There is a decent show in there somewhere? — Page 2

Sister Act comes to mind. Not a terrible show by any means, but could have been so much better. Same goes for Memphis.

KING KONG ...seriously, the sound design alone was mind blowing ( thank you, Peter Hylenski). KONG and his team of puppeteers were so f***ing phenomenal that I would gladly pay to see them again. Especially in a Vegas setting.

If the book and music were reworked, you'd have a hit. I mean REALLY people.. I can't quite explain how jaw dropping the tech was in this show. Spoke to the stage manager afterwards, the cues were insane! And the cast (especially Christiani Pitts) gave such a well immersed performance with KONG that I cried multiple times. Again, bravo to the cast and crew.

---

Re: Camelot

I listened to the album one or twice as a child. The first production I "saw" was the Marin Mazzie, and Gabriel Byrne "Live from Lincoln Centre" production. I loved Marin and found the show charming...long, hell ya...but enjoyable and watch it many times.

Cut to being in university and reading King Arthur, and then buying the DVD of the Broadway revival in 81/82 with Richard Harris. Now, a fully realized production didn't do it for me. I don't I've watched that dvd since then.

As Nathan Lane said in those "Cubby Berstein" videos back for Xanadu: "Is Xanadu too gay? Do they say Fiddler is too Jewish? The Wiz, too black? Do they same Camelot is too long? Actually, they do say Camelot is too long".

Updated On: 4/29/20 at 11:25 AM

Maybe these don’t really work as it’s more about the concept than what’s actually there, but I think that with different teams, Addams Family and Mean Girls could’ve been excellent shows. Both source materials are fun and over the top, which is a pretty standard definition of musical theatre.

Mean Girls’ two main problems to me are the amateur sounding score, and the defanging or the original’s more hard hitting dialogue, in a clear attempt to make the show more light and in line with the average musical. I’d be interested in a version that had a more proven composer behind it alongside a libretto that better captures the feel of the original.

I apologize for the following part being so long, I didn’t plan it that way. I guess this show and my issues with it is just a lot fresher in my mind.

As for Addams Family, it’s got a lot more problems in my mind such as just being You Can’t Take it With You with the Addams Family (and singing of course), an inconsistent score, and my personal biggest problem, just not getting the titular family’s personalities and dynamics down. I don’t know what the plot for an Addams Family musical should be, maybe the one they tried going for could work and it’s just the execution I disagree with. But as it is, if just feels so generic. As for the score, it should’ve had a more consistently macabre feeling to it. Ironically the original opening number captured the feel of the Addams Family more than all the songs that actually made it into the Broadway and licensed versions. I know they tried to make it so that the music changed styles to match the characters’ respective personalities, but it just makes the music go all over the place. Mentioning the styles, I always found Wednesday singing pop music to be such a strange choice. It’s a fitting selection for a typical teenager/young adult, but part of the her charm is that she’s so inherently different from that archetype. Going along with that, in terms of the characters’ personalities, the whole plot being about Wednesday wanting to be normal always felt so off to me, as much like the style of her music, it goes against what makes the character so popular. The fact that her love interest doesn’t have much in the way of personality doesn’t help. But the real big problem I have in terms of mischaracterization is Gomez and Morticia’s relationship. In other version they’re the absolute essence of a power couple, being madly in love with each other in addition to being great parents. But in the musical, Morticia comes across as a horrible wife and mother due to constantly antagonizing her family and nearly leaving them at the end over extremely petty reasons. The original Broadway version having her suddenly becoming terrified about aging was a bad choice, but the way they updated her in retooling makes her the closest thing the show has to a villain. Aside from the dry and confident manner she acts in, she’s almost completely different from all other iterations of the character. I also didn’t like how the show makes her so blatantly secondary to Gomez in terms of prominence, when in all other versions of Addams Family they’re co-leads. Seriously, he has so much more to do in terms of both music and dialogue. In case you haven’t noticed, they way they did Morticia dirty makes me really mad, as I usually love the character. I love Gomez too, but part of why they’re great characters is because of how they play off each other.

Unfortunately, given both shows are commercially successful, I’m sure that the current versions are final. Which stinks, because I think they both had a lot of potential.

Ron Field, but I know that was an unconscious error. I know you know who Ron Field is, and what his name is.

Updated On: 7/13/20 at 12:36 AM

I've been beating this drum for so many years, at any opportunity, that I'd be remiss if I didn't do it at this one: Dance of the Vampires. Not the NY version, the European one.

(Though truthfully there ain't as much difference between them as the fans of the latter make it out to be. They generally over-simplify their comparison of the two, treating the latter as a brooding, sensual, dark, Gothic opera compared to the campy romp of the former that we got in America – sort of the Anne Rice to the American version's Mel Brooks. The Broadway variant's bad reputation is well-deserved, but it's not that simple.

