| Titanic Revival | |
| Posted by: | EvFoDr 03:12 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| Not to be confused with the upcoming concert on Feb 17. Opening in Toronto and then moving to Broadway in the fall. Fond memories of the original production, not to mention my first introduction to Michael Cerveris and Victoria Clarke. I didn't live in NYC at the time so was not privy to all of the bad word of mouth in previews, with the set always breaking down and such. I just knew I was always moved by the story of the Titanic, and had a great love for Maury Yeston, so I knew there was no way I would miss this. Came to NYC that year and saw all the new musicals, including The Life, Jekyll and Hyde, and Steel Pier. I missed the Tony nomination Juan Darien A Carnival Mass... Anyhow, my boyfriend and I both agreed hands down that Titanic was our favorite, so were very happy to see it win Best Musical. In fact, when we returned in 1998 we snagged a last minute TKTS and went back! We met Michael Cerveris at the stage door and he told us about this downtown musical he was about to go into...something called Hedwig and The Angry Inch :-) Had the pleasure of seeing him do that in 1999. And now that's coming back as well! Yay for the late 90's. | |
| Link | Titanic Revival |
| reply to this message | | |
| "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 04:41 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | Titanic Revival - EvFoDr 03:12 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| that's how the Independent called it. A string quartet, 2 keys and a percussion is the new orchestra. It doesn't look like the set tilts either. | |
| Link | http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/theatre-review-titanic-southwark-playhouse-london-8741481.html |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 05:06 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - dramedy 04:41 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| I don't seem to see anything that specifically says that THIS "chamber version" is the one that's going to be produced in Canada/NYC, despite the director being the same. (And yes, I certainly do hope it's not the same one - that production may have been very successful in its small London venue, but I imagine it would seem way too small for Broadway.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 05:34 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Chromolume 05:06 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| I was thinking the same thing... Although it's the same director, the wording in the Playbill article doesn't make it clear if he's remounting his chamber production. Fingers crossed that he isn't... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 06:04 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - MikeR 05:34 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| "Although it's the same director, the wording in the Playbill article doesn't make it clear if he's remounting his chamber production." No, the article doesn't make it clear. But is it likely that someone who has just directed a well-received chamber production of a formerly big musical would then be hired to direct a large-scale production of the same show? Maybe it will be somewhere between "chamber production" and "large-scale?" I guess we'll see. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | sf 07:43 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Michael_Portantiere 06:04 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| The number of personnel involved may or may not change - I've no information - but the theatre it's going into in Toronto is orders of magnitude larger than the Southwark Playhouse, and has a significantly larger stage (the Royal Alex is about the same size as the Shubert). Which is not to say that the director's concept and staging won't remain fundamentally the same; I assume they will, but perhaps with some tweaks to help it fill the larger space. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 07:53 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - sf 07:43 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| It would need to be significantly repackaged. The staging in London was all about fitting into the postage stamp, three-quarters stage, and using whatever height was made available in the small space. My main frustration with Southerland's production in London was that it was just too big a show to try and pull off in that tiny space. Hopefully, by being given a full canvas to work with, he can do it properly this time. I can guarantee everyone that his take on "Mr. Andrew's Vision" will not fly in New York. And hopefully he'll also gotten rid of having Ismay sing the opening, rather than Mr. Andrews. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 10:58 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Singapore/Fling 07:53 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| I can guarantee everyone that his take on "Mr. Andrew's Vision" will not fly in New York. And hopefully he'll also gotten rid of having Ismay sing the opening, rather than Mr. Andrews. Do tell, what did he do to "Mr. Andrews' Vision"?? I definitely agree that Ismay should NOT sing the opening. Terrible idea. About "Mr. Andrews' Vision" by the way - no one has brought up the national tour adaptation of the show, which I thought was very poorly done -- but I admit that I did buy the conceit for that one song, having Andrews amid the passengers on deck, instead of below them in the smokeroom (as there was no lower level). It still worked dramatically - though for me there's still no comparison to the original, Andrews being assaulted by the items and furniture in the smokeroom as the ship lurched, the passengers above screaming as they held onto the rail...the last image of the grand piano about to crush Andrews...that scene was a real coup de theatre. My main frustration with Southerland's production in London was that it was just too big a show to try and pull off in that tiny space. Despite a general belief that we'd all like to have that theatre can be done anywhere, I do think there are some shows where size IS the point. Titanic is, IMo, absiolutely one of these. I'm not saying it can't somehow be made to work in a smaller venue, but I really think that without the big playing area, a big set, and yes, a big orchestra, you really lose the, well, titanic feel of the piece, which I feel is integral. It just wouldn't be the same. