Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: SWEENEY TODD at Barrow Street Becomes Longest Running SWEENEY | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:36 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
| In reply to: SWEENEY TODD at Barrow Street Becomes Longest Running SWEENEY - Official_Press_Release 10:56 am EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| Is this meaningful in any way, though? The theatre formerly known as the Uris seats about 15 times more people than at Barrow St. I don't really think the comparative number of performances means diddly. Meaning no disrespect to the current production, of course. |
|
| reply to this message |
| Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: bobby2 09:18 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
| In reply to: re: SWEENEY TODD at Barrow Street Becomes Longest Running SWEENEY - Chromolume 02:36 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| Was Dorothy Loudon not a big enough draw? George Hearn was pretty much unknown. I wonder if they could have kept it going with a bigger name? Did they approach any? |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: garyd 11:17 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
| In reply to: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - bobby2 09:18 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| Alan as usual is so gracious. "I wonder if they could have kept it going with a bigger name? Did they approach any?" It's 1980. Who do you have in mind? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:52 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - garyd 11:17 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| Well, I've thought about other possible replacements altogether too much over the decades. Decades. Wow. And I've posted about most of this before. But I really should stop the kinds of posts like the one below. I probably won't, but I should. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: StageDoorJohnny 12:38 am EDT 06/22/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 03:52 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| I know she turned it down, but Patricia Routledge would have been brilliant -- if not enough of a draw | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: garyd 09:56 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 03:52 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| I was unaware of much of the information in your post so keep going as long as you feel like it as far as I am concerned. I realize my response to Bobby's post was knee jerk due to the fact that, to my knowledge, "star from another medium" was not as common at the time. It occurred but was not as common. Broadway theatre, as we all know, was different back then. Tourists were not as big a percentage of the audience mix so plugging in a cross medium star or celebrity, a Jean Stapleton or even Julie Andrews would not have extended the run. Of course, Andrews might have provided a catalyst for repeat visits but the probability of her involvement must have been close to nil. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:31 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - garyd 09:56 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| I think that tourists were a big enough part of the Broadway audience by 1980 that a replacement who might bring them in would have made a difference. I agree that the chances of Julie Andrews taking over were close to nil (except I'd get rid of the "close to"). And it was my perception that Sweeney probably had more repeat visitors than most long-running Broadway shows of the period. although not enough to allow the replacement leads more than four months. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: garyd 10:57 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 10:31 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, you may be correct about the tourist influence in 1980. I have no specific data to support my post. We, of course went back to see Loudon, because, well, we were familiar with her and thought she might be fun to see. And she was. The show has become iconic, and rightfully so, but it really was not considered so outside a limited, though enthusiastic, audience and critical base so I am not sure a film or television "star" would have extended the run. To be honest, i thought Prince's scenic foundry overlay and other industrial revolution elements distracted a bit from the simple revenge theme of the work. However, I loved it, as did we all. (I also was captivated by the Doyle revival even though I could never figure out "where we were". I certainly, to this day, do not understand the scenic design which still makes me think he incorporated the set from elements of "I Am My Own Wife"). :) Well, as we unimaginative are fond of saying, "whatever". | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:20 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - garyd 10:57 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| I loved that original set, but I do understand that many did not. Of course, it does demand performances of a certain size. Even in 1968, one of the studies that Goldman commissioned for The Season suggested that the presence or lack of presence of tourist audiences made a difference to how well several plays did. If that was true for plays in 1968, I think it would have been more true for a musical in 1980. Sweeney did well enough while its original stars were in it that with bigger names as replacements perhaps it might have jad more life in it than turned out to be the case. Admittedly, it didn't pay off during the time that the original leads were in it, mostly because of the combination of what may have been the highest production cost ever at that time along with what was believed to be the highest weekly nut ever. As it turned out they probably should have closed it more quickly than they did. They lost a lot after the original leads left. As far as I can tell, looking at the grosses, I think they probably lost money every week except closing week, although perhaps royalty reductions and smaller star salaries meant that they more or less broke even some of those weeks. Had the original leads played a second year or even another six months on Broadway, it probably would have paid off. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: garyd 07:11 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 05:20 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
