Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Mack & Mabel tonight. | |
| Posted by: Amiens 11:29 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Highly disappointing, I'm sorry to say. I only know the show from its original LA try out and the Broadway cast album so I can't speak of any changes that have been made here at Encores or over the years. I usually love Douglas Sills but as Mack he puts on an aggressively macho voice and snarls and shouts much of his dialogue, some of it beyond comprehension (maybe that's the sound design), where an effortlessness is desperately needed. Alexandra Socha is new to me and what she simply lacks here is the star charisma that Bernadette Peters brought to Mabel. Mack's attraction to Mabel is not believable, nor vice versa, though much of that problem can certainly be blamed on the lame book (much lamer than I remembered it, but chalk that up to my youthful enthusiasm). The staging by Josh Rhodes is very uneven. Some of his choreography is fun but a lot more is messy and doesn't help the confused storytelling, case in point Tap Your Troubles Away in which so many plot points are fighting for attention. The staged silent movie bits, pie-throwing, Keystone Kops, etc., musical and otherwise, are just not very funny though I imagine they're almost impossible to pull off in this day and age. The wonderful orchestra seemed to crowd a stage that seemed more cluttered with set than usual. Lilli Cooper and Michael Berresse are both very good in supporting roles. I could be more critical but I am sympathetic to the endeavor it takes to put on such an ambitious and imperfect show in very limited time. I appreciated seeing it, even in this less than perfect mounting. But this production only enforces my feeling that Encores needs to return to simpler, less fully-designed productions with more severely cut librettos (do they cut them at all any more?). |
|
| reply to this message |
| Sad that M&M won’t be redeemed | |
| Posted by: Zelgo 02:06 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: Mack & Mabel tonight. - Amiens 11:29 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Jerry Herman had always hoped a Bway revival would secure M&M’s place in the canon of great musicals. This Encores! Version was a last ditch effort and it showed that the book drags the whole enterprise down. There are so many shows with wobbly books. Is there some kind of copyright problem to ditch the books altogether and start all over again? |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Sad that M&M won’t be redeemed | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 02:36 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: Sad that M&M won’t be redeemed - Zelgo 02:06 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| I wouldn't envy any writer trying to write a new book for MACK AND MABEL around Herman's score, which is the raison d'etre, after all. The real story of Mack Sennett and Mabel Normand probably wouldn't fit the score very well and a new writer would likely be forced to come up with another fictional story...so...what's the point, really? I was kind of hoping that Encores! would cut the book away completely and just give enough set-up that the numbers make sense and go from there. Alas no...we got a mostly full, revised Francine Pascal book, which can't be much of an improvement over her brother's original. I'd actually be most interested in an entirely new show with a new book and score that actual tells, at least, some of the real story of these people. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| NYT review | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 03:00 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Mack & Mabel tonight. - Amiens 11:29 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| ...The music isn’t the only thing that this glamorous-looking reboot, directed and choreographed by Josh Rhodes, has to offer. There is a handsomely disheveled Douglas Sills as Mack, a quietly charismatic Alexandra Socha as Mabel and a general reveling in period fashion and physicality. Yet even when Rob Berman’s fine orchestra is at its most delicate, the show scarcely comes close to stirring emotion... |
|
| Link | ‘Mack & Mabel’ Review: Lights! Camera! Passion! |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: NYT review | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 03:32 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: NYT review - MockingbirdGirl 03:00 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Wow, how I wish he'd said more. Maybe he was trying to be polite, but it's not as if a huge long term commercial run is at stake. All these years I hear about how this show doesn't work because of the book (and I mean really we hear that constantly about so many shows, it hardly provides any illumination into this show) but everyone loves the score. He offers that the characters are drawn two dimensional. Is that it? Maybe the fact that it doesn't merit a more in depth critical analysis speaks to how truly terrible and hopeless it is. I guess I'll get to decide for myself when I see it this weekend! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT review | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 02:28 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT review - EvFoDr 03:32 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| This production is using the revised book by Francine Pascal, by the way. Here's the issues, as I saw them...there's a lot of telling, rather than showing. Mack has big monologues in almost every scene in which he tells us things that the show should be showing us. Sills did fine by them, but it gets tedious. Also, the central relationship of the show, that of Mack and Mabel, takes place mostly off-stage in scenes we don't see. That's a big, glaring fault for a show called MACK AND MABEL. The only sort of tender, romantic scene between them is the one that contains "I Won't Send Roses." We don't see what attracts her to him or him to her. We don't see how their personal relationship evolves after this scene, until she walks in on him having sex with someone else and leaves him. The show presents only bits and pieces of their professional, working relationship. The entire story presented by the musical is fictional, except that there are characters called Mack Sennett, Mabel Normand, Fatty Arbuckle, and William Desmond Taylor, which share names with actual historical figures. The real story seems much more interesting that the fiction, so I wonder why the writers bothered with the fiction at all. All the characters are completely fictional. I'm not sure a single true fact about any of the "real" characters is presented here, other than that they were involved in making silent movies. By the same token, if the writers were going to present a story that is their own creation, why not come up with something better? The rise and fall of glamourous Hollywood figures has presented drama for nearly a 100 years in various guises...surely, they could have come up with something better for a musical. We're also never really told what the issue is with Mabel's health in Act II, although we're left to assume that she's a drug and/or alcohol addict, which, again, we're told, but don't really see. As far as this production is concerned, the powers that be made some errors, the most destructive of which is that the juxtaposition of the events leading up to the murder of William Desmond Taylor and the funny, bouncy "Tap Your Troubles Away" is confusingly staged and I had trouble following the Taylor story. I literally kept losing Taylor, Mabel, and the other couple involved