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 04:01 pm EST 01/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Chromolume 10:58 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| Southerland tried to do something with ropes that rose and fell; the night we were there, one of the ropes got snagged, which was unfortunately comical, and added to by an actor trying to fix the ropes and then tripping (in one of those moments of "gee, I hope he doesn't forget about that other rope and trip on it"), and taking a face splat onto the upper platform. But even if they had done what they were meant to, it's hard to imagine that it would have achieved any real effect. I don't think that "Titanic" necessarily needs a production as epic as the original Broadway - for a long time, there was video on YouTube from an Australian production that made do with a two level sit that did not tilt, and it worked perfectly well. It's just that in the Southwark, everything about it -- from the settings to the lighting, to the just-too-small cast, to the out-of-focus projector -- were chafing at the seams of the tiny space. This became particularly apparent in Act Two, when the production really hit against the wall creatively, in terms of how to show the evacuation and the sinking. Their stripped down orchestra, though, worked well. And in some ways, with a little less instrumentation, it makes the beauty of the vocal harmonies all the more stunning. Despite my growing frustrations with the many changes made to the material as the show wore on, I was definitely in tears at the end of that magnificent opening. I've asked this before, but does anyone out there know about approved changes to the performance script? This version had a full duet for Caroline and Charles in Act 1 (either a new song, or the song that was cut in Bway previews), and also took out some musical bits here and there, and also took out the great sequence of text quartets after the Lifeboats scene (the one that was staged in NY with the faces at portholes while the set was changed behind them). I presumed that the cuts were to do with the lack of actors, but am still flummoxed by that new duet. (As I said here before, they were right to cut the Caroline and Charles duet the first time around, as it adds nothing to the show.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 06:57 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Michael_Portantiere 06:04 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| The London run was a bit too scaled-down, with the reduced casting necessitating script changes (good-bye poker game in the First Class State Room in "No Moon/Autumn"), as well as a bit too much doubling, even for a show that had a bit too much doubling in its original state. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | shadowlight 07:25 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Singapore/Fling 06:57 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| "(good-bye poker game in the First Class State Room in "No Moon/Autumn")" There goes one of my favorite lines. Mrs Cardoza goes into the men's smoking room in search of a card game. One of the men says: "Where is your sense of occasion, madam? I understand you just lost your husband!" "Yes" she replies, "...but not at cards". | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Live_From_London 07:51 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - shadowlight 07:25 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| That scene was definitely in the Southwark Playhouse production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 07:55 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Live_From_London 07:51 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| No, it was not, unless they put it in right after opening. They had the music, but turned "Autumn" into a dance between Alice and Edgar - was that not in it when you saw it? At the interval on the night we attended, there were quite a few people who remarked on the absence of that scene, and the larger tapestry of seeing all three classes on stage at the same time (for the first time, since they got on the boat). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Live_From_London 08:05 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Singapore/Fling 07:55 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| I dont remember Autumn being a dance between Alice and Edgar at all.... i saw it early on in previews. I'm positive it was in there, as its one of my favourite lines too. Will check with someone who was in it and let you know :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 08:14 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Live_From_London 08:05 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| It's comforting to hear that it was in there at some point. Perhaps they lost an actor at the last minute and had to make a drastic fix. If that's the case, it does improve my opinion of the show. Look forward to hearing more. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 07:58 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Singapore/Fling 07:55 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| And to prattle on (sorry, this is one of the few shows that I get super nerdy about): I knew they wouldn't be able to do the Charlotte Cardoza scene from the opening song, because they had the same person doubling Cardoza who played one of the major characters... I think the main Kate. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 06:44 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Michael_Portantiere 06:04 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| But certainly no one expects that there would be a revival of Titanic that is as "full scale" as the original was? Unless a producer really thinks they can return their investment with a spectacularly note-worthy set and a few stars, it's not exactly a sure-fire hit. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Saw the production at Southwark Playhouse.... | |
| Posted by: | bway1430 06:56 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - Chazwaza 06:44 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| It was mesmerizing. Did not expect much from a chamber production of what I always thought should be a "Big" show but it was terrific. The focus on he characters was spot on and I was quite surprised the show did not get a limited West End tranfer. It deserved one. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Saw the production at Southwark Playhouse.... | |
| Posted by: | Live_From_London 07:53 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Saw the production at Southwark Playhouse.... - bway1430 06:56 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| Agreed. I thought it lost its way a bit in the staging of the lifeboats, but the singing in the first 15 minute opening was some of the best i have heard in many years. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Just what Broadway needs... | |
