Young Frankenstein...Why?

I must say that I completely agree. I was incredibly hesitant about seeing this show-- I even purposely skipped out of seeing it multiple times because of the constant negativity surrounding the show, Mel Brooks, etc. But after winning the lottery and convincing myself that a twenty-five dollar front row ticket to an apparently 'mediocre' show was better than a full-priced ticket to another, on I went. I was not only pleasantly surprised with the show, but I must suggest that if this show preceded 'The Producers' it would have done much better at the Tony's and in its undoubtably poor reputation.

A few more comments I would like to share...

I was blown away by Christopher Fitzgerald's performance. He, alongside Beth Leavel (in the role originated by Tony-nominee Andrea Martin), led the cast to new comic proportions. Fitzgerald, however, was the bandit of the production-- with incomparable and unyielding characterizations and quirks that constantly diverted attention away from the seemingly understated Roger Bart. While Megan Mullally's character suspiciously resembled 'Will & Grace's' Karen, she still managed to contribute just the right amount of comic timing and delivery.

Yes, the show resembled 'The Producers' with a criminally obvious set of stereotypical characters and an order of musical numbers, but all was forgiven and forgotten once incredible ensemble took the stage. I had to remind myself though-- both before and during the production that this IS Mel Brooks we are talking about. There is no deeper meaning than that which is literally conveyed on the stage. There is no political undertone, no interweaving connection of emotions-- the show is most obviously a shallow interpretation of stereotypes. With all considered, the show was an enormous feat-- with incredibly large and detailed scenery, a phenomenally energetic orchestra, and beautifully executed choreography.

It is upsetting that the egos and strong personalities of the Broadway community can affect a show's success so much. 'Young Frankenstein,' itself, was an infectiously funny, lively show that left me in a wonderfully pleasant mood.

Jermey, I remember you as one of the original IMDB Producers movie fan. I was bluesbro/buzzalot93 over there.

---

As often happens, everyone rejoiced when Mel Brooks brought his idiosyncratic talents to Broadway with "The Producers." He brought a great number of new asses into the seats and got Broadway massive press.

But this is a cynical business, almost as nasty as the "Not only must I succeed, but you must also die" film business. There is a rich history of this. Schadenfreude has been on the menu at Sardi's for decades.

The knives would have been out no matter how good his next show was. He has just decided to ignore all of us and rake in the cash.

---

YF sucks.

I loved Young Frankenstein and hope that it is produced in other countries.

---

I'll try to disagree without starting an arugment
The acting, singing, dancing and visuals were flawless. I simply felt like there was no heart in the show - and as silly as any show can be, I need to care a little bit. I don't blame the actors, but the show itself.

Another hting in transferring something into a musical is, the material needs to sing. And the movie was perfect - there was no need to make it a musical. All that said, I was disappointed that Roger Bart wasn't nominated for the Tony.

I thought the show was just "okay". It took forever to get going, and only when Sutton Foster landed in the hay did any actual theatrical excitement begin.

I notice that for the TV commercial, the musical number they show is "Puttin' On The Ritz" - one of Mel's biggest hits.

---

I agree with the original poster - YF is possibly better than The Producers.

I visited NYC last week and saw Wicked, Hairspray and YF and YF surpased the other two shows by miles.

I've posted more detailed comments in the Megan thread, but the cast were phenomenal, the sets were breath-taking and music and book were superb.

Yes the show is Mel Brooks through and through, but what he did when The Producers opened in 2001 was inject fun back into theatre. He returned musical comedies back to what they used to be before the depressing days of ALW and the British invasion. Good, old fashioned singing, dancing fun.

By rewriting his movie into a musical he paved the way for numerous successors such as Spamalot, Hairspray, Legally Blonde and others.

Obviously these reasons are no reason why YF should therefore be given more credit than it's due. I do feel though that there is a certain amount of theatre snobbery going on in denying the show more Tony's than it deserved and resulted in such mixed reviews, when it is obviously loved by many theatre-goers (as the people's choice wins confirm) and presumably the best was to judge a show should be on the audience reaction and ticket sales rather than simply the mindless, insular, arrogant and self-serving world of theatre critics who are very often wrong (the NY Times review of Chess has just sprung to mind!)

Anyway, diatribe over...and hopefully no offence to any critics in the audience! Go and see the show...best of Broadway at the minute. I can't wait to see it again- hopefully they'll bring it across the pond so I don't have to travel to NYC to do so!!!

I knew the critics would not give him universal love & kisses like they did with The Producers. I had no idea they would be so vicious.

We enjoyed it a lot & to those who are wondering whether to see it or not - go.

---

I find it funny that now that the Tonys are long over, more and more people are coming out saying Young Frankenstein should have been nominated/won more. Before, many were saying the opposite.

Personally I was fine with this year's nominations, and I enjoyed the show.

---

Could they not have found any one better to replace Sutton Foster? Kelli Sullivan = bland, bland, bland.

First, "Puttin' on the Ritz" is one of Mel's biggest hits?

Oh Lordy, Irving Berlin is spinning in his tiny coffin over that comment, seeing as he wrote the song in 1930.

Now, as to Mel Brooks and why he did the show.

Because he could.

Because the public - not Broadway fans but the general public - will come out in droves to see ANYTHING he does.

Mel Brooks started on "Your Show of Shows" as a writer for Sid Caesar. He created and wrote "Get Smart" and all those great GENERAL PUBLIC films. His career has never been about getting awards.

Like the Zuker Brothers, his career has been about making people laugh. And he has consistently delivered.

And why should he tel you how much a show he finances grosses. What business is it of ours?

If he wants to keep his grosses a secret, so be it. I don't see YF posting closing notices anytime soon.

Mel relates to the public exactly as Woody Allen (another alumni of the "Show of Shows" era does: "This is my craft. This is my product. Take it or leave it, but leave me alone."

In some ways, it's quite frustrating.

In other ways, it's quite refreshing.

---

It is rather strange that people tag Mel Brooks as a newcomer to broadway. The Producers was his 4th broadway show having written the book for 3 shows in the 50s and early 60s.