| CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| I watched the video of CATS on PBS Friday night. I've never seen it before, and I was curious. Of course, I'm aware that it's been a punchline for years, and I'm not a big fan of ALW, but I figured "what the hell." My question simply is "Why was this one of the longest running shows?" What was it that brought people in time and again. I'm not surprised that I didn't like it. I've seen plenty of shows that weren't my cuppa, but I could understand their appeal. No plot (that I could figure out), no real characterization aside from being catlike, and one decent song. I can understand the staging and makeup/costumes bringing 'em in for a few months, but was that the appeal? I think this filming was arranged by ALW/Really Useful, so I've got to assume that it was considered a good record of the show (although too many cuts to faces when I wanted to see a wide shot of the dancing). I'm jellicle-curious. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | sf 06:41 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| The London production, believe it or not, was very charming. It's a very slight show, though, and it doesn't (in my experience) work nearly as well in a traditional proscenium theatre as it did at the New London, however much they try to recreate the way that theatre was configured for the show elsewhere (the original London production was staged three-quarters in the round, in a theatre that's a little smaller than most of the West End theatres that are commonly used for musicals). The video, unfortunately, does not do the material very many favours. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | Zelgo 11:31 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | re: CATS - Why? - sf 06:41 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| CATS was extraordinarily original for its time--sung through, large sets, the first of the big European extravaganzas that dominated the 80's on Bway. We can look at almost any show and wonder why it ran so long, but for its time, CATS was something very new to the Bway-going public. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| From The Andy Warhol Diaries page 471 | |
| Posted by: | bret17 12:54 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| Brigid called and I invited her to see Cats ( tickets $200 ). Cabbed to the theater ( $6 ). We had first-row seats but on the side. The first act was so boring, [he goes on to graphically describe being able to see and be shocked by the female performers' genitalia through their costumes] They should really wear pads. But oh, you could really just see everything! Maybe that's why all these old men are going to see the show. And I finally saw what the set was, a big Pop Art thing, it was like two-feet-high Coke bottles, and two feet high Campbell's Soup Cans, whatever you would find in a kitchen. But Oldenburg size. And people were gesturing for me to look at it. And a lady near us put her husband's coat and hat on a box in front of them, and it turned out to be a Brillo box that was part of the set and his hat got squashed when a cat sat on it. [More graphic details about being able to see the female performer's genitalia.] | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: From The Andy Warhol Diaries page 471 | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 11:56 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | From The Andy Warhol Diaries page 471 - bret17 12:54 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| [More graphic details about being able to see the female performer's genitalia.] Maybe it should have been called Camels instead of Cats? (sorry...) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: From The Andy Warhol Diaries page 471 | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 04:15 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | From The Andy Warhol Diaries page 471 - bret17 12:54 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| "My cavity, my cavity, there's nothing like my cavity ..." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Ha! Now THAT got a big laugh out of me! | |
| Posted by: | DistantDrumming 05:21 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | re: From The Andy Warhol Diaries page 471 - Alcindoro 04:15 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| Nicely played, Alcindoro! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I can't take credit ... | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 05:31 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | Ha! Now THAT got a big laugh out of me! - DistantDrumming 05:21 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| ... it's an old joke. But glad you liked it | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| "tickets $200" ? | |
| Posted by: | Ann 01:12 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | From The Andy Warhol Diaries page 471 - bret17 12:54 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| Concierge prices I guess, but still ... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | TGWW 04:32 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| There are a lot of reasons for it's success beyond just being a Broadway show. There are the T.S. Eliot fans, cat lovers who identified with the different personalities brought to life, it was even considered sexy with beautiful dancers bodies in tights. And the show was kept alive in later years by non English speaking tourists who wanted the Broadway experience without having to have a translation. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | bobby2 04:01 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| You have to remember how unique it was at the time. There simply had been no spectacle like it. Granted I was a kid but I found the whole Grizabella story and her isolation very moving. I think I related to her because of childhood bullying. And Betty Buckley was simply extraordinary. I had never heard anyone sing like that. It was really stunning. The show didn't really hold up (few do look at the Annie and ACL revivals) on repeated viewings when I was older but a lot of that was because I don't think anybody ever quite sang and acted the role like Betty Lynn. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | SRMHAYES 03:31 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| I appeared in a large-scale production of "CATS" which was professionally mounted and co-directed by an exceptionally talented individual who had spent over 7 years in professional European productions of the show. This person conveyed to us a wealth of information about each character, their relationships to one another and a panoply of sub-plots that are woven into the show, all of this evidently established during the creation of the original piece. After appearing in the show for 4 months, the astounding reality was that NO ONE in the audience was able to perceive one ounce of all of this complex information because it is NOT presented clearly in the text, music or action of the piece. It's all TOO precious and almost a "little secret" between the creators and the cast. Theatre is a SHARED experience...it doesn't work if you keep all the secrets to yourself. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I always thought that's why I loved it so much. | |
