The Producers didn't work without Matthew and Nathan.- Page 2

[bk]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 9:13am

Everyone should go scroll up and read bialyhoos post because he has hit on the problem with the show - the rigidity of its director and choreographer - the sheer cockiness of her thinking that actors are automatons and can get laughs by replicating business and line readings done by other actors on certain counts. Sometimes great laughs are timed on specific beats, but those beats are not usually musical. They really did think it was all about her, Brooks, and the show, and that was the mistake. If you've seen any great comic musical (and there aren't many) with a great leading role, you know that every replacement actor, while doing the staging as it was done, brings his/her own personality, timing, warmth, and comedy to the role. Phil Silvers was very different than Zero Mostel in Funny Thing - if Stroman had directed THAT show you would never have had the succession of great comics because they would never have done comedy by musical counts. Ever. Dick Shawn was not like Zero Mostel. All the Tevyes were very different. All the Dollys were very different and that's what kept those shows fresh and alive. Yes, they all did the steps and the moves, but they were allowed the freedom to create their own takes on the actual role. It doesn't mean they were always great, but it does mean they were allowed to be who they were and not a robot impression of their predecessor. This was especially true when I saw Young Frankenstein here in LA, where every single person was aping the person who came before, especially the gal who did Megan Mullally's role - awful, and especially awful because the original take on the role was awful.

One of my best friends went into The Drowsy Chaperone just before it closed. She was told specifically what to do and how to do it, by both the put-in person and the show's director. This woman is one of the great comic actresses and she had some ideas - they did not want to hear them, nor would they let her even try them, and that, to me, is criminal and ridiculous.

And on a personal level, I did a show at NYMF a few years ago. I'd done the show previously in LA in a well-reviewed production. I was VERY happy and used to the leading lady's interpretation of her role - that's how I saw it, that's what I was used to. She couldn't do the show in NY, so we cast another actress. At the first rehearsal and table reading this other actress was so different and it seemed quite odd to me - BUT, it was very interesting to see her different take. There were two ways I could have dealt with it - stopped it right there and been a complete idiot, or do what I did - shut the hell up and let her find her own version of the character - she did, she was absolutely brilliant and every day would come in with new things that would inspire ME and give ME ideas - in the end, after she opened, I could never see that character any other way. Actors are not robots.

[mamaleh]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 9:44am

I've seen Nathan Lane's and Jason Alexander's Bialystocks; the former was fabulous, the latter all over the place, not very focused and too slavishly copycatted from Lane. He and Martin Short were too much the same type, which weakened the comic conflict. My favorite Leo Bloom was neither Broderick, whiny without likability, nor Short, but Roger Bart. He best captured the curious combo of innocence and freneticism.

[Bialyhoos22]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 2:23pm

You've touched on a lot of the key issues Bruce, not only with The Producers but with most modern Broadway productions. Case in point - Lee Roy Reams, when he replaced Gary Beach as Lumiere, was sent to a dialect coach by the producers because he didn't sound exactly like Gary Beach. The dialect coach told him he had a "very beautiful" French accent and she had nothing more to offer him. But because he wasn't shouting and growling like Beach in the role (who was terrific), stage management freaked out.

You particularly begin to see this assembly-line, "paint by numbers" approach to directing in the equity and non-equity touring versions of these Broadway hits.

And it truly is "stage by numbers" game with most of these road shows. In his recent memoir, Lewie Stadlen said he has a separate book worth of thoughts and musings on his 3 year stint with The Producers touring companies. Though he didn't go into as many specifics, you sensed he and the rest of the cast suffered through those first rehearsals as management made them wear the Original Cast's performances. Eventually, it sounds like they broke that mold and started having a good time, but it was a frustrating grind. I believe Stadlen also ran into these same issues when he was in rehearsals for the 1992 Guys and Dolls tour (playing Nathan) and had to find even ground with Zaks on his version of the character. IIRC, Nathan Lane (a good friend of Stadlen's) might have even stepped in to vouch for his pal's instincts for the part.

