The Producers didn't work without Matthew and Nathan.

Agree or Disagree? Discuss...

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!

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?

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?

---

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

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).

---

I want to hear about this credibility that was lost.

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

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.

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.