| Brantley reviews "The Visit." | |
| Posted by: | kieran 11:30 pm EDT 08/07/14 |
|
| |
| nm | |
| Link | NY Times |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." | |
| Posted by: | AnObserver 07:51 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley reviews "The Visit." - kieran 11:30 pm EDT 08/07/14 |
|
| |
| I think I will skip reading the review. But I'll tell you C. Rivera is NOT the right actress to play the role. Needs someone with more depth and heft. (Rivera was great as Liza's mother in The Rink, but not The Visit.) I know that Ingrid Bergman, in the movie version of The Visit, wanted to play the character as a woman falling apart. She wanted to pull off her wig on camera, pull out false teeth, etc. This would have been close to the right approach. But the producers convinced her that her Old Hollywood glamour style was still appropriate, and so she gave in to that. It really is too bad that Lansbury didn't get to do this part. So they've ended up with Chita. V. Clark or D. Murphy or B. Walsh or LuPone would have been the wiser choice. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 09:37 am EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." - AnObserver 07:51 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| "Between one performance I didn't see and another performance that doesn't exist, I think I'll choose the latter." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| WOW...have you seen her in the show!!!! | |
| Posted by: | actor103 12:06 am EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." - AnObserver 07:51 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| I have never had any strong opinion of her either way. Only seen her in a couple really lousy musicals. Never seen her in any of her hits. I mean yeah, she was amazing in Bring Back birdie. But could I really tell what this woman was truly about dazzling us amongst the wreckage. Or the other show... the magician thing. Started to say Magic Show. But it was Merlin. So really had not experienced her until THE VISIT. I could not believe that the woman has not had a stage career in straight plays. She is an incredibly smart and instinctive actor. There is something so subtle and detailed in this performance. I am sorry, I think it is one of the great musical theatre performances of all time. Yeah, historic even. She could have been so over the top here. She is so real and authentic that you totally care for her and your heart breaks for her because you totally see the younger child that was so abused. Hate to say that you are simply wrong. This is of coure subjective stuff. But....you are clearly seeing this from an entirely different viewpoint than I. Wow....have you seen the show? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: WOW...have you seen her in the show!!!! | |
| Posted by: | BruceinIthaca 12:40 am EDT 08/11/14 |
| In reply to: | WOW...have you seen her in the show!!!! - actor103 12:06 am EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| I've only seen her in a handful of shows. I'd say she always delivers and that when she is onstage she is fully present and simply has a magical pull--even when not ideally cast, as in "Drood" (and I still would rather have seen her than any number of actresses better suited for the role--it was mainly the accent). But the first time I saw her onstage was a Sunday matinee of "Jerry's Girls" (the last performance before she had her accident back in the mid-80s): even though the revue wasn't the most innovative production in the world, and even when flanked by Dorothy Loudon's raucus comedy and heart-breaking torch-singing and Leslie Uggams' songbird voice, Rivera grabbed the stage and enchanted us all when she stepped on all in purple, IIRC, with "Wherever He Ain't." She didn't hog the stage--she never seemed to be trying to steal focus--she just was totally there and totally fabulous. I saw her "Spider Woman," "Nine," "The Dancer's Life," and "Drood," and would, contrary to Lloyd Richards, sign-up gladly to see her in "The Hairy Ape"! Someone called her a chorus girl who made good. She did better than "make good." And I've never heard a person say a bad word about her in real life. Keep going, Chita! I may drive to Williamstown this week. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." | |
| Posted by: | Glitter 07:59 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." - AnObserver 07:51 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| I can't begin to tell you how wrong I thik you are in this assessment. Depth? Heft? Do you think she treads lightly and plays the whole thing for laughs? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." | |
| Posted by: | AnObserver 09:12 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." - Glitter 07:59 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Not laughs. She just basically a really good chorus girl who got lucky and has SOME depth, but not enough. Don't get me wrong. I've enjoyed her. Just can't imagine she's right for this part. And I've enjoyed her enough. Don't want/need to see her again. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." | |
| Posted by: | robert_j 10:38 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." - AnObserver 09:12 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| If we were talking about her performance in Drood I would agree with you -- she did not impress me there. But she really is sensational in the Visit. I did not care for the show itself, but Chita was not the problem. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." | |
| Posted by: | PlayWiz 11:35 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Brantley reviews "The Visit." - robert_j 10:38 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| I saw Chita do this at the Ambassador Theater about 2 years ago as one-night-only benefit. She was quite good, and some of the score and book were compelling. One problem with moving this to Broadway is that, diva-worshiping critics aside, Chita is not and has never been box-office like her "Chicago" co-star Gwen Verdon. Her "A Dancer's Life" show ran only a few months. She's a wonderful performer, but unless she's in a really brilliant show like "Kiss of the Spider Woman" or a popular one like "Bye Bye Birdie", or has box-office co-stars like Liza Minnelli, she might sell perhaps 3-6 months worth of tickets. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Reactions | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 04:28 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley reviews "The Visit." - kieran 11:30 pm EDT 08/07/14 |
|
| |