| Posted by: | jero 11:03 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | re: CATS - Why? - SRMHAYES 03:31 am EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| the little details and interactions were thrilling to watch. It was subtle but present and didn't hit you over the head. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | pierce 02:57 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| I'm one of those who saw the original production because I'm a cat-lover. My decision was also influenced by the fact that I like T.S. Eliot. And boy, did I ever HATE the show. I didn't think any of the performers and /or dancers captured anything that resembled a feline quality. They managed "cutesy" but never "cat-like." I would have preferred listening to Hermione Gingold read Eliot's poetry on an empty stage, seated in a comfy velvet chair against a dark backdrop - next to a Tiffany lamp, perhaps. But I doubt it would have run "now and forever" if it had been staged like that. Now, what did people like about that original production? I really couldn't tell you. As long as they got their money's worth, that's great. I can't say I did, though... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| well.... | |
| Posted by: | Glitter 12:35 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| there are definitely characters other than being cat-like, and more than one decent song. If you didn't like it or understand it, it's your loss.....but some of us indeed found it moving and deep :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: well.... | |
| Posted by: | MarkBearSF 02:01 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | well.... - Glitter 12:35 am EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| Honestly I wasn't intending to offend. Obviously, my conclusions were my observations and I readily admit I may have missed what you saw. And thank you all for your replies. There were some things I hadn't considered. No, I don't expect that my opinion of the show itself will change, but I understand more about its place in Broadway history and lore. Mark | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I feel that way about MAMMA MIA | |
| Posted by: | showtunetrivia 11:02 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | re: well.... - MarkBearSF 02:01 am EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| Like you at CATS, I fully expected I wouldn't like it. But I did think I would be able to comprehend what so many did love about it. I left scratching my head in confusion. I guess the power of those old ABBA tunes is beyond me. My take on CATS is like the entry for Earth in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Mostly harmless." Laura | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I feel that way about MAMMA MIA | |
| Posted by: | mikem 12:48 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | I feel that way about MAMMA MIA - showtunetrivia 11:02 am EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| I've also been puzzled by Mamma Mia's longevity. Cats, Phantom, etc are spectacles, and Mamma Mia is not. And Abba was never the phenomenon here as it was in Europe. Their record sales here were very strong but not really in the icon category. But clearly the formula has worked so far. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | AnObserver 11:13 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| I can't address as to why it was a long-running hit. But I will say that I was an impressionable young person when I saw it in London soon after it opened there, and to my young eyes and ears it seemed fresh and fun. But by the time it opened in NYC where I live, I was no longer interested, and never saw the Bway production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | GavinL 09:46 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| Because, in the words of FRANK RICH, (can you believe?): "It believes in the magic of theatre and in that, it unquestionably delivers." I love "Cats"! For all its flaws, it has magic. It has whimsy. It has absolutely stunning choreography. One good tune? That's a personal opinion... "Memory"is all right... but there's something from every genre, and the songs are unique to each cat. The melody to which is set on of Eliot's darkest and grimmest cat poems (left unpublished for obvious reasons: it was FAR too dark for a children's poetry book), "You See the border of her coat is torn and stained with sand" still gives me chills. It's plaintive and slightly dissonant... yet achingly gorgeous. Also noteworthy in the score is the variation of "Memory" that plays in the English Horn as Grizabella limps across the stage before the end of act one is beautiful, too. Each cat is a representative of some type of person we can all identify with. These poems are not just silly...Eliot was making commentary. Lighthearted, yes, but insightful nonetheless... And the miniscule plot is, of course, silly...but it, too, speaks of the importance of forgiveness, the healing power of touch and community... I directed "Cats" at the first high school I taught at in my final year before moving to a new city... it was a beautiful experience, and I look on it fondly. The kids adored the show, and we produced a unique and intriguing vision...no carbon copy of the video. It was rewarding and it opened my eyes to the fact that not every show has to be mind-bogglingly brilliant to appeal and to teach. The show is flawed-- too repetitive, not enough variation in time signature... drags a bit too long... "Pekes and Pollicles" is ridiculous...but every time I hear the clarinets play those little "bum-bum-bah-dah" phrases, I smile... That is exactly the music my cat hears in her head at 3 a.m. when she suddenly leaps around the house like a maniac, for sure. So... I think "Cats" appealed for a lot of reasons. Is it the best thing ever? No... but it's a far cry from the worst, too. I mean... "Wicked"? Come on!!! ;) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I loved Cats | |
