Will Chase on HiFi's Closing- Page 3

[Al Dente]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 12:55pm

The sad truth is that no show can play in a theater that big without the support of the critics. Word of mouth just takes too long to build. But I think Chase has a good point, if he's making it in a slighly confusing way.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 12:56pm

I am in Boston and read the article the Globe put out about it. It was not good. At all. I believe it did have positive comments about the actors though.

[ruprecht]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 1:20pm

Is he going to have a hard time finding another broadway musical lead? I guess Jenn Colella is allowed to constantly fail so maybe he will be too?

[ashley0139]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 1:22pm

While Lennon didn't do well, Will was called the standout of the cast. He got rave reviews for that show.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 1:22pm

What a hard job being a critic

Seeing every show for free with great seats & probably dinner on your expense account. I am totally broken up

Where do I sign up to become a critic ?

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 1:28pm

I don't think Will Chase failed in this show. The show may have failed, but that hasn't anything to do with him. It's failed due to bad material.

Remember Patrick Wilson in the short-lived Fascinatin' Rhythm, his Broadway debut? He was pretty obviously a major talent even from his Bright Lights, Big City little Off Broadway run at NYTW, which wasn't really a hit, either.

And Patrick Wilson went on to two Tony noms. Will is capable of getting Tony noms, but he needs better material supporting him. He's talented, experienced, tough, healthy.

I would like to see Will take on a dramatic role in a straight play as well. Even though I love to hear his singing voice. I just think he'd be great at it. I'd like to see him play Manus in the upcoming Translations, a brilliant play, though the role is already cast, dommage.

[ruprecht]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 1:36pm

You can't compare Patrick Wilson's situation to Will's. First of all, they're about the same age. But Fascinating Rhythm was an ensemble show. Patrick was not above the title or on the poster. He was just part of a stunning array of talented folks (Orfeh, Adriane Lenox, Sara Ramirez) who were stuck in a stupid cruise ship revue. I guess similar to Lennon in some ways. But High Fideltiy was a chance to sell Will as a leading man, similar to Patrick's breakout in Full Monty. if THAT had failed, there'd be a comparison to make.

[McFrenzied]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 1:50pm

For the most part, reviews seem to be either overly gushing or overly negative. People are busy and they look to critics to tell them what is or isn't good. Any review that is "wishy washy"(i.e. this was good, that was bad, the show doesn't work, but the actors gave it their all, etc), is a waste of people's time and after a while, that critic won't be read. It's sad, but true.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 1:52pm

It is a sad state of affairs when people cannot think for themselves & let others tell them what they should or should not see

Never subscribed to that line of thinking & never will

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 1:58pm

If you think that that's the point of reading reviews, then therein lies the problem. If people are supposed to think for themselves, they have to base their decisions on something. What do you expect them to base their decisions on, then? A show's marketing campaign that insists it's great? The bottom line is that no matter what you use to help you develop your own thoughts about what to see, you're getting someone else's opinion in there somewhere. Opinions of others are going to influence "thinking for yourself" if doing so requires seeking out information. It seems like reading to get information is being misconstrued with not thinking for yourself IF you take the critic's "advice," so to speak.

Updated On: 12/16/06 at 01:58 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 2:03pm

I disagree, ruprecht.

Will already has a history of being a leading man, from Miss Saigon, and even stepping into Rent.

Even when clearly being courteous and not trying to focus attention on himself as one of several Lennons in Lennon, it was clear that he was the leading man and the most transportedly Lennon of the bunch. He just has natural self-confidence and is a leading man onstage.

It was abundantly clear in Fascinatin' Rhythm that Patrick Wilson was a leading man. Same as for Will in Lennon.

None of this will hurt Will as a leading man. He will likely just move on to another lead in a, hopefully, better show.

And Will, shave! I like your clean-shaven face! No more scruffy stuff.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 3:21pm

You want to know what killed this show? A TERRIBLE advertising campaign with a TERRIBLE logo that spoke to NO ONE about the show. Well, that and mediocre writing.

This piece of pastiche had to go head-to-head with Spring Awakening, and only one of those shows was the real deal.