| "Nor could you ask for a more creepily beguiling-looking production than this one, which features a sooty, spectral set by Scott Pask that suggests a long-abandoned train station where you can buy a ticket straight to hell." I love that line! "In its previous incarnations, 'The Visit' never knocked anyone’s socks off. 'Honorable but conflicted' was how my colleague Charles Isherwood assessed it when he saw the show at the Signature Theater in Virginia." Well...the fact that it didn't knock Isherwood's socks off doesn't mean it "never knocked anyone's" socks off. That's pretty much what the Signature production did to me. "But it has to be said that 'The Visit' still suffers from the fatally divided soul of a work that wants both to warm the heart and chill the blood." I guess I can understand why some people might view this as a huge flaw, but in my opinion, it's one of the show's greatest assets, and what makes it pretty much unique. I think it's true that our hearts are meant to be warmed by the recollections of the love that the two main characters once had, but the overall feeling you're left with at the end of the show is definitely blood chilling, because of, ummm, what happens. "She loves this guy so much she wants him dead, so she can have him all to herself!...Mr. Kander’s pastel tunefulness doesn’t give such passion its sinister due." I strongly disagree. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Reactions | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 05:05 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Reactions - Michael_Portantiere 04:28 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| I also found the line about the show never had knocked off anyone's socks . . . objectionable. Almost posted about it last night. Apart from the fact that a number of people here had posted about the show having affected them powerfully at Signature, it's simply the sort of line that critics should never write. It's the kind of absolute statement about the responses of other people that is extremely presumptuous (and often wrong). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Reactions | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 09:45 am EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Reactions - AlanScott 05:05 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Since "knocked their socks off" is a metaphor in the first place, it seems a little pedantic to try to apply it as literally as you guys seem to want to do. As I read it, the critic is saying, "this show has thus far not turned out to be either a popular or an artistic success," or, to keep the metaphor alive, "I haven't noticed any major knocking-off of socks." It's one thing to disagree with a critic's opinion: you liked it more than he did, fine. But it's another thing to claim that the show was a hit (or was generally regarded as artistically dazzling) because then you're speaking for other people. The Visit has been limping around for 15 years and now there is some vague talk about bringing it in to New York for a limited run. This is not the description of a show that knocks off socks. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Reactions | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 07:56 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Reactions - LegitOnce 09:45 am EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| You wrote, "But it's another thing to claim that the show was a hit (or was generally regarded as artistically dazzling) because then you're speaking for other people." Where did I claim that the show was a hit? I have no particular opinion of the show as I haven't seen it. If anything, I'm a bit on the skeptical side about the show based on what I have heard of the score and what I've read about the show. I promise you that I'm not trying to make it sound like a hit. What did I wrote that makes you think that I was trying to make it sound like a hit? Where did I say or even imply that it "was generally regarded as artistically dazzling"? I'm not speaking for other people, except to the extent that I can state that a bunch of the people who saw the show at the Goodman or at the Signature did like it. This I know as a certainty based on what has been posted here over the years. (Unless those people were lying.) It's Brantley who seems to be speaking for other people when he writes that the show has not knocked anyone's socks off. All I was saying (and I think I said it pretty clearly) is that such a statement is foolish because it professes to speak for everyone (which is something that I strive to never do). In this case, such a statement is demonstrably inaccurate. You wrote, "As I read it, the critic is saying, 'this show has thus far not turned out to be either a popular or an artistic success,' or, to keep the metaphor alive, 'I haven't noticed any major knocking-off of socks.'" If that's what he meant, he should have said it more clearly. And if he did mean that, then clearly he hasn't read this chat board over the years (no reason why he necessarily should) or some of the other reviews (besides the one by Isherwood) of the Signature production. Here are links to a few. Theatremania review John Simon, Bloomberg Variety review Not all of the reviews were as favorable as those that I linked, but, again, I haven't claimed (or even implied) that the show has knocked everyone's socks off. Nor do I even care all that much if it comes to New York. I'm simply asking for people (especially critics in major publications) to not make sweeping statements about other people's reactions to the show (or to any show). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Reactions | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 05:16 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Reactions - AlanScott 05:05 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| agree it is objectionable (just as it is when people do the same thing here). I think you could fairly say that the previous incarnations did not prompt anyone to bring it in (obviously true) and conclude from that that it did not knock the socks off of any of the people who were in a position to bring it in (or enough of them, at least), but clearly that is not the context in which he said what he said. And the segue to Isherwood is doubly objectionable in that it seems to mean that anyone equates to anyone around here. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Reactions | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 05:29 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Reactions - ryhog 05:16 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| it did not knock the socks off of any of the people who were in a position to bring it in That is how I read his comment -- that it did not impress anyone (producers or critics) who were in a position to further its life. I don't think he literally meant that not a single person on the planet was impressed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Reactions | |