|
|
|
| I certainly did not hate the set. As a matter of fact, I liked it though, at first, as said, I found it distracting and, well, a bit TOO obviously symbolic or metaphorical or both. I got over all of that pretty quickly and on other viewings came to love it as much as many others do. I have always thought of the play to be a theatre crowd piece and not too much of a tourist draw except for the presence of Lansbury. Of course, the tourist trade was significantly different back then. Many 'tourists" who went to NYC were theatre fans to begin with. Most friends or acquaintances who either stayed with us or at our house if we were gone were quite wary of venturing out. Even if they stayed at a hotel in the theater district, they always took a cab to the theatre even if it was just a few blocks away. Seems ludicrous today but things were different then. I know a bit about the financial situation during the run but little about it subsequent to the stars leaving. I imagine your hypothesis is sound. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| "The Box Office Boom' NYT 1981 | |
| Posted by: garyd 08:28 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - garyd 07:11 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
|
|
|
| Many here have probably already read this or something similar. It is still interesting. | |
| Link | https://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/10/magazine/the-box-office-boom.html |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:13 am EDT 06/22/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - garyd 10:57 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| "To be honest, i thought Prince's scenic foundry overlay and other industrial revolution elements distracted a bit from the simple revenge theme of the work." Others have expressed this opinion, but I disagree. Yes, by now it has been proven several times that a small-scale SWEENEY can work very well, but I think the original production was perfect for the theater in which it played, the size of the cast and the orchestra, and the operatic style of so much of the score. I'm glad I saw that production twice (once with Cariou and Lansbury, then with Hearn and Loudon), and I wish I had seen multiple performances. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:55 am EDT 06/22/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - Michael_Portantiere 11:13 am EDT 06/22/18 | |
|
|
|
| completely agree! First of all, Sweeney doesn't have a "simple theme of revenge", it has many themes, and the lyrics play into these themes in ways that make it very clear to me this wasn't mean to just be a scary tale about revenge. But I'm not sure in what way people who make this assertion think was taken away from the revenge tale by the set and scope of Prince's concept. It also worked mainly as a setting and a way the scenes moved from one to another, but the playing of the scenes and songs themselves usually had very little to do with the industrial revolution elements or bigger factory set, because they played in a pie shop or barbershop set. I'd say the production that distracted from the actual material most was Doyle's revival set in an insane asylum. (a production I largely loved, despite that) Directors who don't let the scenes just play as written but instead apply or insert another visual metaphor or story or theme, as Doyle did constantly, distract far more than Prince's set or visual concept did. Also, as you point out, the score is not written as a simple revenge story. It is a booming operatic score. There's very little that's small about the characters, story, themes or music. I'm not sure where everyone got the idea that it's better served by a small production. I think Sondheim saying he'd originally envision it small has made many think that is how he wrote it. It seems to be that he adapted his writing to Prince's vision early on because musically and lyrically it is not written that way - small or simple, or focused on just being scary or about revenge. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:35 pm EDT 06/22/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - Chazwaza 11:55 am EDT 06/22/18 | |
|
|
|
| "I think Sondheim saying he'd originally envision it small has made many think that is how he wrote it. It seems to be that he adapted his writing to Prince's vision early on because musically and lyrically it is not written that way - small or simple, or focused on just being scary or about revenge." Yes, I think you may be right about that, and I agree 100 percent with everything else you wrote. When people do smaller productions of shows that were originally presented "big" on Broadway, they almost always tend to insist that the show will work much better in an intimate space with a much smaller cast and orchestra. I tend to find such comments very annoying and disingenuous. Again, I think SWEENEY works phenomenally well in large productions in large theaters with large ensemble and orchestra, and also in much smaller productions like the current one at the Barrow Street Theater. But I have loved all of the more grand-scale productions of the show that I've seen -- the Broadway original, L.A. Reprise!, New York City Opera, New York Philharmonic/San Francisco Symphony -- and I would hate to think that all future productions of this magnificent show/score will be "intimate." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 01:07 pm EDT 06/22/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - Michael_Portantiere 12:35 pm EDT 06/22/18 | |
|
|
|
