"The Producers" revisited

[QueenS]

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.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 1/15/04 at 4:09pm

We are of a similar mindset, QueenS.

Nathan and Matthew are sublime. THE PRODUCERS has one of the best books ever written for a musical - lean and smoothly constructed with no waste. But I'm with you on the score. It's certainly servicable and serves the story well. But it's the weakest part of the show. It's just not up to the rest of the elements that make the show so compulsively entertaining. The show would work equally well without it (though I'd miss the 'Little Old Lady Land' first act finale).

But I thought THE FULL MONTY'S score was no great shakes either, so there we must part!

And lest anyone think that the entire theatergoing audience knoes every minute detail about the Broadway musical, when I saw the show again in April at Brad Oscar's last performance, I sat next to a young man who was seeing it for the first time. He was very excited, but after leafing thru his Playbill, he asked "Who's playing LSD?"

[pacificnorthwest2]

Posted: 1/15/04 at 4:13pm

I, for one, LOVED the scores to both The Producers and The Full Monty. The Producers' cast recording makes me smile every time I listen to it. Maybe the tunes aren't complex, but they're catchy and fun.

Having said that, I would have given the edge to The Full Monty's score for a Tony - - I'm still depressed that such a truly wonderful show was shut out and ultimately forced to die a way-too-early death.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/15/04 at 4:20pm

I loved the scores for Jane Eyre, Seussical, and The Full Monty that season The Producers never caught on for me and the CD is gathering dust. Personally, I thought the Tony belonged to Paul Gordon for Jane Eyre.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 1/15/04 at 4:34pm

THE PRODUCERS is a good show--not a GREAT show. It's biggest problem is its score. Mel Brooks wrote music that just barely serves the material. The orchestrations, however, are so terrific that they often hide the music's weakness. One can only wonder what it would have been like if Jerry Herman had accepted the assignment when it was offered to him!

THE FULL MONTY has a far superior score. Rugged, contemporary music--and clever lyrics--that fully augment the characters th show deals with.

[QueenS]

Posted: 1/15/04 at 5:14pm

That's very funny, Master. I was happy to have LSD fall by the wayside. However, I'm sure they could have gotten Renee Taylor to revise her role as Eva Braun. I don't think that she's doing anything these days...

Dollypop, you are right, the orchestrations were beautiful. Sorry that I didn't give them their due. And I like "rugged" as a descriptive of TFM score. I also like to think of it as jazz-influenced. Have you heard Yazbek's other CD's? I highly recommend "Tock" and "Domascus."

As an addendum- Though "The Producers"'s scenery was good, it really didn't hold a candle to the glorious sets of "Invention of Love." Another misplaced Tony...

[RobbO]

Posted: 1/15/04 at 10:10pm

i agree, queens. i saw the show yesterday for the first time and kept thinking to myself that this show would make a better movie. cut the music and bad "dance" numbers and you have a hit!

[Broadwaylilhead]

Posted: 1/16/04 at 3:59pm

I'm finally seeing this show on Wed during the matinee and I'm VERY excited!

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 1/16/04 at 6:20pm

I'm seeing them in March, but I've seen the show before. Personally, I love the book and the music. So, I tend to disagree with you.

[BroadwayNYC]

Posted: 1/16/04 at 7:34pm

Please, someone make this musical go away....

[Lorelai]

Posted: 1/17/04 at 3:53am

I actually saw the show last Tuesday and I thought it was great. I went with a friend who had never seen it and she loved it.
One thing I noticed is that it seems (at least when I saw it) that Nathan and Matthew seem to be ad-libbing a lot more. I even think that they may have changed one or two SMALL things in the choreography.

[Alvin and My Sheepdog Rex]

Posted: 1/17/04 at 11:58am

My guess is that the new ad-libbing by Nathan and Matthew on Broadway comes as a result of the success that the Jason Alexander/Martin Short run in Los Angeles had with ad-libbing. Those two, especially Martin, never missed a chance add in new jokes, moves, or a current event comment. Example: by Max to Old Lady: "Let's play the Basketball Superstar and the Hotel Concierge" The audiences in LA loved it, no two showings ever seemed the same and my guess is that the Broadway audiences also enjoy such spontaneity. That is of course unless it comes across a "planned spontaneity".

[CaTheatreGirl]

Posted: 1/17/04 at 12:36pm

With their return, it looks like Nathan and Matthew want to have some fun and keep the show fresh. I saw the show twice and noted the subtle differences in some of their lines. Even during their earlier run in the show, they were great with the adlibs. What they're doing on stage is not because of what Jason and Martine did in the LA show. I'm sure Nathan and Matthew enjoy trying to get each other to laugh and they succeed. At one of the recent shows I saw, Matthew gave Nathan one of his "adorable smiles" and it broke Nathan up. They were trying to suppress their laughter and continue on, but the audience was laughing so hard, it was difficult for a moment. Those are the little things that make the show interesting. You never know what's coming next.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 1/17/04 at 1:35pm

At last week's TIMES talk, Matthew did the same thing with his "naughty yet sweet and innocent" looks that always breaks Nathan up.

Matthew knows exactly where Nathan's buttons are and boy, he looooves pressing them!

[RobbO]

Posted: 1/18/04 at 4:16pm

nathan and matthew are certainly tops in the production, but i cannot imagine seeing the show without them as i did not think the show has much going for it other than their chemistry...