| Posted by: | stevemr 09:45 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Reactions - MockingbirdGirl 05:29 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| The linkage between a reaction and an investment decision is fallacious. One could at the same time "have one's socks knocked off" and still conclude it is not a likely commercial venture. Look at the reactions to the incoming Side Show --- great reviews in DC, but dubious prospects at the St. James. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Reactions | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 07:30 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Reactions - MockingbirdGirl 05:29 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| "It did not knock the socks off of any of the people who were in a position to bring it in. That is how I read his comment -- that it did not impress anyone (producers or critics) who were in a position to further its life." Maybe. Or maybe it mightily impressed some producers but they declined to bring it in because the New York Times critic (Isherwood) didn't like it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Reactions | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 05:34 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Reactions - MockingbirdGirl 05:29 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| That may have been what he meant, but if so, I wish he said it more clearly. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy review? ... | |
| Posted by: | flaguy 10:07 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley reviews "The Visit." - kieran 11:30 pm EDT 08/07/14 |
|
| |
| He's being very kind here, by trying to focus on Chita and what a STAR she is. But he's basically saying the show still doesn't work and probably never will. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't imagine producers, or even non-profits, getting excited over this review. :( | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I don't share your opinion. | |
| Posted by: | keikekaze 06:07 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy review? ... - flaguy 10:07 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| It isn't a money review, but it does read to me like a "this belongs on Broadway" review. No, it won't send people stampeding to the box office (which, really, was never to be expected), but it doesn't kill off interest either. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy review? ... | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 03:44 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy review? ... - flaguy 10:07 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| It's not a pan, but it's also not a review that would make anyone other than hardcore Chita fans, hardcore Kander and Ebb fans, and hardcore musical theatre aficionados want to see it. And those folks already want to see it. It probably would have to be classified as a mixed review, but there are mixed reviews that make people want to see a show and there are mixed reviews that don't really make people want to see a show. For an example of the former, see Frank Rich's review of another Kander-Ebb-Rivera show, KIss of the Spider Woman, which was on the mixed side but in a way that acted more or less as a favorable notice. I'm linking it. I always recall Rex Reed writing that Walter Kerr could pan a show and still make him want to rush out and see it. This is a mixed review that, unfortunately, makes the show sound thoroughly missable (except for the groups mentioned above). I still think it could, and should, be brought in by a nonprofit. The Roundabout and MTC would seem the most likely candidates at this point. It might work well also at the Newman, but given the past history of the show and the Public, perhaps that's not likely. But that happened before Oskar Eustis so maybe it could happen there given that Doyle has worked (although only once) at the Public since Eustis took over. | |
| Link | The Kiss of an Ostensibly Mixed Review |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy review? ... | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 04:30 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy review? ... - AlanScott 03:44 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| why doesn't someone just propose this for Encores? We can then have the typical dustup about whether it qualifies. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Yes | |
| Posted by: | actor103 11:57 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy review? ... - flaguy 10:07 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| If you think it is truly lousy..yes. Is it not truly mixed? Since I know that you hope you are wrong maybe realizing it is mixed will help. LOL. Full confession though: I am a huge fan of the piece. That said,it certainly reads more positive to me than the Isherwood review I found from 2008? Think I am still being objective here. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Yes | |
| Posted by: | lowwriter 12:00 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Yes - actor103 11:57 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| I felt the review liked the direction and Rivera and the cast but didn't feel the score was right. Which is a lot for a musical to work. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 11:18 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy review? ... - flaguy 10:07 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| There are a lot of people here who want the show to come in (nothing wrong with that) and are blinded by their own enthusiasm. The bottom line is, if Todd Haimes (so some blindness afflicted commercial producer) wants to bring it in, it may well come; otherwise, this production will have the same fate as its previous iterations. And for a commercial producer especially, bringing in a show so firmly based on the availability of an octogenarian is a dicey proposition. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Blinded? | |
