leap of faith — Page 3

To Yero: Yes, they did all that - and? Here we are. You basically have the same show with some different songs in act one, a framing device which is as silly as the Agnes de Mille dancing in LA, and, from all I've read, not much different in tone and plot and point. That, to me, is bubble gum and spit. I could write a lot more, but you get the drift.

Like I said, you may not like the show, but they have attempted to make major changes to fix it. If your problem is the plot and the tone, then it sounds like there are no changes they could have made, short of abandoning the project, that would make you happy. When you have a story, particularly when it is an adaptation of an existing story, you are drawn to that story for a reason, and you want to make THAT story. Not another story that might work better onstage. You can ask whether it was a good idea to musicalize this story, but once they chose it, this is the story, for better or worse.

---

Yes, they did all that - and? Here we are.

Are we once again pretending that somehow there weren't a plethora of flops in the good old days? That back then, every show that had a tryout either succeeded or went through major changes and was a hit or an artistic triumph? Or is it that everything should be produced today as it was then and we should simply ignore that the world (including Broadway, its audiences, technology, society, and communication) has changed drastically?

Sometimes shows work and sometimes they don't. Sometimes new marketing techniques are deployed (just like in the sacred Golden Age). Same as always.

Look at Memphis - that simple-minded piece of nonsensical fluff took TEN YEARS to create?!?

Look at Wise Guys/Gold/Bounce/Road Show. Twelve years since the first workshop, and four productions and God knows how many workshops, readings, etc. later, it still sucks.

---

Yero, I have no problem with any story well told. Leap of Faith was a middling film that did middling business - that, of course, is part of the problem. Con men have been part of what I consider two classic musicals - one original, one an adaptation that got everything right - The Music Man and 110 in the Shade. The latter had a few out-of-town woes to contend with and I am intimately knowledgeable about how those woes were addressed - and what part Mr. Merrick played in addressing them. You, of course, only address the points of my post you think you can address, while ignoring the rest. But, you know, I'm not exactly the only one saying these things. I have watched the reading and workshop process devolve into something that, in fact, has harmed much more than it has helped. What Mr. Bennett began has been so subverted and perverted it is truly mind-boggling.

Why do you suppose that a show like Suessical or Sweet Smell of Success comes out of their final workshop phase with the greatest buzz in the history of mankind - two cannot fail shows that opened out of town to scathing reaction from critics and public. How did that happen? Where was the disconnect. Could it have been that they invited all their pals to the workshop, all friendly faces, who then clap people on the back, tell them it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, overreact to everything, and then tell the creators not to change a thing. There is a now famous (to me anyway) moment of Menken tweeting after coming out of the last workshop for this show saying how great it was and how all problems were solved. You see the problem, I'm sure.

The problem is, which of the, what, thirty people above the title on this show, is actually going to speak to the creatives in a strong, meaningful way that will actually cause the creatives to listen. I keep bringing up Merrick because whatever one thought of him, he was a PRODUCER. When something wasn't working he insisted - didn't ask but insisted - something be done about it. Sometimes the something worked, sometimes not, and when it didn't he was one of the most responsible producers who ever lived - he closed the show - sometimes on the road, sometimes in previews, sometimes after one performance.

You can please point out to me where I've ignored the fact that there were always flops. I think I probably know a little bit more about musical theatre flops than you :)

"Finally, if an audience member's comments are silly, of course they are going to be of limited values to the producers; but that doesn't mean that in any audience there aren't people - from all over - who might have something of value to offer."

henrik, as a veteran of too many after-show audience critique sessions, I can promise you that very, VERY few people--whether theater vets or "civilians"--can articulate their view of a show as clearly as you can. And very, VERY few have the experience or training to identify a show's problems in one sitting and offer constructive ways to fix them. (That's probably why the same handful of names (Neil Simon, Jerome Robbins, Hal Prince) keep turning up in stories about Broadway show "doctors".)

That's not to say preview and out-of-town audiences have nothing to offer; but it's usually their behavior as a group during the show that is most helpful: where they laugh, where they don't, where they get restless, etc.

Aside from that, individual comments are sometimes revealing but, in my experience, shouldn't be taken too literally. When egghumor's mother said THE PIANO had "too much mud", she may have thought that she meant it literally. But I suspect she was really saying (whether she knew it or not) that the plot was too grim and gritty for her taste. So even the "silly comments" may have value if one is able to decipher them.

But assembling a focus group of consumers and then taking their suggestions literally is madness. That ballad they thought they hated in Act II may well become a standard when the leading lady gets the right costume.

Yes, I believe that Guettel worked separately with Alfred Uhry and Arthur Laurents on "Piazza" before proceeding with Craig Lucas.

"That's not to say preview and out-of-town audiences have nothing to offer; but it's usually their behavior as a group during the show that is most helpful: where they laugh, where they don't, where they get restless, etc."

To paraphrase a currently running bit of fluff - Now. Hear. This.

Was that a Hoover or one of those new-fangled Dyson vacuums?

thats because broadway puts money ahead of artistic merit. do shows really need to bring in 1 million dollars a week

Gee I was wondering if I wanted to see it or not for my birthday. Now I'm not so sure. I'm trying to decide what I would like to see. I do want to see something new.

Yeah ONCE was my other option. I'm considering it. My birthday isn't until August but I always see a show and I am usually one to plan ahead.

Of course it's probably not true, but so often when shows get pretty major overhauls it seems like they end up fixing what doesn't need fixing...

"Leap..." had three great things going for it: Raul Esparza, the music (check out his performance of "Step Into The Light") and Brooke Shields who is a bona fide star and really lit up the stage with her presence. Yes, her singing wasn't the best, but neither was the singing of Rex Harrison. If the producers want to save the show they will need to get her back.

Thanks, Hest882, for a rational description of the differences between LA and NY. I initially resisted the framing device, but now that I have seen it a couple of times, I understand and approve of the mechanism. As each character steps away from the story and addresses the audience, he/she tells the audience something that could not be said to the other characters. Example: Ida Mae introduces the song "LOST" by saying to us that she knows how much she trims the truth when dealing with people she loves and how they do the same, and now they have all lost their way but she doesn't know what to do about it. She could just do a monologue, I suppose, but instead she reaches out and brings the audience into her confidence. It has an intimacy that helps the story rather than hinders it.