LOG IN / REGISTER




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

Previous: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 05:20 pm EDT 06/24/18
Next: "The Box Office Boom' NYT 1981 - garyd 08:28 pm EDT 06/24/18
Thread:

Privacy Policy


Time to render: 0.008201 seconds.