| Couldn't agree more about the comments about a small "intimate" version working better... and never did it annoy me as much as the Ragtime revival, which claiming that stripping away the sets would help us focus on the text, as if the magnificent original staging did anything but compliment and emphasis and showcase the text. It's such a cop-out. Especially for Ragtime which is not at all written to be a small intimate show. I don't know where people think that a set dwarfs a musical to the point of distracting from characters and scenes and story... it makes no sense. The original Ragtime didn't close (after over two years) because the show was lost in the "spectacle" it closed because its producer was a crook. If you want to or need to do a small, more intimately conceived production that's great, but don't make excuses for it as if you're doing the show and audience a favor by finally "trusting" the material. Great shows will be great stripped down or not because the material is strong ... but the smaller productions won't work BECAUSE they are small only. And if there were any shows written to be epic they are Ragtime and Sweeney Todd. Also wanted to add that if Sondheim had meant to write the small intimate scary revenge tale people now claim the show is meant to be, it would have been 90 minutes without an intermission, rather than the 2 and a half hour epic with an intermission. Sondheim knows as well as anyone how an intermission can kill momentum and tension. If he really intended to create that kind of work, that is what he'd have done. To me, nothing about this piece as its written says he meant it that way. Including all of the comedy and commentary on society and religion. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 04:03 pm EDT 06/22/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - Chazwaza 01:07 pm EDT 06/22/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Couldn't agree more about the comments about a small "intimate" version working better... and never did it annoy me as much as the Ragtime revival, which claiming that stripping away the sets would help us focus on the text, as if the magnificent original staging did anything but compliment and emphasis and showcase the text. It's such a cop-out. Especially for Ragtime which is not at all written to be a small intimate show. I don't know where people think that a set dwarfs a musical to the point of distracting from characters and scenes and story... it makes no sense. The original Ragtime didn't close (after over two years) because the show was lost in the "spectacle" it closed because its producer was a crook. If you want to or need to do a small, more intimately conceived production that's great, but don't make excuses for it as if you're doing the show and audience a favor by finally "trusting" the material. Great shows will be great stripped down or not because the material is strong ... but the smaller productions won't work BECAUSE they are small only." Again, I agree with every word. Although I would point out that, in my opinion, the Ford Center in its original design was too large for even a grand scale musical like RAGTIME. It seems lots of people have that same feeling, because the choice of theater was largely blamed for the failure of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and other shows, and of course, the theater was recently redesigned and actually made somewhat smaller and more intimate for HARRY POTTER. "Also wanted to add that if Sondheim had meant to write the small intimate scary revenge tale people now claim the show is meant to be, it would have been 90 minutes without an intermission, rather than the 2 and a half hour epic with an intermission. Sondheim knows as well as anyone how an intermission can kill momentum and tension. If he really intended to create that kind of work, that is what he'd have done. To me, nothing about this piece as its written says he meant it that way. Including all of the comedy and commentary on society and religion." I don't remember Sondheim's exact quote(s) about this, but I think maybe his point was not so much that he wanted the show to be really small and intimate by Broadway standards, but that he didn't envision it being presented in the largest theater on Broadway in a huge production with an actual stage-length iron catwalk, etc. But as I've always said, the brilliant orchestrations and choral work in SWEENEY were obviously written on a grand scale, so at some point it seems that Sondheim and Tunick got to the same page as Prince. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: bobby2 04:49 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 03:52 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| I was thinking Jean Stapleton. Mary Tyler Moore maybe? She may have surprised people. She usually rose to the occasion. Carol Burnett came to mind too. Bea Arthur? Julie Andrews? I just wish it would have run longer and had lots of replacements. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:36 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - bobby2 04:49 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| Mary Tyler Moore is about as wrong for the role as anyone I can imagine. Well, Alfred Drake might have been more unlikely. Moore might have been a terrific Phyllis in Follies, a good Fay Apple, and perhaps a very interesting Joanne in Company. If she had been the right age, she might have been a good Baker's Wife. But after Breakfast at Tiffany's, she seemed to have no interest at all in ever doing a stage musical again, and Mrs. Lovett seems about the most unlikely choice imaginable for her imaginary return. Bea Arthur also seems very wrong for the role, and the vocal adjustments that would have been needed for her would have been drastic, more or less the same as would have been needed for, say, Carol Channing, who actually seems to me more right for the role (and who, lest we forget, toured with creditbility in both Pygmalion and The Millionairess before her performance persona became so limited). Really, it would be hard to believe that Bea Arthur would not have jumped in to cut the Judge's throat for Sweeney. Can't imagine the sight of some blood making her "come all over gooseflesh," can you? I'm being silly, of course, she was an actress, but still there was a reason that Erwin Piscator cast her as Medea when she was in her early 20s. Julie Andrews showed no interest in returning to Broadway. I think the only reason she finally did Victor/Victoria was to make Blake Edwards happy. Yes, there was Putting It Together before that, but it was a limited run, I seem to recall she did that in part as preparation for Victor/Victoria (even though it ended up not happening for another two-and-a-half years). I also suspect that at age 44, she might not have wanted to play a Dickensian grotesque, which was very much the way the role was perceived at the time because that was how Lansbury played it. And would she have been willing to be a replacement and to follow another star who had gotten such great reviews? I think, as garyd said, that the chances would have been close to nil, except I'd get rid of the "close to." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Sorry for the typos! | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:35 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 12:36 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