It's long been said that an actor's 'genius' is in the specific choices they make. With The Producers, and many other shows, these choices were made and ENFORCED by people who often have no qualifications to do so. Your point about the different Tevyes, Dollys and Pseudolae (!) is spot on. Phil Silvers, Pearl Bailey and Ethel Merman would have crashed and burned if they were expected to copy the performances before them. Updated On: 7/6/11 at 02:23 PM

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 4:22pm

THE PRODUCERS doesn't work without Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 4:46pm

It's not that it didn't work without them, for me; it just worked way better WITH them. And I happen to think the show absolutely deserved the raves it got. It's one of the best shows of the 2000's if you ask me. Hands down, in the top ten.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 9:47pm

The Producers didn't work without Nathan Lane. Matthew Broderick, the most untalented has been , was along for the ride.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 5:13pm

Loved it with Larry David!

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 5:24pm

I think it works with a very committed cast, so it worked quite well with Matthew and Nathan, but other can make it work quite well.

bk, I'm quite surprised that an actress in Drowsy wasn't given much creative freedom because I thought that when Bob Saget played Man in Chair, he took it in a completely different direction from Bob Martin, to the point where it was almost an entirely different character, though equally great at the role in his own respect.

[Bialyhoos22]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 6:38pm

I'm going to assume that this was maybe Cindy Williams replacing Joanne Worley as Mrs. Tottendale? If so, I half wonder if they found they strayed too far from the original take on the role with Worley that they needed to bring it back into the dotty, aloof Georgia Engel mold...? Perhaps too Joanne Worley benefitted from having Casey Nicholaw in the room during her put-in rather than just stage management? I know he was off doing other projects by the time the show closed on Broadway and the tour began...but with Worley, I recall her saying that they let her put in some of her 'swinging pearls' shtick she's known for.

John Glover, Bob Saget and Jonathan Crombie all gave very different, yet equally effective, spins on Man in Chair.

[bk]

Posted: 7/8/11 at 11:02pm

Yes, it was Cindy and it was frustrating for her - and it was Casey as well as whoever was putting her in. I don't like that Worley would do her shtick, and I know that's not what Cindy was trying to do - she just knows her comedy as well as anyone and it's always worth listening to someone who does - but they didn't.

[hotjohn]

Posted: 7/9/11 at 9:05am

I saw The Producers eight times with five different portrayals of Max and seven different Leos -my favourite Max was undoubtedly Nathan but the best Leo I saw was in the German-language version in Berlin (and I don't even speak or understand German!). I think, primarily, his performance stood out as it most definitely wasn't a carbon copy of Matthew Broderick or anyone else I saw - he emphasised many of the gags with bits of visual schtick which made the jokes even funnier than previously - possibly something to do with the general style of German humour using visuals rather than language.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 7/9/11 at 1:42pm

I saw Nathan & Matthew in the show 3 times and it was certainly the best night of theatre (aside from LES MIZ) that I have ever experienced.

When I saw it with Brad Oscar and Steven Webber and then on tour, the only flaw was the young lady who performed Ulla. The gentleman who performed Max even addressed the elephant that was in the theatre during BETRAYED. When it was "Intermission!" he picked up a Playbill and thumbed through it. He looked up at us and said, "Not as good as Nathan Lane, but he's OK," he shrugged.

No man who has played the roles forgot who Nathan & Matthew were, but they respected that the audience expected the BEST and gave it their all as their own versions of the characters.

Not bad, not AS good or better, just different

The material in the show is hilarious if you are in the right mind frame to enjoy it.

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/9/11 at 3:40pm

I heard a "recording" of Jason Alexander and Martin Short, but I didn't get to see them live- you say they were bad? They sounded like great fun to me!

[Bialyhoos22]

Posted: 7/9/11 at 4:11pm

That's too bad bk...you've got to wonder what else was going on behind the scenes that made them so resistant.