As I've said from the beginning, this is the sort of show I thought had real potential. But as people have pointed out -- from Brantley to Filichia to members of the boards -- it wasn't executed well or marketed well. It had no chance, and you can hardly blame the New York Times for that.

[SirLiir]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 3:53pm

Nomdeplume, I really think you were reading way too much into that scene. I saw it as a parody of the loud obnoxious rap music of the 90s, both white and black. Nothing more.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 4:37pm

Did I not see the gun and the wouldbe shooting?

Did I not see actors pretending to pee onstage and on another actor?

Did I not hear the foul language, over and over?

There's parody and then there's just senseless bad taste.

[SirLiir]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 4:39pm

Unfortunately, thats what I make of rap music I just didn't find it that offensive. The audience as I said before ate it up.

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 4:39pm

I agree with Liir. That scene was absolutely hysterical, and as I looked around, I saw everyone cracking up, all races alike. I think it was just completely in fun. Even more so, is this really the first time rap has been made fun of white guys? Please.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 4:41pm

I agree nom. That scene was just awful. I'm no prude, but I didn't think it helped propel the story, what little story there is...

And I truly found the Lyle Lovette joke tiresome.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 4:44pm

And there are people who don't see anything wrong with what our soldiers did to some of the Iraqi prisoners, too.

When you do see something wrong with it you can't keep quiet and pretend it's okay.

[SirLiir]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 4:47pm

I NEVER made the slightest connection to the Iraqi situation or racism watching it and honestly, that connection is just ridiculous to imply. The place is set in the 90's for goodness' sake. You are really making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 4:49pm

No, it is a very clear analogy that helps point out why the scene is offensive. Peeing on another human is a form of ritual humiliation.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 4:50pm

Even though I liked the show, I agree with the Lyle Lovette beating a dead horse issue. They also beat another dead horse with the "Kurt Cobain intervention"

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 5:47pm

I disagree with his comments. There are many shows on broadway that have opened to very bad reviews and are making it fine in larger theatres then where HiFi is closing. Wicked for example opened to pretty negative reviews and has some how found an audience and is making a fortune (unfortunately). Also, shows in the past like lez mis did not open to raves pulled through.

There have been many shows that were critical hits that bombed on and off-broadway. It all depends on your PR.

It is all about timing, and publicity. It's getting the right producers and PR people and making yourself a hit whether or not the reviews are.

[uncamark]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 6:38pm

I suspect that one of "High Fidelity"'s problems is that it's not a (excuse the expression) chick show. The book and movie it's based on is about a bunch of obsessive male rock music fans, which is about as much unlikely to hold appeal to that teeny-bop audience that goes to "Wicked" (and is the audience the producers are craving). Look at who starred in the movie--John Cusack, who used to be a sort of hearthrob, and Jack Black, who who will never be confused with any of the Lachey brothers. And was Jenn Collella's character the sort of inspiring role model that Elphaba and (in her way) Glinda are in "Wicked?"

And as for the other Broadway market, do you really see the theater party ladies from Scarsdale wanting to see a show about rock geeks comparing their record collections? Do they even know who Nick Hornby is?

And finally, I suspect rock fans were ready, willing and able to put this show in the exact same boat as the Twyla Tharp Dylan bomb. Let's face it, folks, rock and roll and Broadway are still a bad fit.

The show never had a chance on Broadway. It should've opened off-Broadway.

Posted: 12/16/06 at 10:20pm

Did I not see the gun and the wouldbe shooting?

Did I not see actors pretending to pee onstage and on another actor?

Did I not hear the foul language, over and over?

I honestly do not know how you could think that scene was anythng BUT a parody. "Pissing on your grave" unfortunately IS a common expression in the rap community. The scene in High Fidelity is pointing out how absolutely ridiculous something like that within that culture is - the humor comes out of that rather than "oh look, Will Chase is pretending to pee on another person."

I realize many people hate the show, but that is one scene that is executed brilliantly on every level.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 12/16/06 at 10:22pm

What does one wear to a closing night?