|
|
|
| Creditbility would be a pretty good word. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:05 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
| In reply to: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - bobby2 09:18 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| For Sweeney, they talked to Richard Kiley and John Cullum before deciding on Hearn. Cullum has said that he turned it down, not wanting to be a replacement at that time. When he said this in an interview in 1990, he may have forgotten that he was a replacement in Deathtrap at the time they would have been talking to him about Sweeney, but at the time he may have wanted to re-establish himself in plays. In that 1990 interview he said that he regretted turning it down. Given that he was in audibly damaged voice for the last few months of the On the Twentieth Century run, I'm not sure how he would have coped with Sweeney. I think I read him in an interview long ago saying that he had an operation for nodes after Twentieth Century closed, but I can't find that interview so maybe I'm imagining it. I have wondered if he was reluctant to take on the role after his vocal troubles in Twentieth Century. Anyway, although he was certainly a bigger name than Hearn at that time, I don't think he would have been much of a draw a year into the run of Sweeney Todd. I have no idea what happened with Kiley, but he had pretty consistently been performing no more than 6 or 7 performances a week in Man of La Mancha for a long time whenever he did it (which was a lot), so it's hard to imagine him agreeing to do 8 performances a week as Sweeney for an extended run. I think he might have been wonderful in the role, although I'm not sure it would have been a great fit for him vocally. But even if they adjusted it a bit for him — as they have for many Sweeneys more recently — I would have loved to see him in the role. Although he was always a huge draw in La Mancha, I'm not sure he would have been a big draw in Sweeney (although probably bigger than Hearn or even Cullum). The only woman I can think of who might have been a bigger draw than Loudon, and who might have been good in the role, and who might have been willing is Jean Stapleton, who did eventually play it much later for a short run in San José. But I think at most they might have gotten a slightly longer run with her. I can think of a couple of other possibilities such as Carol Burnett, but I'm sure she would not have been willing, and Charlotte Rae, who was not really a big name at that time — her greater fame came later — and perhaps never really a draw on Broadway. After that, it's hard for me to think of other possible name replacements. Having said all that, perhaps Richard Kiley and Jean Stapleton together would have drawn, but we'll never know. Perhaps Kiley with Loudon would have drawn pretty well for a while, but, again, we'll never know. Estelle Parsons was approached to do the tour when Lansbury first turned it down, but I don't think she would have been a great draw on Broadway in the role, although she surely would have given an interesting performance. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: Snowysdad 07:04 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 10:05 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| It is interesting to imagine possible cast choices had they accepted, but no one is tackling the real elephant in the room. Yes Sweeney is one of Sondheim's masterpieces, but it repulses a fair percentage of people, including die hard fans like me. I have and always will have limited tolerance for it. A few years ago two companies were doing Assassins and I ended up seeing both productions, a mere three weeks apart. I find, difficult as Assassins is, I doubt I would be willing to see Sweeney twice that close together. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 04:31 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - Snowysdad 07:04 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Yes Sweeney is one of Sondheim's masterpieces, but it repulses a fair percentage of people, including die hard fans like me. I have and always will have limited tolerance for it." I'm sure you're right that a "fair percentage" of people don't like the show, whether or not they're actually repulsed by it. But I have the impression that, over the years, SWEENEY TODD has become one of Sondheim's most popular shows as rated by the huge number of stage productions at every level, plus the fact that it's one of the few Sondheim shows to be made into a "major motion picture," not to mention two high-profile video productions (the original touring company and the concert version with LuPone, Hearn, and the San Francisco Symphony). I'm not counting WEST SIDE STORY or GYPSY, but among shows with both music and lyrics by Sondheim, it really does seem to me that SWEENEY is among the most popular, right up there with INTO THE WOODS and ....FORUM. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:30 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - Michael_Portantiere 04:31 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if Sweeney is now generally getting more productions than Forum, which it seems some people find objectionable and basically unfunny nowadays. Which is very sad to me, since I totally love Forum, but it does need to be done very well, despite what Sondheim said long ago about it working in even high school productions. But I think there are people who would find even the most brilliant production of Forum coarse, sexist, misogynist and unfunny. (Truth is that it did not get universal raves even in 1962.) Of course, it is somewhat coarse, although in a sort of refined way (if that's possible), but I don't find it at all sexist and/or misogynist. And I sure find it funny, at least when it's done well. In fact, at the moment MTI lists 10 upcoming productions of Forum and 25 upcoming productions of Sweeney. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:08 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 06:30 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