| Posted by: | actor103 11:47 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Of course not... - ryhog 11:18 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Why is their enthusiasm blinding? Maybe their enthusiasm is authentic and the feel that this could be cool show to have in on Bway with some non-profit security to soften the cost and thus amount of financial risk. I can't believe that their are commercial producers who think this is going to be a box office bonanza for American audiences. Though maybe there are. i think that the more realistic belief is that they see this as an exciting show that would be different and unique for Bway and they can do it in such a way that they can possibly get their money back and maybe make a little change. Sorry, sort of repeated myself. At any rate, they are enthusiastic about the show being on Broadway and they are therefore blind??? Nice and constructive thinking? Geez. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Blinded? | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 01:24 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Blinded? - actor103 11:47 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Unfortunately, the current state of many non-profits put them far from being able to offer security. It has become rare for a non-profit to produce a sizable musical without either co-producing with another theatre or taking in commercial funding - the non-profits often are the ones who need the security to know that they can afford to do a large show. The non-profits are a safe place to try out a show that a producer thinks will be able to move to Broadway, but not a show that they feel has zero financial prospects. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Blinded? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 12:33 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Blinded? - actor103 11:47 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| the blindness relates to the assessment of what BB wrote as a rave, not to their assessment of the show. It is always possible some producer will bring it to Bway because they think it should be seen there but that sort of producer is not generally focused on whether Ben gave it a rave or not. But yes, enthusiasm does create blind spots sometimes. And there are those who would counsel that avoiding that phenomenon is essential to smart producing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Blinded? | |
| Posted by: | actor103 01:11 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Blinded? - ryhog 12:33 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| So, putting producers aside for a moment as well as the the fact you seem to now be chasing your tail, those who want to see The Visit come to Broadway (whoever that may be) is blinded by their enthusiasm? In some scenarios enthusiasm creates blind spots. Yeah, ok. so? just sounds and reads like garden variety snark to me. But hey, if that's your dance, go to it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Blinded? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 01:27 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Blinded? - actor103 01:11 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| as I said, the blindness comment related to the assessment of Brantley's review, nothing more. I think it would be great if someone with money and enthusiasm brought the show in. But that's a separate issue from the blindness. If someone brings it in because they are blinded by enthusiasm, then that's not great. Sorry if it seems like snark to you. It absolutely isn't. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Blinded? | |
| Posted by: | actor103 02:09 am EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Blinded? - ryhog 01:27 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Ok, understood. But who here has called the review a rave. I think it's a mixed review but A mixed review that elicits in me, excitement. I can't find where people are calling it a rave. Several people seem to think it reads as a positive endorsement as something to see, for whatever reasons ( maybe the star, maybe the production). For others, it does not read that way. Just not seeing where the blind enthusiasm to a rave enters into this. You were originally responding to someone who thought this a lousy review and then ( what sounded to me like some disingenuous nonsense) hoping they were wrong. Disingenuous, because I find it hard to believe that anyone without some agenda truly thinks this would qualify as a "lousy" review. But, you are referring to reactions to Brantley as a rave. that's fine. Maybe I missed a thread or something. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Blinded? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 11:04 am EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Blinded? - actor103 02:09 am EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| You are correct no one called it an overall rave, so let's pretend I wrote "positive endorsement of the show" wherever I said "rave." So what I am saying is there is, among some, a blindness to the thrust of the review, however it is labelled. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| "Disingenuous?" ... "Agenda?" ... | |
| Posted by: | flaguy 07:31 am EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Blinded? - actor103 02:09 am EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| As I said before, it's a "kind" review, focusing on the STAR performance. Other than that, I don't think it's a very good review. And, believe it or not, I was hoping it would get a RAVE from him. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: "Disingenuous?" ... "Agenda?" ... | |
| Posted by: | actor103 09:29 am EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | "Disingenuous?" ... "Agenda?" ... - flaguy 07:31 am EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| No you don't. You simply do not say that. In your heading you say that what you think the review is, is lousy. Then, in your post you describe the CRITIC as being kind in describing what you thinks is a LOUSY review. Fine. You had a choice... and you made a choice ...and you chose a word...and the word you chose... was LOUSY. Then you start this "Hope I am wrong" ...."hoping for a RAVE" stuff? So, " believe it or not" ? ...Ok, I don't believe it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Well, SOMEBODY has an "agenda" around here, that's for sure." (nm). | |
| Posted by: | flaguy 09:32 am EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: "Disingenuous?" ... "Agenda?" ... - actor103 09:29 am EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| :P | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Well, SOMEBODY has an "agenda" around here, that's for sure." (nm). | |
| Posted by: | actor103 11:33 am EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Well, SOMEBODY has an "agenda" around here, that's for sure." (nm). - flaguy 09:32 am EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| Yes. most certainly I do. That two faced, tap dancing, "oh my goodness I just I didn't say that" hooey. I don't care who are what it is in regards to. I am sorry, That kind of stuff is like nails on a chalkboard to me. Whatever... Now, moving right along.... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Blinded? | |