| Posted by: | DistantDrumming 05:23 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| and I'm not apologizing for it either. I'm not referring to this taped production, but to the night in the theatre I had many years ago. Look, I'm not a dummy, if Sondheim, ALW and I were on a sinking boat and I could only save one, I'd save Sondheim. In fact, Cats is really the only ALW show I genuinely like. I think there are many pretty melodies in much of his other work, but he nearly always works with lyricists and librettist who simply don't know how to build character or dramatic tension or, frankly, tell a compelling story. But, Cats was always free of that constraint. It didn't have the self-importance of Evita, Superstar or Phantom. It just embraced what it was - an evening of song and dance about a bunch of cats. Do I think it's a great dramatic work? No, of course not. But was I transported by the song and dance? Was it full of theatrical imagination - even if it was just on the surface and - and didn't, not even in "Memory", shine a light on an inner truth or reveal something new? Yeah, I had a damn good time. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I loved Cats | |
| Posted by: | Shutterbug 06:19 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | I loved Cats - DistantDrumming 05:23 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| Good for you, DD. I coming out as someone who loved CATS, too. Of course, I saw it 30 years ago as an impressionable teen ager who had just discovered the poetry of TS Eliot and was in love with the ideas put forth in The Four Quartets, The Waste Land and The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. I also realize that The Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats is not in the same league as the others I mentioned, but I wanted to devour all of it at that age. I had never seen a show, at that point, that was so dance heavy - and so began my love affair with dance. Call me a sap, but I was so moved by Grizabella's transfer to the heavyside layer, that I remember crying. I saw the show twice more, and it got me every time. I never saw Betty Buckley. I believe I saw Laurie Beechman (who I adored) do the role all three times. When she makes her I impassioned plea for contact, to recapture a bit of her long lost "days in the sun," I lost it every single time. Would I still love it today if I saw it? I can't say. But thirty years ago, there was magic happening at the Winter Garden Theater for this young theater goer. SB | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| grizabella | |
| Posted by: | jero 11:13 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I loved Cats - Shutterbug 06:19 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| her parody of the jellicle ball after watching from the sidelines was horrible. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal | |
| Posted by: | GrumpyMorningBoy 05:01 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| When I landed in NYC in the late 90's, it was still playing, although it had long become the butt of New Yorkers' cynical jokes as the worst show on Broadway. A friend of mine overheard... in like at TKTS... a conversation that went like this: Woman: "CATS? What's it about?" Man: "It's about a bunch of singing and dancing cats. But there's one cat they all really hate. So they send her up to heaven on a tire." And that pretty much sums up the plot of CATS. LOL. The word on the street, in the late 90's, was that CATS was one of the few shows that largely survived from group bookings. School groups could always book without fears of material that was too grown up, and they could book it forever in advance, since it was always playing. And friends of mine who were in the Bway cast said that a HUGE portion of their audience was international groups and tourists who didn't speak English... ... it was the one show in town where you really didn't have to understand the words to enjoy the show just as much as everyone else. - GMB p.s. -- I'm told that's a big reason why STOMP and BLUE MAN GROUP are still playing today. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 07:50 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal - GrumpyMorningBoy 05:01 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| Yours seems a variant on the classic showbiz story about CATS. The way I heard it from someone in the show is this: Floor mikes on the set pick up a pre-curtain conversation between two theatre party ladies, overheard by the cast downstairs in their dressing rooms. "Sooo, what's this show about?" "CATS? Well, it's about cats... but most particularly it's about this one cat, she's kind of beautiful but kind of slutty, and then one night all the other cats put her on a big tire ... and they sing her a beautiful song ... and then they BLOW HER THROUGH THE ROOF!!" | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Hal Prince on CATS | |
| Posted by: | showtunetrivia 03:42 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal - Alcindoro 07:50 am EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| I love the story of Prince asking, "So what's this really about? The girl cat is Queen Victoria and maybe the other one is Disraeli of sonething?" And ALW patiently says, "Hal, it's about _cats_." (I'm paraphrasing Prince's comment, but that's the gist.) Laura | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Hal Prince on CATS | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 04:20 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | Hal Prince on CATS - showtunetrivia 03:42 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| I recall a quote from Hal Prince when asked his opinion of the show as he was leaving the theatre after opening night: "Well ... that certainly WAS a lot of cats ...". | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 06:47 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal - GrumpyMorningBoy 05:01 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| 1994. I was on a business trip to my company's home office in Connecticut with three coworkers. We flew in on Saturday so we could have Sunday to go into NYC. We hit TKTS for the matinee. I can't remember everything that was playing, but I was trying to steer my group toward Damn Yankees or An Inspector Calls. One coworker was willing to see whatever, but the other two weren't having it. Cats. That was the only show they had any interest in seeing. At all. So we saw Cats. In over 25 years of NYC theater-going, it's the only Playbill I didn't keep. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I feel you on that. After getting dragged to it a third time by a friend | |