|
|
|
| I think the book is bawdy and the score is tuneful and witty... I think many people didn't find them to be the perfect match. I think the show as a whole is wonderful. But I don't think Sondheim's score is very coarse at all, maybe to a fault. Though clearly not since it was met with a lot of success when they combined the book and score. I don't know what people these days think, but I've always heard and agreed that the Forum book is one of the best musical books out there. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| did they ever consider Gwen Verdon? Or approach Julie Andrews? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:31 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 10:05 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| I would have really loved to see her do this role... I think in many ways it is ideally suited to her. I have no idea if she can do accent, or play the dark drama of it, but I think seeing her try would have been so interesting. And she was surely still a name to many people especially on Broadway. To match her with a project like this would have been newsworthy I'd think. I also wonder if they approached Julie Andrews, who could at least do the accent, and would have been fascinating in the role and a big draw. What about Georgia Brown? Or Cleo Laine? Even Penny Fuller (not much of a name I assume but probably very capable for the role)? Or what about Millicent Martin or Julia McKenzie? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: did they ever consider Gwen Verdon? Or approach Julie Andrews? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:53 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: did they ever consider Gwen Verdon? Or approach Julie Andrews? - Chazwaza 05:31 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think Verdon could have done the accent — her English accent in Redhead was not at all convincing, but for that show it didn't need to be — or that she could have sung it at that point in her career. As JereNYC says below, her singing became very limited over time. I agree that otherwise she might have brought interesting qualities to the role. I responded to bobby2 about Andrews. Georgia Brown probably would have needed some big vocal adjustments made to the role and would not have been a draw. Admittedly, Loudon needed one vocal adjustment, but otherwise she could sing it, although she wasn't really able to do the accent. Cleo Laine is an interesting idea, but although she might have been very good in the role, I don't think even she was the kind of draw that would have been needed for Broadway audiences. Penny Fuller would have brought three people to the box office, which is perhaps more than Julia McKenzie (who did later play it to acclaim in London) would have brought. Millicent Martin (who I think never played the role) would have brought seven people to the box office. She probably would have been very good, but it would have died a very quick death unless Paul Newman had played Sweeney opposite her. Fuller and McKenzie might also have seemed a bit young for the role at the time. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: did they ever consider Gwen Verdon? Or approach Julie Andrews? | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 12:07 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
| In reply to: did they ever consider Gwen Verdon? Or approach Julie Andrews? - Chazwaza 05:31 am EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| Would Gwen Verdon have been up to playing Mrs. Lovett at that point in her life? Did Verdon do any stage work at all after she left CHICAGO? Though Mrs. Lovett would be easy movement show for a virtuoso like her, I wonder if she could have handled the singing. The most recent Fosse bio from a couple of years ago points out that a lifetime of smoking really took its toll on Verdon's voice and that people were pointing that out even by the midpoint in her career. For what it's worth, that bio also points out that the smoking was even taking its toll on her dancing, but I imagine that Verdon's worst day dancing was probably miles above what mere mortals could achieve on their best days. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| No. | |
| Posted by: garyd 09:30 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
| In reply to: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - bobby2 09:18 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| to your first question. I have no idea to your second. In addition, Loudon was a recognizable name, at least on Broadway, when she took over. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SWEENEY TODD at Barrow Street Becomes Longest Running SWEENEY | |
| Posted by: MikeP (ACL15@aol.com) 04:28 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
| In reply to: re: SWEENEY TODD at Barrow Street Becomes Longest Running SWEENEY - Chromolume 02:36 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| My thoughts exactly!! !Other than PR hyperbole...so what? It says nothing about the production vs. the original. A bit of news that means nothing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SWEENEY TODD at Barrow Street Becomes Longest Running SWEENEY | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:48 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
| In reply to: re: SWEENEY TODD at Barrow Street Becomes Longest Running SWEENEY - Chromolume 02:36 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| It's as meaningful as the box office breaking press releases and similar other statements made in the name of PR. Of course, I know you must know that already. Ask Buddy the Elf about that coffee. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SWEENEY TODD at Barrow Street Becomes Longest Running SWEENEY | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:56 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
| In reply to: re: SWEENEY TODD at Barrow Street Becomes Longest Running SWEENEY - Ann 02:48 pm EDT 06/20/18 | |
|
|
|
| Ha! (Great analogy lol.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.099488 seconds.