09am

I really do think The Producers is all about getting together the right cast to make it work.I saw a production last year in Melbourne and really,the cast was perfection-they totally understood the humour and the old vaudeville style of slapstick, double takes and double entendres-how I wish the world could have seen it.Parts of the film worked for me,others didn't.

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 6:59am

You really need Matt, Nathan, Roger and Gary.

[bobs3]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 7:02am

It lost a lot of its pizzazz after Lane and Broderick left (they were perfection incarnate). Saw it again with Brad Oscar and Roger Bart in the leads and while they worked exceedingly hard they just didn't have the chemistry that Lane and Broderick did. Updated On: 10/12/13 at 07:02 AM

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 12:22pm

Saw it three times with the OBC intact and I and the audience went berserk with laughter and applauase each time

Saw it with Brad and Roger and the other replacements. It lost a lot, but something special still happened... at least with Brad.

Saw the tour and rooted for the cast and wanted to enjoy it, but... ugh. Especially after seeing the OBC.

The material is hysterical and fun in the hands of the right director/cast. I find that people either overact/think it or go TOOOOOO over the top with it. People either love it or hate it.

Me? I LOVE it and always will.

Bottom line: Nathan and Matthew and the rest of the OBC own the show and made it what it was, but the show itself CAN work if you let the material do the talking.

Updated On: 10/13/13 at 12:22 PM

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 12:34pm

"The material is hysterical and fun in the hands of the right director/cast. I find that people either overact/think it or go TOOOOOO over the top with it. People either love it or hate it."

Well, if that ain't hittin' the nail on the head, I don't know what is.

Another problem is that people feel the need to just copy note for note the original production.

Heck, I worked on a production of it a few years back and after a while, I'd just get up and go to the bathroom 'cuz it just got to a point where I was like, "Seen it." It was clear to me the directors (yes, there were two directors) weren't doing much in the way of keeping it fresh and funny when it started to drag.

Updated On: 10/12/13 at 12:34 PM

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 12:55pm

I find that comedies in general at a stock/amateur level tend to lose sight of actually playing the material in favor of giving the audience "the Broadway" or "movie experience." Just remember the words of George Abbott: "If you play it for comedy, it won't work. If you play it for real, it will." Don't try to copy Nathan or Matthew, or for that matter Zero or Gene; just play the reality of the role. It's immensely funnier.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 12:57pm

I am very glad I saw the original Broadway cast. I think that could have been the greatest cast ever assembled for a musical. I can not think of a single performance that could have been improved upon.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 1:08pm

I saw it with the original cast and spent the night looking around at the audience wondering what the hell they were watching that was so funny, because it certainly wasn't the same thing I was looking at.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 4:12pm

^ That was my reaction. I guess I just do not like or "get" the humor.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 4:46pm

Broad slapstick, Borscht Belt and yiddishkeit doesn't sit well with everybody.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 5:12pm

Saw it twice and the movie once.
As said here, Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, Gary Beach were perfection. The script is horrifically funny but it takes a special sensibilty by the actors and director to pull it off. I saw the LA version with Jason Alexander and Martin Short. While I still enjoyed it, Jason was struggling with his part while Martin Short was terrific. So terrific that it threw the evening off balance. Bialystock should lead; not Bloom
love the movie which was not reinvented for the screen. My only complaint with the movie is the cutting of King of Broadway and using real little old ladies.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 6:06pm

I saw it with Lane and Broderick and thought it was quite funny. Their chemistry was great and things like the old ladies tap dancing with their walkers was quite amusing. I watched the movie several years later and the humor appeared tired and stale.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/12/13 at 11:43pm

It is, in my mind, one of the funniest, and best, musicals of the last twenty years. And Nathan Lane gave a leading performance I will never forget. The original cast was simply unbeatable, and set an impossibly high standard for any and every following PRODUCERS ensemble to strive towards.

[PTOPhan]

Posted: 10/13/13 at 12:28am

I never saw the stage show, but the only thing I remember about the movie is the walkers. I remember complaining that walkers weren't invented when the story was supposed to take place.

I thought some of the stuff in the original Mostel-Wilder film was over the top -- especially Bloom's panic attacks and Dick Shawn's craziness. Also, the large-breasted secretary and the gay jokes are certainly dated today.

What I find fascinating is that Broderick, especially, could apparently pull off a zany Mel Brooks character. I guess I think of Matthew Broderick more as Colonel Shaw in "Glory," but even Ferris Bueller is worlds apart from Leo Bloom. Lane, on the other hand, can read the ingredients on a soup can and have the audience rolling on the floor laughing.

[darquegk]

Posted: 10/13/13 at 12:39am

The musical role of Bloom was written for Martin Short, but he declined to leave California to take the part.