| Posted by: | actor103 11:48 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Blinded? - actor103 11:47 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Many typos. My bad. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | JohnDunlop 11:39 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Of course not... - ryhog 11:18 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| I agree. Lynn Fontanne was a decade younger when Lynn and Alfred Lunt starred in the play on Broasway in the late 1950s. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 04:15 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - JohnDunlop 11:39 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| And during that run, Lunt missed a performance for what was supposedly the first and only time in his career. But a sense that their physical and mental powers were perhaps starting to go may be why it was their swan song, despite periodic announcements that they might be coming back in something or other (including, most surprisingly, a musical version of The Madwoman of Chaillot, with a score by Sondheim, book by Behrman, and directed by Fosse). They were also sought for A Delicate Balance and were tempted by it and even said that they wanted to do it, but they would have to do it in London first. Anyway, I went off topic, as I so often do. ;) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 10:50 am EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - AlanScott 04:15 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| There's a story about the closing night of The Visit on Broadway. Lynn Fontanne is waiting in the wings before the curtain and she says, "I am so exhausted my lips are trembling. I honestly think I cannot go on." Now, Miss Fontanne was not one to dither. If she said she didn't think she could play, she must have been very near physical collapse. It might have been possible for the Lunts to have returned to the stage in a light, undemanding comedy for a limited run, but perhaps that kind of project didn't seem attractive to them at that point. Maybe given their great intelligence about the theater, they realized that such a show would be anticlimactic after The Visit and so they took their time looking for a new vehicle. By the time something as attractive as A Delicate Balance came along, Lunt's health had gone from bad to worse, and it could be that they just didn't want to risk it. (Meanwhile, they did several television projects, so they didn't immediately retire.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 10:01 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - LegitOnce 10:50 am EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| The story you mention is told in Jared Brown's bio of the Lunts, and he says it occurred on closing night of the London run. I don't see the story in Margot Peters's bio of the Lunts, but perhaps I'm missing it. Just for the sake of others who may be reading: After the Broadway run, there was a break of nearly ten months. But the break seems not to have been because the Lunts requested a break (certainly not such a long one), but because the producers were fearful that it would not do well on the road. According to Brown's book, the Lunts (and the rest of the cast) were puzzled when the Broadway production closed as it was still selling out. They all wanted to continue. Still, it did go out on the road for six months, then returned to New York for two weeks at City Center. It closed at City Center on March 20, 1960, then opened in London on June 23. A scheduled eight-week engagement was extended to 20. In the Peters bio, she quotes from an interview that Lewis Funke did with them during the Broadway run in which Alfred talked about how exhausted he was and Lynn jumped in with "That isn't true." Re the later television work: Together they did The Magnificent Yankee in 1965. Lynn did The Old Lady Shows Her Medals in 1963, but Alfred was just the host on that. Lynn also did Anastasia in 1967 with Julie Harris. So while she acted in several productions on television after The Visit, he really only did one. Their television appearance in The Great Sebastians had preceded The Visit. There were several attempts between 1960 and 1967 to arrange for them to do The Visit on television, but it never worked out. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 03:30 am EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - AlanScott 10:01 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| You're right, I'm sure: I don't have the Brown bio handy, and I think I was confused because the Lunts played the show first on tour in the UK, then took it to the US before returning to London. I misremembered this more simply as UK/London followed by Broadway. The Brown book does mention, I'm sure, that Lunt was not well during the New York run. It's possible (though it's just a guess) that he was trying to soft-pedal his illness in the Funke interview by calling it "exhaustion." Not having a document of the Lunts in The Visit is a real heartbreaker. The MGM film of The Guardsman demonstrates how crisp and modern they were in playing high comedy, and the video of The Great Sebastians gives some indication of their star quality and charm. But they were great emotional actors too, and there's little sense of that in this light material. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | writerkev 01:14 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - JohnDunlop 11:39 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| The last Broadway revival of the play had Jane Alexander in her early 50s. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 11:29 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Of course not... - ryhog 11:18 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Haimes couldn't bring it unless he wants to dismantle his cash cow, Cabaret, since the American Airlines is booked for the season (assuming Cheno is okay to do 20th Century). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 01:19 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - bwaydiva1 11:29 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Is the show that large? Based on the photos, it looks like the kind of show that would fit in the CSC space or similar smaller non-profit. It's tough to do a musical without commercial financing, and I don't imagine anyone sees this as being a commercial product. But with Rivera attached, it could do very well as an eight week run (Linda Lavin's recent run at the Vineyard was hugely succesful). At this point, opportunities to see her perform an original role in a musical are slim to none, and so perhaps that will be enough to get a little extra financing from a producer or donor to bring it in. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | actor103 01:58 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - Singapore/Fling 01:19 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| It is a fairly huge set. It looks and feels very big as well. Not monstrous or anything, but big. 900-1200 seats, I would guess. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 01:35 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - Singapore/Fling 01:19 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Whether or not it would fit into CSC or the like, I understood the discussion to be about Broadway. I am not sure I understand the purpose of bringing it to CSC. It has had a non-profit tryout. Who is going to pay to bring it to CSC, where the gross weekly revenue is no more than $100k? And why? So someone too lazy to get on a bus can see it? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 02:14 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - ryhog 01:35 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Yes, exactly. So that all of the people who live in New York, who for whatever reason can't make it up to Williamstown, are able to see the show. As we both agree that its commercial prospects are dim, doing a prestige run in a major non-profit is the only real option if they want to run it in New York. And whether or not the show is great, there is a lot of fondness for Kander and Ebb, as well as for Chita. Shows that play Williamstown don't tend to have a real life unless they go to one of the top tier non-profit houses. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 02:21 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - Singapore/Fling 02:14 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Renee Fleming could headline a commercial run-but she's a very rare exception (she has quite a following and I think in a limited engagement situation could draw very good numbers). However, most shows have not had a successful life after Williamstown (The Elephant Man has two big names so that makes it a draw). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | JohnDunlop 07:03 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - bwaydiva1 02:21 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Are you suggesting that the play Renee Fleming did in Williamstown in July, "Living in Love" come in, or that Fleming take over the lead role in "The Visit"? Either way, doesn't Renee Fleming have a schedule of opera appearances scheduled for this fall? I have not seen "The Visit," so I have not idea whether she is either right for the lead role, or would want to play it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 02:45 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - bwaydiva1 02:21 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Renee Fleming??? In THE VISIT? Are you serious? Why not bring in Magda Olivero/ After all, she has done the von Einem opera version, and she's only 104 years old. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | LegitOnce 03:31 am EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - Alcindoro 02:45 pm EDT 08/09/14 |
|
| |
| Renee Fleming??? In THE VISIT? Are you serious? I mean, what's next, Renee Fleming in A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 09:53 am EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - LegitOnce 03:31 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| "Renee Fleming in A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE?" That would never work. And it didn't. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | JohnDunlop 09:48 am EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - LegitOnce 03:31 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| ......I mean, what's next, Renee Fleming in A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE? As I am sure you know, Fleming appeared as Blanche in an opera version of Streetcar. But, she is a good actress, and might be wonderful in the play. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 09:58 am EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - JohnDunlop 09:48 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| "As I am sure you know, Fleming appeared as Blanche in an opera version of Streetcar. But, she is a good actress, and might be wonderful in the play." Yes yes, we know, we know. I think the STREETCAR opera is a bust, but an opera singer playing Blanche in an opera version is VERY different from an opera singer playing Blanche in the play. A "good" opera actress (which I think Fleming is) is a far cry from a great stage actress, which is what the play requires. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 11:24 am EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - Alcindoro 09:58 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| you are of course right. But this entire discussion is just so silly. The idea that she would commit herself to months of 8 shows a week on Broadway is preposterous. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 05:20 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - ryhog 11:24 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| >But this entire discussion is just so silly.< True. But then, so many discussions here are just plain silly. What are ya gonna do? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | larry13 01:02 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - ryhog 11:24 am EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| Well, when her operatic career is over with--which is NOT so far off--I don't believe the idea is so preposterous. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 02:14 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - larry13 01:02 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| I am not one of the great opera singers of my lifetime, but if I were, and if my career was over, I think there are a lot of things I would rather do than show up at a Broadway theatre every night to perform. But maybe Chita Rivera can become the host of Family Feud when her theatrical career is over with. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | JohnDunlop 03:57 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - ryhog 02:14 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| Well it worked for Ezio Pinza, although I believe he missed quite a few performances of "South Pacific." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Pinza's absences | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 07:18 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - JohnDunlop 03:57 pm EDT 08/10/14 |
|
| |
