| 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 | | |
| 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 | | |
| 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 | |
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: 0.443242 seconds.