| Posted by: | peter3053 05:03 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | "brilliantly scaled-down chamber version of the piece" - dramedy 04:41 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| Another tiny budget-conscious epic. Come back Julie Taymor, all is forgiven! Will everyone be in the band? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Just what Broadway needs... | |
| Posted by: | sf 07:44 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | Just what Broadway needs... - peter3053 05:03 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| It wasn't an actor-musician production in London, so there's no reason to assume it will be in Toronto and New York. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Titanic Revival | |
| Posted by: | Ann 03:27 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | Titanic Revival - EvFoDr 03:12 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| I guess I'm kind of surprised. I love the score and it's amazing to look at the cast list, with many familiar less-known-then names. I'd forgotten how long it ran. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Titanic Revival | |
| Posted by: | Teacher64 04:09 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Titanic Revival - Ann 03:27 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| I remember loving the score when I heard it on the cast recording. I was so excited to see the show. Then, when I did, I nearly fell asleep. It was boring as hell. I hope the revival can stage the show in a way that will hold the interest of the average theater goer. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Titanic Revival | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 04:14 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Titanic Revival - Teacher64 04:09 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| The original production ran for 804 performances (and with a cast of 37, it must have been enormously expensive to run). I'd say that's a fair indication that it held the interest of the average theatergoer. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 05:03 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Titanic Revival - MikeR 04:14 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| Not because it wasn't good... I don't know how it played, I never got to see it. But I did listen to the CD and I'll admit it didn't excite me that much. A beautiful score with a few standouts, and I intend to listen to it again asap. But I think the score is a bit too sophisticated to have been a hit without the already well-loved Titanic story. I think Maury Yeston is incredibly talented and I'm excited there is a revival of this happening. But I have to assume that it's the classic story, the promise of a big show with crazy sets and a large cast, and the lack of obvious competition (The Life was the other big new musical and that is about hookers, or Steel Pier which was disappointing and about old people at a dance competition) and the resulting Tony for Best Musical, the push from Rosie (which helped so many shows back then), that kept it running as long as it did. That, and of course, it opened the same year the world-wide phenomenon movie Titanic came out... which I'm SURE resulted in a LOT of free press, a lot of public interest in the story and going to a musical of it, etc. I think if Titanic opened a year later, competing with Lion King and Ragtime for new musical audiences, it would have shuttered sooner. Although it still would have had the boost from Titanic the movie, but it would have been out of theaters by then, and the musical wouldn't have won Best Musical to help validate it (and obviously the competition would have been drastically stronger and more abundant). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | perfectlyfrank 01:43 pm EST 01/17/14 |
| In reply to: | i'm always amazed it ran so long - Chazwaza 05:03 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| As much as I admire the score on CD, nothing compared to how it played on stage in the original production. It was extremely powerful and when the audience left the theatre and looked up to see the names of the ship's victims on the theatre wall, well, I personally felt it had a deeper emotional impact than the film in every possible way. It will be interesting to see how this plays as a chamber piece but I have a feeling I'll miss the tilting stage and the furniture sliding to simulate the sinking. That was striking. So was the scale of the piece yet, despite the show's size, it felt very much rooted in character. It was a marvelous show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | lordofspeech 08:42 am EST 01/17/14 |
| In reply to: | i'm always amazed it ran so long - Chazwaza 05:03 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| I loved it. And it was unusual in that it was a true ensemble: multiple story lines with the sophisticated intersection of multiple musical themes (think of an extended "A Weekend in the Country"). There were some very clever directorial tricks and a cumulative effect of the tragedy, heightened as we watched it happening to the many (rather than, as in the movie, as it happened to a select couple). And there was an excellent cast of not-yet-well-knowns including the dizzyingly daffy turn by Victoria Clark (a GREAT clown) as the first-class-wannabe passenger. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | larry13 06:42 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | i'm always amazed it ran so long - Chazwaza 05:03 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| STEEL PIER is not about "old" people at a dance competition. Maybe you're mixing it up with Kander & Ebb's 70, GIRLS, 70 which IS about old people(but not at a dance competition). Anyway, is your point that a show about old people(and possibly at a dance competition)had to be a flop? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 07:19 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: i'm always amazed it ran so long - larry13 06:42 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| My poorly made point was that the subject matter and setting are not that exciting and not appealing to a large audience. At least in my limited assessment. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | EvFoDr 09:51 am EST 01/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: i'm always amazed it ran so long - Chazwaza 07:19 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| And while I must admit to being slightly disappointed when I saw it, particularly that it was not darker like They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, and the corny supernatural element---it looks more and more like spun gold in retrospect compared to much of what we get today. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 06:05 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | i'm always amazed it ran so long - Chazwaza 05:03 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| Yes, I think it's fair to say that all those things contributed to Titanic's success. But if it hadn't been able to turn all those things into strong word of mouth, it wouldn't have run for as long as it did. (Re: the movie - I seem to recall reading stories around here that people would occasionally ask the box office at the Lunt-Fontanne if Leo and Kate were in that day.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | NightMusic77 05:47 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | i'm always amazed it ran so long - Chazwaza 05:03 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| You're definitely right about Rosie O'Donnell giving Titanic a much-needed boost. The original cast performed their opening number on her show either late in previews or early in the run and Rosie mentioned the show quite frequently. It went from being somewhat of a laughing stock during previews to a bonafide hit due mostly to word-of-mouth. But what a season that was! Steel Pier was a bit of a let down (not about old people at a dance competition--they were adults vying to win a dance marathon) but it did have some fantastic choreography, a great lead performance from Karen Ziemba, and it boasted the Broadway debut of Kristin Chenoweth who was truly a standout in the show. The Life was another let down with some great numbers--that show could've been a huge hit; I think it struggled in trying to carry its own weight. I definitely remember seeing Titanic early in the run, loving the music, and wishing it were more plot-driven. As it stands, the show is more of a "let's meet everyone on board" than an actual plot. It was hard to get to know/care about characters you only got to "meet" briefly. I'm honestly curious who the target audience is for this production of Titanic in New York. If the Ragtime revival didn't fly, why would Titanic? (I compare it to Ragtime because they opened on Broadway within a year of each other and neither has exactly become a "name" show. Frankly, I think Ragtime is the superior property.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 07:00 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: i'm always amazed it ran so long - NightMusic77 05:47 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| Rosie did her best to give it a boost, but it was struggling after it opened to that lousy review in the Times. It didn't turn around until it won all of those Tony awards (also best score, book, orchestrations, and scenery, iirc), and then of course got a huge short in the arm once the film did so well. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 06:34 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: i'm always amazed it ran so long - NightMusic77 05:47 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| Despite having never seen Titanic play out as a full show, I know from listening to the score and reading about it and getting the structure from all that... that RAGTIME is far and away a better musical, and I think it has a much better and vastly more memorable score. And it's funny... I was 14 in 1997, so it seemed to me then like Steel Pier was more about "old people" but that was also my short hand for the post, I never thought it was about elderly people or anything. But I do remember the CD being disappointing (ps I wasn't a normal 14 year old, I had a vast knowledge of musicals by then). The show I was most taken by that year, and still am, is The Life. I think the score is just sensational. But yes, I remember watching Rosie (for the performances) and seeing all these shows and hearing about them. I was already a fairly regular theater goer, but somehow I missed seeing all the big new shows of 1997... I never saw The Life, Titanic, or Steel Pier. But I did see the surrounding shows... Forum, Chicago, Rent, Ragtime, Parade, Cabaret, Annie Get Your Gun. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | larry13 06:46 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: i'm always amazed it ran so long - Chazwaza 06:34 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| Just when I thought there was nothing I could agree with you about, along comes your admiration for the score of THE LIFE. Fully agree. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 07:18 pm EST 01/16/14 |
| In reply to: | re: i'm always amazed it ran so long - larry13 06:46 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| Outside of Sondheim shows and Kander & Ebb shows, The Life might be the score I've sung most in my car. I think it's just awesome. There are some songs I admit are weak or repetitive, but by and large it is, as I said, sensational. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I think THE LIFE was a good show- beautiful sets + lighting, too nm | |
| Posted by: | thtrgoer 01:17 am EST 01/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: i'm always amazed it ran so long - Chazwaza 07:18 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| and those performances! | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 04:36 pm EST 01/17/14 |
| In reply to: | I think THE LIFE was a good show- beautiful sets + lighting, too nm - thtrgoer 01:17 am EST 01/17/14 |
|
| |
| I never got to see the show, but the performances on the CD are ridiculous. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: i'm always amazed it ran so long | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 12:41 am EST 01/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: i'm always amazed it ran so long - Chazwaza 07:18 pm EST 01/16/14 |
|
| |
| on my list of shows that could clearly be better in revival than in the original production the life is very near the top. but it is hard to dislodge my number 1 which is 9 to 5 - ridiculously underrated material destroyed by misguided direction, unforgivably heavy choreography and a lugubrious, soul destroying set. some day somebody's gonna revive 9 to 5 to hosannas and thrown roses. i hope they follow that smashing success with the life | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 2.257179 seconds.