I have not been around very long, I am young. When shows like Phantom and Cats and A Chorus Line and Chicago and shows like opened what were they like? Like attendance, reviews, press, fans, etc?
Numerous people always recommend some website called GOOGLE.com which seems to have the answers to EVERYTHING!
A good start is here: http://www.ibdb.com and enter the Broadway show's title.
For reviews try: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=&x=15&y=10&type=nyt
Remember, you sometimes need to specify year the show opened as several shows are revivals (like CHICAGO) so it may have different years for each production (like GYPSY).
Yo*tube sometimes has videos from news broadcasts with included reviews and footage from the original productions. Sometimes they had fan reactions that give you a good idea of what the talk was like at the time of opening. I know I've seen one for Phantom before, but unfortunately I can't find the link. I Wish I could be of more help.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/05
I'm younger as well. But I have seen some great footage on Youtube for Phantom of the Opera. Entertainment Tonight did a lengthy spot on the show when it came here. It gave a fantastic description, mentioning facts such as: "The London production has been sold out for two-and-a-half years, with no signs of slowing", showing footage of the large lines outside the Majestic, interviewing fans, showing footage of the stage door, talking about the grosses, and showing people clambering to get into the lobby before a performance
It would be nice if some of the older posters on here shared their experiences with the shows when they first premiered. It would be great to hear first hand perspectives on the attitudes and excitements of the theatre district at that time...something you can't necessarily get from Google searches.
I've read some old reviews of Les Mis and was shocked to find they pretty much all said it was unoriginal, would never last, was sappy and weak, that the songs were unmemorable, and that the cast was no good. (Granted, these are reviews from the English production.)
Also, everyone had much bigger hair. Watch the Tony Award performance from the Original Broadway production of Les Miserables and check out Anthony Crivello as Grantaire (he's the one with the vast afro.)
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/05
I always loved how Les Mis in its early days had very 80s-looking hairstyles...
Even Phantom did in a sort of goofy way...Christine's wig in the earliest days was a bit frizzy.
The Original RSC production of Les Mis was a mess of a show.
SCARY, i have to agree in part. Sometimes the point around here seems to be who can be more "holier than thou" rather than really enjoying the company of other fans, old and young. It's part of why i stayed away for a while. Then i decided i couldn't let misery have its own company forever.
As to the original question, i went to see the opening of LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA with a decades-older friend. He said that production was like "Broadway used to be", meaning with the full orchestra, the terrific design, the ambition, the excellent singing, and the excitement. Even if it wasn't quite his "cuppa" ultimately, he could admire it so. That has nothing to do with the reviews or the general public, but with times just changing...he thinks a lot of things on B'way now were what used to only play off-B'way. In other words, small entertainments trumped up somehow. That's his opinion, but i can see what he means. For a small show, sometimes the cost of B'way can keep it from being a success...or running longer. For instance, i think SPELLING BEE could have run a lot longer off-B'way. Ditto CHAPERONE. And a lot of plays. But then again, AVENUE Q has proven a long franchise. TOS didn't quite, as of yet. So go figure.
For me, who is also quite a bit older than most on here, i can recall seeing CATS the first time in London. i scalped a ticket, and thought i had horrible seats as the scenery was right in front of me. Then the opening number happened, and the nearly-in-the-round setting began to revolve, and i was front row center (it was first staged there---unless it played somewhere else before i saw it---in a renovated TV studio, i believe called The New London). Cats crawled out of pipes right by my seat, sat in my lap, etcetera. i actually felt the sweat of the dancers flying out over us. Thrilling.
i had never seen anything like it. For you youngsters, it was like seeing the Cirque shows of my day----i was amazed people could turn triples, sing high C's, and fly on trapezes. Plus ACT, really inhabit, something like a cat. Now that kind of thing is common nature in lots of shows, so maybe the spectacle has to keep getting bigger. When i see CATS now i find it kinda boring, and i sit there wondering how it might be revised and freshened again.
My other favorite shows that first trip to London? THE MOUSETRAP (still running, i believe) and some Noel Coward tribute play with three people...but one of the three was Ian McKellen. i believe it was written and directed by Sean Mathias (sp?). The scenery couldn't have been simpler, but it was incredible. They changed their period clothes on stage, they moved their own props, etcetera....
On later trips there, i saw ANGELS IN AMERICA in the small arena space at the National, again with the actors moving props around. It shocked me how different it was on Broadway, how much more spectacular...still not sure which version i preferred. In London i got to see Maggie Smith in THREE TALL WOMEN, from the third row. i bought my ticket at the Leicester Square booth, their version of the TKTS Booth. She stayed for a post-show talkback, no need to stage-door. i saw McKellen again in a revival of BENT, at the National, again i think directed by Mathias. It was emotionally draining, stunning. i saw Diana Rigg twice, first in Greenwich in AGNES OF GOD (amazing), and when i went back afterward (the stage manager at the small stage door couldn't believe i stayed to thank her, and took me right back) she asked me if her American accent was credible, as she was so scared of the West End press when it was to move there from the regional. Later i saw her West End WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF, and she was impeccable. She was to answer questions from my group of students afterwards, but sent out the sweetest note, which i still have: "v.(ery) sorry, but play v. long, and so v. tired...next time, perhaps. Albee is a bitch...and i hope my accent has improved". So she remembered me, which is still hard to believe.