Casey and Bob Martin said numerous times that they really believed in each actor putting their own persona into the role. I thought Gerry Vichi was a big improvement over Lenny Wolpe as Feldzieg. He didn't deviate too far from Wolpe, but his stature and energy seemed more in line. I saw James Moye as Aldolpho on tour and thought he was pretty awful. It felt very much like he was wearing Burstein's performance and it just didn't fit. I think it's actually a difficult role to do well. Burstein made it look pretty effortless but it's anything but.

I've always been curious to know what the fate of The Producers would have been if Marty Short opened the show on Broadway as he was originally asked to do. He was probably the most inspired and effective Leos...very different from the Broderick mold.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 7/9/11 at 4:14pm

I never saw Matthew and Nathan aside from the movie, which is probably not the strongest point of comparison for either or. I saw the tour and saw the Broadway Show, Brad Oscar (also saw his understudy who may have actually played Franz like Brad did in the original cast) and Roger Bart. It is one of my favorite Broadway experiences but I am sure it helped that Gary Beach was still there too. The tour was not as fulfilling. It was fine and the people around who got their first exposure to The Producers musical loved it, but nothing stood out aside from Roger DeBris and Carmen Ghia.

Even if I saw the original cast, I do think my opinion would still stand. I completely loathe Matthew Broderick and cannot imagine him as a great stage presence (especially when he has ruined screenings I have had on documentaries and films just based on his lethargic voice-over). I just cannot imagine him as a neurotic the way I thought Bart aptly brought to the role. I can, however, imagine really enjoying and being partial Nathan in the role, and he certainly was not one of the many problems in the movie.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 7/10/11 at 1:22am

Martin Short was a great Leo. Better than Broderick.
Unfortunately, Jason Alexander did not make a great Max Bialystock.
He kind of struggled with the role. He worked hard and it looked it.


Short was so good, he made it seem like the Producers was more about Bloom than Bialystock. He threw it off balance.

Lane and Short would have been great.

[Aurelia2]

Posted: 7/10/11 at 11:05am

Are there Producers fans who had not been exposed to Mel Brooks movies? I had very little experience with his style before I saw the show and I didn't get it. I have since grown to like a couple of Mel Brooks movies but I'm still bored by The Producers musical.

[mc1227]

Posted: 7/10/11 at 11:23pm

I watched The Producers musical the other night after not seeing it for several years and being very disappointed when I did see it. Stroman totally botched the movie and while the actors did their best, the movie had so many things wrong, the editing, the lighting, deleted songs that should have stayed, etc. I can understand some of the other posts that have critiques her handling of the replacements on Broadway.

As for the Broadway show, I saw the production 4 times, twice with Nathan and Matthew, once with John Tracey Egan and Roger Bart and then again with Tony Danza and Hunter Foster. Maybe because I am one of the few on this board who does enjoy Broderick on stage, but I thought his portrayal of Bloom was far superior. Not based on just singing and dancing but the overall performance was the reason that you rooted for the characters in the first place. He started off timid and neurotic and finished strong. For me, none of the other Leos came close.

[mc1227]

Posted: 7/10/11 at 11:25pm

I watched The Producers musical the other night after not seeing it for several years and being very disappointed when I did see it. Stroman totally botched the movie and while the actors did their best, the movie had so many things wrong, the editing, the lighting, deleted songs that should have stayed, etc. I can understand some of the other posts that have critiques her handling of the replacements on Broadway.

As for the Broadway show, I saw the production 4 times, twice with Nathan and Matthew, once with John Tracey Egan and Roger Bart and then again with Tony Danza and Hunter Foster. Maybe because I am one of the few on this board who does enjoy Broderick on stage, but I thought his portrayal of Bloom was far superior. Not based on just singing and dancing but the overall performance was the reason that you rooted for the characters in the first place. He started off timid and neurotic and finished strong. For me, none of the other Leos came close.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 7/11/11 at 7:08pm

I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but why did the film version of The Producers flop so badly with the same original Broadway principals?

Did the Broadway show build expectations too high? Did the great majority of the country not know that Nathan Lane was such a superb comedian and that everything he did was funny? I would like to say that it was because the second film just couldn't live up to the original classic film but I know that most moviegoers had never seen the Mostel/Wilder version.