| Yes, he was reported to have missed a massive number of performances of South Pacific, 50 in the first six months alone. And a few months before his final performance, letters were coming in to the Times complaining about his constant absences so it seems not to have gotten better (or not much better) after the first six months. One letter writer suggested that they should just put Ray Middleton into the show immediately because at least then people wouldn't come to the theatre expecting to see Pinza and then be disappointed. In some book, but I can't remember which one, it's said that when Merrick hired him for Fanny, he got Pinza to agree to sign a contract that stipulated that Pinza would be docked pay for each performance he missed. With the result that Pinza missed very few performances. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I'd rather see it at the Friedman | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 12:04 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - bwaydiva1 11:29 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| As mtc third broadway production. It could play all summer and do a commercial transfer if warranted. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 11:43 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - bwaydiva1 11:29 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| well that cash cow is only scheduled through new years, and then the question becomes which cash cow is bigger, no? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Of course not... | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 12:18 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Of course not... - ryhog 11:43 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| There are a lot of ifs there. Cabaret is easier stunt cast for both the Emcee and Sally. It's an easier sell for audiences and I don't know if they have to make a certain amount. I assume they spent the money to re-create the Kit Kat Klub intending that this run for awhile. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy review? ... | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 11:06 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy review? ... - flaguy 10:07 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| My reaction exactly. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| and total rave from the NY Observer | |
| Posted by: | Glitter 12:02 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley reviews "The Visit." - kieran 11:30 pm EDT 08/07/14 |
|
| |
| in the Times, Brantley deservedly raves over Chita, but the rest is odd mix of praise and...I don't know what? he doesn't say, but I would say there's enough decent pull quotes in there to interest ppl. He seems fixated on the ghost of Chicago and Cabaret, and doesn't mention Best Musical winner Kiss of the Spider Woman. Odd! | |
| Link | "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: NY Observer - circulation 51,000 | |
| Posted by: | NewtonUK 12:33 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | and total rave from the NY Observer - Glitter 12:02 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| n/m | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Circulations don't matter. Pull-quotes plastered all over town do. | |
| Posted by: | keikekaze 06:00 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: NY Observer - circulation 51,000 - NewtonUK 12:33 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| And there are some pretty good pull-quotes in the Brantley review too. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: NY Observer - circulation 51,000 | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 12:42 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: NY Observer - circulation 51,000 - NewtonUK 12:33 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| good point, and if you filter out the number of whose 51k who would pay attention to Rex Reed's opinion on anything, the net is probably closer to 5100. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Nor does Brantley mention another "show queen's dream".... | |
| Posted by: | icecadet 11:29 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | and total rave from the NY Observer - Glitter 12:02 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Chita's Tony-winning performance in "The Rink." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Really Excited by this! | |
| Posted by: | actor103 02:07 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | and total rave from the NY Observer - Glitter 12:02 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| This ought to be enough to bring this into NY. At least for a non-profit run. I think some additional sinister tone to the music would be great. I have to say, as he explains it, I understand where and why he has reservations about the tone. i think that more of a juxtaposition between the love story and the way it is musically represented with additional,components of the "sinister" nature would make this even more moving for me than it is already. I do not write musicals so I do not know where Kander would address this but I imagine he does. Though it is a mixed review overall and I think Brantley thinks this is as good as it will ever be, it nonetheless feels like a valid New York entry. Just reading all of the reviews, had I not seen it, I would say that this no longer feels like a show in need of major repair.,just tailoring perhaps. Here's hoping. This show will apparently always be flawed for many people and for others, I guess it will never work at all. But, many people seem to be as affected by it as I am. i think Brantley validates the enterprise and it will hopefully come in as a a Broadway show that people,debate and talk about. Have not done that with a musical in years. For me, that is exciting. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Age Appropriateness? | |
| Posted by: | mamaleh 11:59 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Really Excited by this! - actor103 02:07 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| I haven't seen this production--waiting for a NY transfer, of course. Much as I like Roger Rees, does he seem age appropriate? Chita Rivera is more than a decade older. Wouldn't the powerful, influential man who abandoned her character likely be older? I wonder if they thought of having John McMartin, three years older than Ms. Rivera, repeat his turn from the Goodman in 2001. I remember McMartin's excellent turn as Schill in a revival of the straight play in the '70s. I do wonder if he was approached for WTF. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Age Appropriateness? | |
