Young Frankenstein-Tonys...What Happened?- Page 3

[courtnyj]

Posted: 5/19/08 at 1:28am

This thread has reminded me of all of the lame scores from new shows this year. Really none of them excite me. A couple of songs from In the Heights and Passing Strange were well-written but overall it was not a good year for the music aspect of new musicals.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 5/19/08 at 8:03am

I don't see frontrowcentre's comments rude. I think he was referring to "junk" meaning "shows that got panned by critics."

"somehow cost WICKED a Best Musical Tony. This is sheer nonsense. Look at the reviews: Q got raves, WICKED received mixed notices and a lot of outright pans..."

Eh, Wicked is still extremely successful.

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 5/19/08 at 8:35am

If the Tony's still had a Best Lyrics category, then it should be nominated and perhaps, this season, win...but the score itself is pretty standard, recycled fare. That said, I still had a good time.

I think it did not receive a Best Musical nomination because it didn't provide anything new from the movie. The new songs didn't add to the story in any meaningful way. It wasn't re-imagined, in the way Cry Baby and Xanadu were. In fact, most would agree that the film was better, and if that's the case, there's no reason to adapt it.

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 5/19/08 at 11:04am

FRONT ROW CENTRE 2, you really thought THE FULL MONTY had a weak score?

While, I loved THE PRODUCERS, MONTY was actually my favorite score that season. Great melodies, fun lyrics, aided the storytellling, found great voices for each character. I always thought that if MONTY had played either the year before or the year after it did, it would have been a major award winner.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 5/19/08 at 12:48pm

Dolly, I was just about to say the same thing. I have listened to the score of the Producers exactly 3 times outside of the theater. I have listened to The Full Monty probably 50 times. I thought it was a wonderful show, funny, clever, and with a little heart (and at times, such as during "Breeze Off the River" a whole lot of heart). I can understand the Producers sweeping that year, but in my mind there was no contest that the score of Full Monty was far superior.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/19/08 at 2:55pm

I don't see frontrowcentre's comments rude. I think he was referring to "junk" meaning "shows that got panned by critics."

Thank you, but not entirely. Ethan Mordden defined “Junk” in his fantastic book THE HAPPIEST CORPSE I'VE EVER SEEN. (Which, if you haven't read, is a must. It is no dewy-eyed valentine to contemporary Broadway. It's a rant against what is seriously wrong with Broadway now.)

In his chapter titled Junk is Genre he decries the "new stupidity" on Broadway:
-Giving CATS the Tony for Best Book (when it doesn't have one)
-Naming CONTACT the season's best Musical (when it isn't a musical- indicating that those making the decisions are people who do not know what they are doing)
-Creating "jukebox" shows like LEADER OF THE PACK and MAMMA MIA that simply hijack a series of old songs
-Taking pop culture films and translating them to stage (without adding anything that makes the experience "theatrical") as in FOOTLOOSE or SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. Or, the current CRY BABY, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, CATERED AFFAIR, LEGALLY BLONDE, LITTLE MERMAID, MARY POPPINS, ... etc.

There is a lot of "junk" on Broadway now. Before, a season would have one or two "junk" shows (to satisfy tourists?) but there would be plenty of original and stimulating musicals and plays running. Now junk dominates.


Wicked is still extremely successful.
Sure it is. BUT that doesn't make it better. There are pages and pages on here citing all of the flaws and suggesting segments of the novel that were omitted to the show's detriment.

FRONT ROW CENTRE 2, you really thought THE FULL MONTY had a weak score?


Yes, I do. Not a terrible score but one that really only works to support the action on rare occasions. The number "Scrap" perfectly establishes the characters and situation. It made me sit up and take notice. I wish the rest of the score were at that level. Quite a bit of what follows doesn't. In fact many scenes go without music. For a modern show it's a very short score (46 minutes on the OCR, and there isn't much more in the show that isn't recorded.) So you have a short score and only a few of the songs advance the plot or develop the characters. For me, it's a show more enjoyable to watch than listen to. I liked Yazbek's score for DRS much more (and he has obvious talent so I hope he writes more shows.)

FULL MONTY is another example of junk as genre. You could argue that PRODUCERS also takes a hit movie and puts it on stage, but PRODUCERS added theatricality to a property that needs it. Sacrilege here, but I like the Broadway musical much more than the original film. The songs, simple as they are and derivative as they are, added something to the proceedings.

[mntwister]

Posted: 5/19/08 at 3:06pm

Frontrowcentre, agree with you on The Producers, I liked the musical much better than the original film. Funny, but I seem to be one of the few who really liked the film version of the musical, I've watched the blu-ray dozens of times (it's available as an import on blu-ray from Japan where Universal released it). I thought the movie was excellent, the only problem I had with it was that Susan Strohman should have avoided the actors looking directly into the camera, which happened alot. That's where the stage to film transition suffered. I always wonder what the film would have been like had someone like Rob Marshall directed, but I was most happy with the filmed version. It's like seeing the stage show, only with a much bigger orchestra.

