Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.040622 seconds.