Posted: 1/17/22 at 11:14pm
I’ve recently discovered the cast album. And thought the music was actually quite good. Im wondering why the show flopped? Did anyone here see it? Any insight?
Posted: 1/17/22 at 11:29pm
I saw the ‘pre-Broadway’ tryout with Anthony Warlow. I don’t know how much changed but overall I just found it to be rather boring and uninspiring. It’s hard to put my finger on exactly what the problems were (especially now after it is all a hazy memory) but some shows stick with me and some don’t and this was firmly in the ‘dont’ category. Was so disappointing given the creative team and Warlow. I wanted to love it.
Posted: 1/17/22 at 11:33pm
I saw it.
I didn’t think it was offensively bad, but it was bland, and clearly trying hard to be the next Les Mis-esque show - 30 years too late. Like Les Mis, it was unwieldy and bombastic, but unlike Les Mis, it wasn’t entertaining enough to pull it off.
Not to mention - Les Mis and Phantom were actually playing on Broadway at the same time, so anyone who was in the market for an 80s-style mega-musical wouldn’t have felt the need to go with this unknown entity. On that note, I also think the producers overestimated the name recognition of the property.
Paul Alexander Nolan was by far the cast standout. He brought a lot of charisma to his supporting role.
Posted: 1/17/22 at 11:36pm
Considering this show went from California to Australia to South Korea to Finland to Sweden, I thought that they had years to perfect it when it finally made it to Broadway in 2015.
The music is gorgeous. But everything else about it? Hot garbage. From the tacky ass icicles, Kelli's muppet skin wig, the poor acting, the "THIS STORY IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT" vibe....I just couldn't handle it. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters and towards the end I was just waiting for this slog of a show to conclude.
Updated On: 1/18/22 at 11:36 PM
Posted: 1/17/22 at 11:39pm
Link to the Dr Zhivago reviews back in spring 2015: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1082446
From what I recall, there was just a lack of buzz.
Posted: 1/18/22 at 12:33am
I saw it too from like the second row and thought it was all so “meh.” I didn’t get why this story was famous or important or why any of u would care. The design and direction were weird. There was like this metal pummel-horse thong that moved and the icicles looked very fake.
Posted: 1/18/22 at 1:56am
JBroadway said: "Paul Alexander Nolan was by far the cast standout. He brought a lot of charisma to his supporting role."
I could go into "telling" vs. "showing" and critiquing the show on paper but honestly, similar shows have done just fine and I agree that the music is solid and appealing in the way the megamusicals were (if too late to ride that same wave). But a huge problem with the Broadway production was that all the leads were incredibly wooden except Paul Nolan and there was no romantic chemistry. I mean, they sang their faces off and I enjoyed the hell out of it but no, the actors did not make the story feel compelling. I imagine the parts about the war and politics were less interesting to the audience expecting the romance of the movie though it's possible that might be a better sell today with the rise of leftist/communist/Marxist TikTok.
It also had tone problems. Let's just say that aside from the music, I didn't like it for the "right reasons" and found things amusing that I wasn't supposed to find so funny.
Posted: 1/18/22 at 7:12am
I missed this show by a hair (it closed RIGHT before I moved to NYC), but I absolutely LOVE the cast recording.
Posted: 1/18/22 at 9:26am
You know how you can listen to an audiobook or podcast at 1.5x speed? It was basically the musical and staging equivalent of that.
Posted: 1/18/22 at 9:54am
BTW - I think this show holds my personal record for "shortest run of a Broadway musical" that I've seen. I never saw any of those infamous <1week runs.
Posted: 1/18/22 at 9:56am
It's a popular novel and movie for many reasons, none of which seem right for musical theatre. The main character is a quiet, thoughtful, unassuming everyman whose wants are very basic. The romance is irresistible but mostly unactualized as the hero and heroine/ lovers spend very little time together. It's textually and cinematically poetic but does it sing? Nah.
Posted: 1/18/22 at 11:01am
A video playlist featuring all the musical numbers from the original Broadway production:
Posted: 1/18/22 at 11:21am
It hands down has some of the best review headlines of any reviewed Broadway show. Look them up if you need a laugh in these dismal times. For example:
Dr. Zhivago needs a doctor
Dr. Zhivago on life support
Posted: 1/18/22 at 7:59pm
Minority opinion on one point: It's a perfectly good story for musical adaptation, epic and intimate at the same time with an accessible love triangle in which no one is at fault for the inevitable betrayal. And hell, it's about a poet. If anyone should sing, it's Yuri Zhivago. We've had a masterwork about a painter, surely a poet who lives via an internal aesthetic can be given a singing voice. I just wasn't done well. It maybe needed more Ragtime, less Les Miz.
Posted: 1/18/22 at 10:29pm
The show did give us the inspired twitter account - The Zhivago Table. Famous for as the twitter says:
Apr 4, 2015
Used in 5% of the show but block 90% of the view
All the tweets are here!: The Zhivago Table (@TheZhivago) / Twitter
