the rest of this B'way season; timing

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/23/03 at 9:26am

Wish I could say the remainder of the season looks promising, but mostly, it feels even more conventional and safe. Even with Molina, a wonderful actor, did we need "Fiddler?" The only thing that really interests me is the revival of "Assasins." "Bombay Dreams," highly touted for its commercial promise, doesn't sound all that provocative on the album, despite its fresh milieu. (After Schwartz took a beating on "Wicked," I want to hear the reception given this decidedly "pop-driven" score. Just because it's Indian doesn't make the soaring pop any more theatrical.) I think it's great to employ so many actors who'd otherwise never get lead roles. Yet does anyone think a show about "Bollywood" is any more like to intrigue folks from Westchester than, say "Taboo?"

By the way, it's said often, but timing is everything, and spring shows tend to have a better shot with critics and audiences. If "Wicked" had come later -- it just "feels" like a spring show -- I think the reviews in the dailies would've been stronger. (Not that it needs 'em, hit that it is. But the creators had to have been stunned.)

I think the ultimate example of this syndrome was the year "Dreamgirls" opened in the fall, and "Nine" 1 day shy of the Tony deadline. Most people now think of "Dreamgirls" as more ground-breaking and stronger (stated, baldly, when "Nine" came back), yet "Nine" swept the Tonys. I do believe, had those openings been reversed, "Dreamgirls" could've been the winner. (Musicman, I'm ready for your rebuttal).

It was a crowded fall, and I believe, even Rosie's "Taboo" might've fared better after Christmas.

Updated On: 12/23/03 at 09:26 AM