Worst Production Values

What's wrong with Beauty and the Beast? It's not as elaborate or expensive as the original, but it looks pretty decent in pictures. Is it worse in person?

Did BIG really look cheap? I was about 6 years old when I saw it, and it was my first Broadway experience. That might explain why I've always thought it was dazzling.

SCANDALOUS looked awfully cheap. The white stairs were nicked and dented all over the place, with black scuff marks.

---

There's an oddity here. Many off-Boafway productions have impressive sets while quite a few Broadway ones look as if they were dredged up from some bargain basement: Leap of Faith, Bring It On, Hands on a Hardbody come readily to mind. I don't know if I even want to recall any others.

In the good old days, when first-class production values were the norm, shows that looked cheap really shocked both the eyes and sensibilities. I remember being astounded at the shoddy production values of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And this for a show by Leonard Bernstein and Alan Jay Lerner! Then there was a bare-bones little stinker called Baby, which had no business being on Broadway, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Updated On: 12/11/13 at 08:59 AM

Soul Doctor and the Jekyll & Hyde revival.

---

I thought the sets for the Broadway production of SIDE SHOW were lacking.

The 2011 production of ON A CLEAR DAY had sets that were not only ugly, they were amateurish.

tazber, I thought the Broadway production of Chess was brilliant - especially the scenic design. Those "drab, dreary, without character" towers and the technologies that positioned them were some of the most technically sophisticated and difficult stagecraft for its time. Their fluidity created a cinematic approach to direction / storytelling that I found dazzling and totally engaging. The set was constantly changing allowing smooth transitions from location-to-location unlike most stage shows of its time. Chess was Robin Wagner (designer) picking up where Dreamgirls had left off.

I loved Broadway's Chess and thought it completely misunderstood partially based on the very different production and poorly received London production (which I also saw and didn't like). All of this confused with Michael Bennett getting sick and not being able to complete his vision.

I couldn't disagree with your choice to include Chess more. In fact, I'd place it on my list of favorite set designs.

(I am thankful for this forum for allowing this debate, though.)

---

Updated On: 12/11/13 at 12:43 PM

I thought the Broadway production of Chess was brilliant - especially the scenic design.

I agree. This was 1988 before computer automation controlled just about every piece of moving scenery as it does today. I believe I remember reading that each tower had a stage hand inside with a headset, a flashlight, and a compass to accomplish the movements. And to top it off they were on a turntable which meant that they had to constantly reorient themselves to account for the turns.

Updated On: 12/11/13 at 01:04 PM

somthingbypuccini-That was the first thought that ran through my head. Yuck. That might take the cake for me with worst production values-the set looked really cheap. (And frankly I thought the lighting design was horrid.)

I did not like the set to Chess, but the technology (or lack thereof) is correct. Each of those things had a stagehand or two inside moving them by hand and body. There were no windows either so everything was done by compass or marks on the floor or both. There was no ventilation so they were all only in their gym shorts. Because of the plotting of the scenery, the show itself could not be rearranged nor scenes cut--the scenes had to stay in the order that they started so rewrites were confined to within each scene.

I think with Chess, they thought they had a hit right up to the first preview which lasted about 4 hours and an intermission that was around 40 minutes. And then there was the show. I saw it at about preview #5 and intermission was down to 20-25 minutes. The word-of-mouth during previews help bury the show.

Speaking of bad/horrid word-of-mouth during previews, the original Merrily was far uglier. It takes the prize for the worst.

Tarzan was fairly misbegotten too.

---

On the technology used for Chess... It was even more complex than suggested above. Yes, there were stagehands inside each of the towers, but they followed LCD lights that were on the floor. (Originally, it was thought that the towers would move using radio control. This didn't work out.) The entire stage deck - including a massive turntable - was a huge LCD monitor with computer programmed lighting. This allowed for extremely complex movement of these towers and alignment that was for me simply amazing.

As for the show's book being a slave to the towers, I have never heard this and I question its validity. I have an old stagecraft magazine dedicated to the Broadway production of Chess and the technologies it employed and from what I've read, there was a fair amount of flexibility in designing the movement of the towers because of the computer systems and stagehands they used.

As I wrote above, I think what hurt Chess the most was the combination of Michael Bennett supposedly having directed the London production (he was sick at the time and from many accounts wasn't always available), the anticipation of Michael Bennett's new show and the poor reception the London production received. When it came to New York with a new director, new designs, cast, etc., I think the legacy of the London failure was a dark cloud over the production.

It is also true that technically, it was a very complex show and that the initial previews ran way too long. Broadway Chess suffered from horrible word of mouth and media gossip / rumor. What I saw, towards the end of its very short run, was polished and brilliant. I consider Chess to be one of Broadway's many brilliant failures.

---

Updated On: 12/11/13 at 01:37 PM

It looks like the technologies that positioned those were some of the most technically sophisticated and difficult stagecraft for its time.

---

morosco, thanks for the photo.

---