The Producers didn't work without Matthew and Nathan.

[Jay94]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 9:26am

Agree or Disagree? Discuss...

[wickedfan]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 9:31am

I've got a better idea. Why don't you tell us what YOU think and why you think it? I'd like to see you post something other than "Agree or Disagree? Discuss..."

[JMPlayer6]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 9:37am

wickedfan,

God yes! I am really starting to get annoyed by these posts asking people's opinion of things, while offering up none at all!

[Jay94]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 9:52am

It just seems like the show was never the same without them. It seemed to lose some credibility in a strange way.

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 9:56am

I thought it worked fine without them.

As for the question of asking opinions without offering one's own, it's possible that the OP didn't see the show and thus has no opinion to offer.

And what's the harm in trying to find out about shows one never saw?

[DRSisLove]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 9:57am

The first time I saw the show was long after they left, and I really enjoyed it.

The second time I went was with Tony Danza, which... did not work.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 9:58am

I saw THE PRODUCERS with a replacement cast at the St. James and was very disappointed in the show, having gone in with very high expectations. I am a great fan of both Mathew Broderick and Nathan Lane and the replacement leads (I can't even remember their names ) just could not hold the show together. They simply were not very funny. This suggests that the book of the show, despite the screaming raves that THE PRODUCERS received when it opened, is really not that good. Am I committing sacrilege?

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:00am

I saw The Producers several times during its run, and while I know this will be contrary to the conventional wisdom, I enjoyed it much more without Lane & Broderick. For me, their shtick was put on, their supposed character breaks seemed planned, and it came across as very phony. I must say that I thought Lane was the primary culprit, and Broderick was more or less along for the ride.

[Bialyhoos22]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:06am

I can't agree that it simply didn't work without the duo. Far from it. True - The Producers was never better than when Nathan and Matthew were headlining, but there were several worthy Bialystock and Blooms to keep things afloat.

Having seen the show with every cast imaginable, I think the biggest issue with that show actually became Stroman and her stage management. Although all extremely talented, hard-working individuals, when it came time to put new actors in the show - be it for Bialystock/Bloom, Roger/Carmen or a small ensemble track - these creatives was so unbelievably rigid in their views of the characters (and what the original cast did with them) that they didn't give the replacements any room whatsoever (particularly for Bialy and Bloom) to put their own stamp on the role.

The show is choreographed within an each of its life - which is perfectly acceptable and common in musicals - however, the real issue became that the non musical/dance scenes were just as heavily choreographed. As a result, when replacements went into that show, there were very strict guidelines in place for gestures, movements, inflections, etc that should be used by the incoming actors. ie. "You're going to enter through the door on your right foot on the 3rd beat of this musical sting". This left very little freedom or inspiration to set in and create a wholly original performance in any of the roles.

In fairness, I don't know this strict, machine-like approach was always their M.O. I think the failure (a relative term here!) of Henry Goodman in the part of Max really put Stro and her stage management into a tailspin. They wanted Nathan and Matthew's performances back (particularly Nathan's) and thus, with Brad Oscar it began this trend of hiring actors to mimic Lane's vocal inflections and gestures. This lasted all the way through John Treacy Egan (my favorite replacement Bialystock) on Broadway and in countless international Stroman productions.

Tony Sheldon recently spoke to the nightmare that rehearsal period was for the Australian production of the show. They wanted him to do exactly what Gary Beach did in the part (they even asked him to dye his hair). He along with the rest of the cast were completely depressed and frustrated with their having to wear the original cast's performances rather than discover and create their own. It was only after the Americans left and they were several months into the show that they actually started doing what they wanted with the characters.

Listen, you will not find a greater fan of this show than me but I really do think this line of thinking really contributed to many of the issues that would come later after the original cast left. While in theory, Stroman's approach might have sounded practical, it was anything but. Comedy needs (and often comes from) the element of spontaneity, but this assembly-line approach to putting actors in the show, leftvery few opportunities to allow that spontaneity or the performer's own inspiration to come in.