| Posted by: | stevemr 02:06 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Age Appropriateness? - mamaleh 11:59 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Rees is made-up to look older, and postures himself accordingly. This revised version eliminates Anton's two children, so there is even less reason to be concerned about his age. Chita may be ageless -- in makeup and costume she looks far younger than 81 -- just look at some of the production photos. In fact, when she makes her final entrance (spoiler alert) - she looks considerably older than she has earlier in the show -- so its clear she's not supposed to look old until then -- and after all, as the richest woman in the world, Claire can certainly can afford whatever it takes to maintain those looks. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Age Appropriateness? | |
| Posted by: | schauspieler 02:11 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Age Appropriateness? - stevemr 02:06 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| His two adult children are in this version | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Age Appropriateness? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 12:38 pm EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Age Appropriateness? - mamaleh 11:59 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| I would think Rees has it within his formidable skill set to convey that he is 10-15 years older than his chronological age. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Really Excited by this! | |
| Posted by: | chrismpls 02:13 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | Really Excited by this! - actor103 02:07 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| So Judy Kuhn might have some Linda Lavin-ish decisions to make? (Actually, based on her website, she may have made that decision already.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Really Excited by this! | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 08:27 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Really Excited by this! - chrismpls 02:13 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| She's likely to stay with Fun Home. The actors have been pretty quiet-I'm assuming because contracts haven't been worked out yet. The role in "The Visit" is a glorified chorus role. (And she's been with Fun Home from the get go-I'd be shocked if she doesn't continue.) She's in The Visit right now so I'm guessing that is in the forefront of her mind. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Really Excited by this! | |
| Posted by: | stevemr 10:15 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Really Excited by this! - bwaydiva1 08:27 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Although Kuhn brings a definite presence to her part, it is a small part with no solo of her own. It is luxury casting in Williamstown, but would certainly not justify abandoning Fun Home. (This assumes an overlap of the two productions) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Really Excited by this! | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 10:18 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Really Excited by this! - stevemr 10:15 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Stevemr-That's how I see it, too. (Also, there is the possibility The Visit will wait until next season or be the fall tenant at the Beaumont.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Really Excited by this! | |
| Posted by: | stevemr 10:32 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Really Excited by this! - bwaydiva1 10:18 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Chita is 81. Sooner rather than later is probably wise. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Really Excited by this! | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 10:44 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Really Excited by this! - stevemr 10:32 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| We'll see. This is really much more non-profit material. I don't know what houses are open (I know MTC has a spring slot-but they don't do musicals very often (LoveMusik was a rare exception) and I have an inkling they may want to transfer either Fleming's play or if they can get Nina Arianda and Sam Rockwell to do Fool for Love those would be higher on the list.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| DARKEN IT | |
| Posted by: | sandcastle 05:55 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Really Excited by this! - chrismpls 02:13 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| Enough about diva-struck Brantley, but he does seem to reiterate what makes me squirm about this musical. That it isn't more sinister. This should be the most skin-crawling musical in the last few years, and from what I'm reading, they are shying away from that. Just saying. It's always fun to read something from Rex Reed that is devoid of snark. It's always blah to read Ben Brantley, who has sullied the city with his declaration that BOM is the best musi--- Well anyway. Happy for Chita, John and Fred and Roger too, that this will finally get here. But darken it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: DARKEN IT | |
| Posted by: | schauspieler 11:07 am EDT 08/08/14 |
| In reply to: | DARKEN IT - sandcastle 05:55 am EDT 08/08/14 |
|
| |
| I disagree with you, Brantley and other reviewers who feel that the show pulls its punches and isn't dark enough, especially because it focuses more on the love between the two main characters. First of all, this is not the play Durrenmatt wrote, it's an adaptation with McNally's and Kander and Ebb's particular slant on the material. The show I saw was plenty dark, from the set and costume design, to the bitingly ironic songs by the townspeople, to Clare's retelling of her life story complete with eunuch chorus. If that wasn't sinister, I don't know what is. As for the denouement, and Clare's and Anton's last scene together - what could be darker than a woman who holds the life of a lover in her hands realizing that in spite of her lifelong quest for revenge, she still loves him, and a man who realizes that he threw away the only true love he would find in life for status and material comfort, and both of them accepting that she will follow through with her revenge in a twisted desire to possess him, and he will submit to it out of a sense of guilt and in the belief that his death is the only thing he has left to offer her. And all with heart stoppingly beautiful music. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Thanks so much for posting. | |
| Posted by: | Valalala 11:59 pm EDT 08/07/14 |
| In reply to: | Brantley reviews "The Visit." - kieran 11:30 pm EDT 08/07/14 |
|
| |
| A great review, and just the endorsement (with reservations) I hoped it'd get. I wonder when he went to see it. | |
| 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: 1.037514 seconds.