It is kind of sad that there are so many screen to stage properties. Gone are the days when we would have many new original shows in a single seaon. That's why I am a big fan of the 50's and 60's Broadway, so many original scores, and some of the flops actually had good scores like Wildcat, Rothchilds, Mack and Mabel, Grand Tour among dozens of others. Unfortunately, the record companies do not see fit to release many (or reissue out of print) of the scores. I'd love to have scores like Maggie Flynn. Sorry to get off subject.

I do hope that Mel decides to tape Young Frankenstein and release it on video one day, after the failure of The Producers musical film, I don't think the studios would be interested now so I am hoping for a taped version (ala Great Performances or something). I really like it and would love to own it one day.

Also, sorry if I mis-interpreted your post earlier.
Updated On: 5/19/08 at 03:06 PM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 5/19/08 at 3:38pm

I just started a separate thread on this exact topic: Lack of original musicals on B'way. You and I are roughly the same age so our perspective is different from the younger crowd who only know Broadway in a post-9/11 world.

I didn't hate the movie of THE PRODUCERS musical...just felt that it was more like a PBS taping than an actual film and felt if they had gone that route why not just tape the show in front of an audience. It would have cost less and still reached the same number of people.

Updated On: 5/19/08 at 03:38 PM

[mntwister]

Posted: 5/19/08 at 4:46pm

That's true Frontrow.....they could have taped it, although there is one big reason I am glad they didn't go that route...with the film, we get the much larger orchestra I think sounds fantastic compared to the somewhat skimpy orchestrations of the broadway cast. The orchestra was expanded in the film so much that it is so much richer and full...this is evident especially on the blu-ray disc where the sound is not compressed...it's one of the best orchestral recordings I have heard in a movie in years, though the dvd isn't bad either. I think the movie is beautifully orchestrated, so that's my big reason for preferring they did a movie. I am sure Universal and Columbia feel otherwise, hehe. Otherwise, it's very much the same as the stage.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 6/1/08 at 10:56am

Having just seen the show again for the second time last week, it struck me how silly a couple of the nomination omissions were- especially choreography.

Ignoring the show makes the nominating committee seem petulant and petty. For those who believe there are no conspiracies, that may be so, but anyone can be influenced by gossip, the media and other nonsense not actually connected with what happens on the stage. It is just the same as shows which sweep the board with nominations in every category, even though not every element has contributed to the success of the performance: people get on a roll.

[LuPonatic]

Posted: 6/1/08 at 11:39am

"people get on a roll"

mmmm...people on a roll...wait, what?
Updated On: 6/1/08 at 11:39 AM

[devonian.t]

Posted: 6/1/08 at 12:24pm

Well, for example, watching 'Gypsy', I sat next to a couple who were clearly there because it's the show to say you've attended. The husband wasn't interested in the least- clearly didn't have a clue, kept asking his wife questions like, "which daughter is that?", but proceeded to give it a standing ovation at the end without any enthusiasm, just because "everyone else" seemed to. Surely we know this type?

I remember seeing 'Crazy for You' years ago and people clapped the house tabs because they were so happy to be seeing the "hit show"! People get on a roll

Looking back over the past few seasons, ('Producers' years included), it's easy to see how shows get a general white-wash of nominations, and others suffer the opposite.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 6/1/08 at 2:01pm

"People get on a roll"

Pumpernickel? Whole wheat? Or just plain white?

[SheepyFuzz]

Posted: 6/5/08 at 8:06pm

I liked YF.

But, in my opinion, when compared to other shows that have won a Tony in the past, it lacks some energy on stage. I felt, quite a few times during the show, that the actors didn't have much to do on stage. It seemed like they were mostly standing around waiting for things to happen, rather than making things happen. I felt like some of the performers were "flat" (not musically).

I also felt like some of the talent was underused (Foster & Martin.) Christopher Fitzgerald stole the show, and in my opinion was really the only one given material in which he could "show off." And, correct me if I'm wrong, he did earn a nomination (and deservedly so).

I wasn't at all surprised to see the nominations it did receive. Now, do I think that Xanadu should've received a nomination over YF? No, I do not.

Just my two cents, for whatever they're worth.

[cantstandbrody]

Posted: 6/5/08 at 9:31pm

frontrowcenter its fixed sorry to burst your bubble .. wrestling is fixed too !!!!. Mel didnt want to post numbers,want top dollar before it was out ,pissed off paul libben .You be a fool to think this doesnt have any thing to do with it !! a fool !!

[brettystar]

Posted: 6/6/08 at 10:51pm

I think that the three nominations that YF received were well deserved.

I have not seen In the Heights, Passing Strange or A Catered Affair.

I did see Xanadu and Cry Baby. I actually enjoyed Cry Baby but definitely think that YF deserved a nomination over it and 'Xanadu'.

I also really enjoyed most of the YF score. I am not sure if the score deserved a nomination but compared to Xanadu and Cry Baby I think it certainly should have had a best musical nomination over either of these.

I think it is definitely political and for what it is worth I think YF is much much better than the boring The Producers.

I agree with mntwister that the scores of YF and TP are very different.

[mntwister]

Posted: 6/6/08 at 11:39pm

Thanks Brettystar, I was hoping there was someone else to post who felt that the scores for The Producers and Young Frankenstein are very different. I see very little that is similar except that they are both old-fashioned showtunes.