I think all the roles really suffered as a result of this - not just Bialystock and Bloom. I would go so far as to say there has been no one who has ever approached Gary Beach's over-the-top brilliance as DeBris. When Gary did 'Springtime for Hitler', there was a raucous, unpredictable quality to the whole thing that made it seem totally spontaneous and in the moment. When I went back and saw Jonathan Freeman and even Lee Roy Reams, Springtime for Hitler, while not a total bomb, really seemed tired and predictable - they didn't 'own' it. Maybe that's the real issue?

Updated On: 7/5/11 at 10:06 AM

[broadwayjim42]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:08am

I saw it long after Lane and Broderick had left and the problem wasn't the cast, but the show itself. I found the whole thing very off-putting and borderline offensive. That probably sounds stupid since that's the whole point of it, but the show annoyed the hell out of me.

I think the movie version only amplified all its flaws.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:08am

While I did not see Lane and Broderick in the original Producers, I disagree that it did not work without them. I saw the show twice with different actors and the show was hilarious, though I enjoyed it better the first time around since I knew what to expect the second time.

I saw the national tour once with Lewis Stadlin and Alan Ruck and once on Broadway with Brad Oscar (or John Treacy Egan - I forget) and Stacey Todd Holt (understudy for Hunter Foster).

[hairspraydude1962]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:10am

Disagree. I've seen it a couple of times. In my opinion, it was still just as good, without them.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:16am

I want to hear about this credibility that was lost.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:17am

It works fine without them as long as the cast are good
The 1st 3 month sit down of the UK tour in Manchester which starred Corey English and Peter Kay was the best cast ive ever seen if the show inc the OBC

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:21am

To comment further, I would have to say that I agree completely with the views of broadwayjim42--I found some of it offensive and was also annoyed much of the time.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 10:25am

I saw the show twice with them and twice without them.

The flaws in the material were much more apparent without them. The replacements I saw (Brad Oscar, Ray Wills, Roger Bart, and Steven Weber) were serviceable, but didn't rise above the material the way Broderick and Lane did.

To be fair, I actually think the show worked fine without Broderick, but neither of the other men I saw were anywhere near as good as Nathan Lane, who was able to get a laugh out of just about every single line in the script. No one that I've onstage in my lifetime does musical comedy as well as he does.

[Jay94]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 11:09am

In terms of the show losing credibility, I mean that the show seemed to lose some of its prestige.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 12:36pm

I think it still has its prestige. It's not like someone took their awards away because Broderick and Lane left the show.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 12:38pm

I'll probably be pilloried for this, but, frankly, I never felt that The Producers was any kind of great show to start with, even with Lane and Broderick. An entertaining afternoon at the theatre? Yes, absolutely. But the score was absolutely forgettable and I'm not all that crazy about the book -- it wasn't, IMO, nearly as funny as the original movie. I think it was a matter of people going overboard and not recognizing it for what it was -- an entertaining two and one half hours. Well oiled, well staged, well produced. But not a great musical.

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 5:21pm

I saw it in Los Angeles with Martin Short and Jason Alexander. I thought it was awful

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 5:28pm

I saw a backers audition with Nathan and Evan Pappas as Leo. Evan was terrific and probably should have done the part instead of Matthew.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 8:16pm

I disagree

[donte7162004]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 8:38pm

I saw The Producers after Nathan and Matthew left the show, so I can't comment on their performances. When I finally did see the show after they had left, I remember leaving the theatre wondering what all the fuss was about? It was obviously a very well done show, but I expected so much more after all the positive things I had already heard about it.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 8:53pm

I know, totally. Those hacks Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel ruined the film for me.

[Barney Stinson]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 12:08am

I only saw the show after they were out. And I honestly couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about. I though the show was weak, and yes, primarily the two leads (don't remember who it was). So, for me at least, it didn't work without them, but it might have not worked with them either.

Great actors do make a huge difference, especially when replaced with inferior talent - and I think that is esepcially true with comedies. Spamalot with Azaria and Pierce was infinitely better than with some no name and . . . Clay Aiken. Horrible. Just horrible.