| Posted by: | Esther 11:07 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal - MikeR 06:47 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| from out of town in 1989, I stopped volunteering to go to the theater with visiting friends unless they agreed to see just about anything else. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal | |
| Posted by: | lordofspeech 10:11 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal - MikeR 06:47 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| I loved that there was an ensemble of dancers who were constantly in character, acting-dancing up a storm. The entire cast was terrific. And I admired the showmanship of the directing and, aesthetically, I admired the way an arc was created (primarily by focussing on Grizabella and the eventual ascent) with hardly any obvious plot structure. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: That is saying something. :( nm | |
| Posted by: | SuzanneR 07:58 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal - MikeR 06:47 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: That is saying something. :( nm | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 08:14 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | re: That is saying something. :( nm - SuzanneR 07:58 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| It was at least in part out of resentment from being "forced" to see it. But yeah... not my favorite show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I have a different theory | |
| Posted by: | broadwaybacker 05:19 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal - GrumpyMorningBoy 05:01 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| I don't remember the year (I could probably look it up) but my wife and were in London and we kept hearing the song Memory on the radio. We had never heard the song, nor had we heard of the show it was from, but the song was so haunting at the time that I'm sure we decided to see the show based on that one song, and based on the additional fact that it had a "star". So, I wonder if this was a show in which a great song was used as a marketing vehicle. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I have a different theory | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 09:08 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | I have a different theory - broadwaybacker 05:19 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| It was, of course, but that doesn't make a show a record-breaking hit. I just think that people love to watch cats. Before YouTube and BuzzFeed put cat photos and videos and Gifs at our disposal, we had to go to the theatre to see it. I am being 100% serious about this. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 05:14 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | Big family appeal, big foreign-tourist appeal - GrumpyMorningBoy 05:01 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| "it was the one show in town where you really didn't have to understand the words to enjoy the show just as much as everyone else." That was definitely a factor. I think there were other shows during its run where you could say more or less the same thing. Phantom, for example. While knowledge of English is perhaps a bit more helpful there, still everyone more or less knows the story and it's about the music (even if some of us don't like it much) and the spectacle. The first show I can recall of which people said, "It's running a long time because you don't have to know English to enjoy it" was Dancin'. Then people also said that about 42nd Street. Perhaps someone should have done a show titled Dancin' Cats on 42nd Street. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 04:54 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| I've never seen Cats either, and I also watched about five minutes of it on Friday night. One theory about the reason for its huge success was that everyone loves cats. Well, not everyone, but lots of people. And the title tells you what it's about. If you go to see a musical titled Cats you can be sure that you're not going to see a depressing play about a family with a drug-addicted mother, an alcoholic and miserly father, an alcoholic, self-destructive son, and another son who has tuberculosis. ;) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | garyd 11:56 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | re: CATS - Why? - AlanScott 04:54 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| "And the title tells you what it's about. If you go to see a musical titled Cats you can be sure that you're not going to see a depressing play about a family with a drug-addicted mother, an alcoholic and miserly father, an alcoholic, self-destructive son, and another son who has tuberculosis. ;)" lol, True. Unless, of course, you go to see a musical entitled "Follies". | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 07:56 am EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | re: CATS - Why? - AlanScott 04:54 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| Can't wait for the Broadway musical version of SNAKES ON A PLANE. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | RuthAnn 04:47 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| I have two kids. One was born in 89 the other in 91. Cats was there ticket into musical theatre. For one (91) it was the inspiration to become a poet. Inspiration comes in many forms. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | BwyDan 04:41 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | CATS - Why? - MarkBearSF 04:24 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| I tried to watch. I couldn't get past 6 or 7 minutes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CATS - Why? | |
| Posted by: | Circlevet 09:18 pm EST 11/23/14 |
| In reply to: | re: CATS - Why? - BwyDan 04:41 pm EST 11/23/14 |
|
| |
| That's about the same amount of time before my interest waned in the Winter Garden many years ago. I find the show intolearable. | |
| 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 | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | 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: 0.410621 seconds.