| 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 | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | Sorry for the typos! - AlanScott 07:35 pm EDT 06/24/18 |
| Next: | re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - Snowysdad 07:04 am EDT 06/21/18 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.015744 seconds.