Musically, there i saw the glorious GUYS AND DOLLS revival at the National with the movie comedienne Imelda Staunton (the nurse in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, among many other notable roles) as Adelaide; Elaine Paige in SUNSET BOULEVARD; the original MISS SAIGON, with Lea Salonga a revelation; Judi Dench (after a wonderful CHERRY ORCHARD in an earlier season) in the NIGHT MUSIC revival; the National's version of SUNDAY IN THE PARK; the original Denmar CABARET revival. Breathtaking, all of them.
i say all this not to tout Brit stages, but because partly i think their subsidized version of theatre makes it a part of the culture it has never become here. Tony Randall tried, bless his heart, to start a true National theatre; Lincoln Center is trying hard too, in its anniversary year. i think the KennCenter in DC tries hard. But the Brits have such a leap on us.
i've always wondered what it would be like, on our tax forms, to have a little checkbox like the ones they have for giving to the political party of your choice; would you pay one extra dollar for the NEA as you pay your taxes? what a difference that might make.
Times change....but the more things change, the more they stay the same.
There's a great book called "Opening Nights on Broadway" that gives you the reviews of the Golden Age musicals. Also its sequel "More Opening Nights..."
You should check them out if you want a glimpse into that era. Not just the reviews themselves, but the mindset at the time.
Amazon link
I also recommend Act One by Moss Hart for a look at a very different age of Broadway.
Amazon link
BEST 12, i also loved ACT ONE and ON THE STREET WHERE YOU LIVE. There is also Goldman's THE SEASON (fascinating), SONDHEIM & CO, and the Laurents autobiography. i'm trying to get through the Robbins biography with his therapists notes included, but it's hard going. However, EVERYTHING WAS POSSIBLE is sublime, contrasting Chapin's take as a college intern on the original FOLLIES with his perspective as part of the R&H Theatricals dynasty these days. Now, if they'd just write a book about the Paper Mill version of FOLLIES, with that cast, and that director, and Jerry Mitchell choreo....*sigh*
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
Every theater fan should read act one. Moss's description of checking into the hotel, going to the opening, then returning with family to see the lines around the block-- I get a lump in my throat just thinking about it.
As one who staretd attnding Broadway in the 1970-s, to me "older shows" means 1940s/50s - the R&H era.
I think in the 20s through the 1960s people got dressed up more and made the theatre evening an event... dinner before the show was leisurly with curtain time at 8:30. Shows were longer - THE KING AND I done full length runs 3 hours, so shows would get out around 11:30. Then people would head to the Stork club or the Park Casino for drinks, latenight snacks and dancing to a live orchestra. If Ethel Merman was playing in a show she would stop by the Stork Club (she was having an affair with the owner) and would sometimes get up and sing with the band. These were nighclubs (like you see Ricky Ricardo play in in the old I LOVE LUCY shows.) To me that was the height of sophistication.
By the time I started going the Theatre district was not safe at night. They moved Curtain time to 7:30 in 1971 and the 8:00 a year or so later. There were a lot of vacant theatres and a lot of porn theatres in the area. It didn't feel glamourous at all..it felt dirty an run down. And there were few if any places to go after the show. The big shows were opulent (THE KINGA DN I revival, ANNIE and 42ND STREET) but many musicals had small casts and limited production values. The original GREASE was a very tacky looking production.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
I, for one, shall never forget the glorious opening night of Our American Cousin.
It made for such a delightful evening at the theater, that is, until that unfortunate incident occurred with Mr. Lincoln and the lesser Booth brother.
PJ, I understand he did it due to bad reviews!
I understand it was 'cuz he couldn't fill his brother's shoes.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/6/04
every time i watch I LOVE LUCY i always wish i lived back then... the way they talked about theater it just seemed like something special that EVERYONE loved... whereas now, not so much... i mean Fred and Ricky loved going to the fights and watching sports on tv but they were also excited to get seats to any show on Broadway!
Well, you're both a little right and you're both a little wrong.
Johnny Booth was a headstrong fellow--even he believed the things he said. Some called him noble, some said yellow.
What he was was off his head.
I recently read that when CATS crossed the Atlantic, after a triumphant opening in London, for months before the official opening, the city (NYC) was covered with posters/signage with just the 2 cat eyes and the tag line, "Isn't the curiosity killing you?"
I heard it was boos. Or booze. The problem with hearing things is that when you get words like that, you're never quite sure which one you heard.
I remember when Broadway shows were all in Black & White.
That's how old I am.
Son, I remember when Broadway shows were silent with captions. It made it very difficult to come away from the theatre humming the songs. But that was back in the day when you could buy tickets to a Broadway show with a nickel and still have enough left for an ice-cream soda.
i think a Copacabana type club like Ricky's would make it today too...the retro-swing thing, the floor shows...maybe in Vegas?!?!?!
Chorus Member Joined: 9/19/08
My opinion, as a rule of thumb most DANCE-intensive shows go badly downhill after the first cast-change. This is due to original cast being choreographed and directed in by the original production team.. the second cast are then basically told to do what the first cast did, and so the quality depreciates with each week that passes, the steps get looser and looser before you end up a horrible Chicago-shaped mess
Spamalot in London during previews and the first few months, compared to third cast in, the difference was huge. In the words somebody very senior related to the show, "it's gone down-hill a lot, oh well".
The sign of a quality show is the ability to be 'timeless'.. Phantom, and Les Mis in particular have lasted so long because of tourism and the quality of the piece as a whole commercially.
It also helps if, like Chicago or Blood Brothers, you can afford to run at 25% house Mon-Thurs and still be profitable.
Videos