#1
Posted: 1/15/04 at 3:21pm
I had the opportunity to return to see "The Producers" this week. I had seen it previously without it's original cast and found it to be lackluster. I really wondered what all the fuss had been about.
Seeing the show with Lane and Broderick, however, I laughed more in their first scene together than I had through the entire show previously. The two combined are greater than the sum of their parts. The chemistry when they are both onstage glows with such magnitude that inadequacies of the musical are forgotten. However that shine begins to fade when even one of them is apart from the other and fizzles when they are not onstage.
All the other performers were quite capable and have their moments. But they are still saddled with the failings of the material. The songs are weak and some of the humor taken directly from the film is lost when expanded to fill the grandeur of the stage.
That being said, I still appreciate many of the changes made to the film (which I love- it still makes me laugh when I watch it). The expansion of Ulla's character, Leo first refusing to take part in the scheme, having Roger play Hitler are all improvements to plot.
However, I found myself in the opposite experience of a similar situation. When I see "The Matchmaker" or "The Fourposter," I am often jarred at the points where songs have been added in the musical adaptations. The musicals were so finely mastered that the songs seem an integral part of the story and I miss them when they are not there.
When I saw "The Producers," I was slightly deflated at each song. Ultimately, I would have preferred this production to be a non-musical. The songs detracted from what could have been a very funny play. More than ever, I believe that David Yasbek was robbed of a much-deserved Tony for his "Full Monty" score.
Yes, I am glad that I got to see these two fine comedians at work. But I am not so blind as to be unable to distinguish a fantastic performance from a fantastic show. I can only imagine the result, had the musical been elevated to the height of its stars.
Seeing the show with Lane and Broderick, however, I laughed more in their first scene together than I had through the entire show previously. The two combined are greater than the sum of their parts. The chemistry when they are both onstage glows with such magnitude that inadequacies of the musical are forgotten. However that shine begins to fade when even one of them is apart from the other and fizzles when they are not onstage.
All the other performers were quite capable and have their moments. But they are still saddled with the failings of the material. The songs are weak and some of the humor taken directly from the film is lost when expanded to fill the grandeur of the stage.
That being said, I still appreciate many of the changes made to the film (which I love- it still makes me laugh when I watch it). The expansion of Ulla's character, Leo first refusing to take part in the scheme, having Roger play Hitler are all improvements to plot.
However, I found myself in the opposite experience of a similar situation. When I see "The Matchmaker" or "The Fourposter," I am often jarred at the points where songs have been added in the musical adaptations. The musicals were so finely mastered that the songs seem an integral part of the story and I miss them when they are not there.
When I saw "The Producers," I was slightly deflated at each song. Ultimately, I would have preferred this production to be a non-musical. The songs detracted from what could have been a very funny play. More than ever, I believe that David Yasbek was robbed of a much-deserved Tony for his "Full Monty" score.
Yes, I am glad that I got to see these two fine comedians at work. But I am not so blind as to be unable to distinguish a fantastic performance from a fantastic show. I can only imagine the result, had the musical been elevated to the height of its stars.