They stem from the same source material, and feature largely the same score and many of the same characters and plot points; both, in their own ways, send up the mega-musical genre / format; in both editions, it never decides whether it's fish or flesh, comedy or serious drama, and as a result it winds up being neither. I mean, among other prominent features both versions have in common, the audience is asked to swallow "Total Eclipse of the Heart" as a serious love duet between a vampire and his potential victim at the top of Act II, sharing space with a song later in the same act where said vampire lectures us on how our greed will be our doom, soliloquizing about the existential pain of eternal life and of losing everything and everyone he loves. "One of these things is not like the other..." comes to mind readily.

But as the late, great George Abbott once said, "If you play it for comedy, it won't work; if you play it for real, it will." In America, the show played it very broad and silly and milked every "laugh" that it could; by comparison, Europe's attempt at camouflaging its inconsistency played straight, darker, subtler. One way is just better than the other at masking the show's flaws. No show has to be perfect to work.)

---

Updated On: 7/13/20 at 11:00 AM

GavestonPS said: "Jarethan said: "...Just not sure re M&M. The basic story is such a downer. They would have to only focus on part of the story, but songs would no longer work; give it a Pulp Fictuon telling (out of order, the dead guys are happy at the end of the movie because it is not the end of the story. I am betting it will never work...."

We probably had this conversation years ago, but that's basically what Ron Field [thanks to joevictus for correcting my senior moment on the director's name]--choreography of original CABARET and ZORBA on Broadway, director of APPLAUSE--did in South Florida the year after the show failed in New York. He didn't go all post-modernist with it, but after Mabel died, Mack said something like, "What's the point of being an artist if you can't change life?" (It's a line of his from earlier in the show.) Then the stage play ended with the orchestra replaying the overture while the cast on-stage enacted a Hollywood musical version of the story ending with M&M in a giant swing on a stage bursting with flowers. (It was sort of like "Loveland" without the angst.)

Our production starred Lucie Arnaz and Tommy Tune (before the latter was a huge name; he sang and danced Lisa Kirk's songs) and we sold every ticket at two theaters (including the 3,000 seater in Miami Beach)! But the problem with the show is that Mabel's story isn't really dramatized once she leaves Mack and his gang at the end of Act I. Act II merely details the phases ofMack's career, each with a big production number (Keystone Kops, Bathing Beauties, etc.) and something silly is contrived periodically so Mack and Mabel can bump into each other and she can tell him what she's been up to.

Just adding a happy ending (even one with spectacular dancing and scenery) didn't change the fact that the audience lost interest once the "love story" ended at intermission.

****

I, too, agree about CAMELOT. [ETA Yikes! I didn't realize this was an old thread and I had discussed CAMELOT back when I had just seen a production. My bad.]


****

BRIGHT STAR is an interesting suggestion, because I really enjoyed a lot of it. For me, they would have to find a way to temper the

stuff. Jumping back to that every other scene for an hour was the ultimate in tone-deafness to me, and tended to spoil the up-tempo life of the young writer with which it was juxtaposed."

Thanks for that background. IT was really interesting. I disagree with you on one point, however, at least from my audience's reaction to the show 45 years ago. My audience didn't like the first act either. Despite the great production values, terrific songs (not sure we realized at the time), exciting choreography, two great leads, the audience was never engaged. I don't remember which number, but there was a huge number in the first act that was supposed to stop the show (lots of dancing, Jerry Herman crescendoes at their best, etc. Nothing. The audience applauded as if it were a filler song. I also think there was another issue, and you brought it up sideways, when you said that Tommy Tune took Lisa Kirk's numbers. That was that, despite a large cast, there was no one on stage (other than maybe M&M that the audience cared about. Even Lisa Kirk...she may have had a couple of songs, but she had no role. I remember the curtain call when, after the ensemble took their bows, there were individuals who took bows. I didn't remember who any of them even were, and the curtain had just gone down, and I was only 24/25. The applause were almost impolite. Then Lisa Kirk...same low level applause. Then BP and RP...the least applause I have ever heard in a musical (other than maybe Merrily We Roll Along).

Your comment re Mabel sorta disappearing was right on. Mabel should have been the cute little girl with the big voice that the audience fell in love with, which might have made her death at least trigger some reaction. The focus on Mack -- hell RP was a big Broadway star -- who was, at least as written, an uninteresting / unsympathetic character, probably killed the show before the first preview.

I literally just thought of something. As I recall, most of those big production numbers had neither M or M in them. They were just big numbers, filled with background players. I think the inability to identify with anyone up there was an issue also. Maybe I will regret saying that, but I guess I feel that M&M is probably unsalvageable.

Also count me in as someone who thinks Legally Blonde is just fine. It's exactly the show it needs to be. It's just different enough from the movie to feel not like a ripoff carbon copy. It creates its own cartoon world and logic, and the pace is phenomenal.

I think the musical score is the weakest part, while having a few songs here and there that have fun melodies. Some of the lyrics are really well done and numbers like "What You Want" and "Gay or European?" stand among the great musical scenes that further story in the history of broadway.

But overall, it's serviceable. I've always wondered if it could come back and have a successful revival. You'd need someone like a Dove Cameron or someone to headline it and draw people.

That's why my favorite musical adaptation of the Alice books is Gerald Barry's Alice's Adventures Under Ground, which does both books in one absolutely nightmarish hour. It refuses to make sense or impart a message.

Jarethan said: "I literally just thought of something. As I recall, most of those big production numbers had neither M or M in them. They were just big numbers, filled with background players. I think the inability to identify with anyone up there was an issue also. Maybe I will regret saying that, but I guess I feel that M&M is probably unsalvageable."

Oh absolutely! The second song is "Look What Happened To Mabel", which is a barnstormer about how successful Mabel is, and then there's a scene where Mack is down in the dumps about debt, which is punctuated by "Big Time", a big Sunday Clothes-esque jubilee number where all the other characters try to boost his mood. It's kind of bizarre.

I totally agree. I LOVED Big Fish but knew how flawed it was when I walked out of the theater. There is a wonderful show in there, and I hope someday they take another crack at it.

Norbert Leo Butz. Goddamn what a talent!

Jarethan said: "
I literally just thought of something. As I recall, most of those big production numbers had neither M or M in them. They were just big numbers, filled with background players. I think the inability to identify with anyone up there was an issue also. Maybe I will regret saying that, but I guess I feel that M&M is probably unsalvageable."

Another post points out that Mack does sing some of those production numbers, but he sings a chorus and then exits to make way for the dance ensemble (as he also did in "Seventy-Six Trombones", but there wasn't the one big number, there is more than half a score of them.

The first act in Florida may have got by on charm: in addition to Lucie Arnaz (not a singer in Peters' class, but an extremely engaging performer) and Tommy Tune (utter charm and humor), our production had Jess Richards (early victim of AIDS, but a talented and handsome juvenile), Marilyn Cooper (a later Tony winner for WOMAN OF THE YEAR) and Stanley Simmonds (a Broadway standard). David Cryer played Mack and he was a really good actor/singer, but not the overwhelming presence I imagine Preston to have been. And as I said, the choreography was sensational, very much the director's strong point.

BTW, I saw it again at Reprise-LA about 20 years ago. Jane Krakowski, Donna McKechnie and Douglas Sills. It was the Broadway version, of course, and had all the problems you mention. People seemed very welcoming to Donna McKechnie, but the enthusiasm was for the performer, not the character. As you said, there is no character there.

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "I've been beating this drum for so many years, at any opportunity, that I'd be remiss if I didn't do it at this one:Dance of the Vampires. Not the NY version, the European one.

(Though truthfully there ain't as much difference between them as the fans of the latter make it out to be. They generally over-simplify their comparison of the two, treating the latter as a brooding, sensual, dark, Gothic opera compared to the campy romp of the former thatwe got in America – sort of the Anne Rice to the American version'sMel Brooks. The Broadway variant'sbad reputation is well-deserved, but it'snot that simple.

They stem from the same source material, and feature largely the same score and many of the same characters and plot points; both, in their own ways, send up the mega-musical genre / format; in both editions, it never decides whether it's fish or flesh, comedy or serious drama, and as a result it winds up beingneither. I mean, among other prominent features both versions have in common,the audience is asked to swallow "Total Eclipse of the Heart" as a serious love duet between a vampire and his potential victim at the top of Act II, sharing space with a song later in the same act where said vampire lectures us on how our greed will be our doom, soliloquizing about the existential pain of eternal life and of losing everything and everyone he loves. "One of these things is not like the other..." comes to mind readily.

But as the late, great George Abbott once said, "If you play it for comedy, it won'twork; if you play it for real, it will." In America, the show played it very broad and silly andmilked every "laugh" thatit could; by comparison, Europe's attempt at camouflaging its inconsistency played straight, darker, subtler. One way is just better than the other at masking the show's flaws. No show has to be perfect to work.)"

Was thinking about you today because I just read a rave for the European version over tat the Classic Horror Film Board, where someone was also praising it in comparison to the Broadway dreck. They seem to think there was much more of a difference in books, whereas your whole thing seems to be about the way it was played not inherent differences in text. But between the two of you, you make me wish I'd seen it...and spoke at least one of the European languages it was performed in, so I'd understand it (I'm closest to knowing German, but that doesn't mean I'm anywhere near understanding German).

Thanks, g.d.e.g.i.

Incidentally, prior to reading that other thread, I hadn't realized that there were play-specific changes to "Total Eclipse of the Heart."

I know how much you like Steinman's work in general, so maybe a dumb question, but do you think the score holds up on its own?