in the dancers doing the number and Alexandra Socha and the other actress were very similar in type and costumed similarly, so it was difficult to tell at times who was who. William Desmond Taylor is reconceived as a dancey, bisexual goodtime guy...from what I read, almost the complete opposite of what he was like in real life. Mabel's drug use is foreshadowed nicely in the first act when we see her popping pills to keep up the manic pace required by Sennett while making 2 reeler after 2 reeler, but doesn't really go anywhere in Act II, where we don't see her taking drugs, even those specifically handed to her by Taylor. In real life, Mabel's main health issue seems to have been TB, but that is not even mentioned here. So that's what's wrong with it, in my opinion. There was also some terrific stuff here other than the justifiably adored score, but you didn't ask about that. :) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT review | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 04:28 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT review - JereNYC 02:28 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| "The entire story presented by the musical is fictional, except that there are characters called Mack Sennett, Mabel Normand, Fatty Arbuckle, and William Desmond Taylor, which share names with actual historical figures. The real story seems much more interesting that the fiction, so I wonder why the writers bothered with the fiction at all. " I often have had the same question about other shows and movies based on real-life people and events. In this case, for instance, why on earth do you suppose that the writers of M&M decided to make Mabel Normand a "waitress from Flatbush" rather than what she actually was, a young model from Staten Island? Is that LESS interesting? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT review | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 08:03 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT review - Michael_Portantiere 04:28 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| As per Wikipedia (take that for what it’s worth), Mabel Normand was already a well known actress when she met Mack Sennett. Maybe they thought that him discovering her and making her a Star was a more dramatic story? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| *she | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 03:45 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 03:45 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT review - EvFoDr 03:32 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| The reviewer is Laura Collins-Hughes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: *she | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 03:48 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: *she - MockingbirdGirl 03:45 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you! Wow. Totally my bad. My brain was so certain this had to be Brantley that I rushed right past the byline. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Wow! That is a very generous review. | |
| Posted by: Amiens 03:27 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: NYT review - MockingbirdGirl 03:00 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| But when Mack & Mabel "....scarcely comes close to stirring emotion..." how can it be deemed successful? I do agree with her assessment of the orchestra's playing of the entr acte (the overture on the OBCR) as the emotional highlight of the evening. It was the only time I teared up. ***SPOILER*** And bringing down the gigantic photo portraits of Jerry Herman in the middle of it only reinforced the joyous sentiment. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wow! That is a very generous review. | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 03:36 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Wow! That is a very generous review. - Amiens 03:27 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Interesting. Awhile back I mentioned here that I'd heard that what is known as the overture on the OBCR was really the entracte, and was strongly challenged by those who claimed to have seen the original that the overture on the OBCR WAS the overture in the theatre. I am willing to concede that maybe at some point it was used as the overture, maybe a performance or two that only a few people saw? Who knows! But I'd always heard it was really the entracte. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Overture/Entr'acte | |
| Posted by: reed23 04:30 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Wow! That is a very generous review. - EvFoDr 03:36 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| The Overture on the original cast recording was the Entr'acte in the actual original Broadway show. I saw the show in 1974 at the Majestic, and have always remembered the stark opening, with a short brass-orchestrated intro for the rise of the curtain and Robert Preston's entrance; and I've always remembered the extended tune medley as the Entr'acte. A performance tape I heard recently confirmed my vivid recollection. Gower Champion was no fan of overtures, and his jumping right into opening scenes was a distinctive characteristic of his (CARNIVAL, HELLO, DOLLY! for instance.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Overture/Entr'acte | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 05:07 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 05:05 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Overture/Entr'acte - reed23 04:30 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| People better get back to their seats after intermission from the restrooms promptly if they want to hear the famous overture, considered one of the very best overtures ever, at least by its placement at the beginning of side A and its title "Overture" on the OCR! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I loved it! | |
| Posted by: LynnO 10:09 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Mack & Mabel tonight. - Amiens 11:29 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Wow, I know my taste is more pedestrian than the folks on this board, and I will admit a love for Sills... but I loved the show last night! It made sense to me why they fell in love so fast, and I liked their chemistry. Sills spoke quickly sometimes, but I heard every word, and I thought he sang beautifully. I teared up at the end, and I saw several people around me digging for kleenexes too. I loved it, I guess it’s vive la difference? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I loved it! | |
| Posted by: TomE 07:11 pm EST 02/22/20 | |
| In reply to: I loved it! - LynnO 10:09 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I saw the show this afternoon, and also found the story moving -- particularly the dock scene and the bittersweet reunion, when Mabel walks away as Mack continues singing to no one. Overall, I don't agree with many people's harsh view of the book -- and, of course, most of the music is wonderful in what struck me as a very well-performed and mostly well-staged production. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I loved it! | |
| Posted by: Bwayguy 02:40 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: I loved it! - LynnO 10:09 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Anyone think that Sills singing voice sounds just like Roger Bart's? I don't think the sound was a big problem but Sills was the biggest offender in needing to enunciate clearer. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I loved it! | |
| Posted by: mamaleh 05:31 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I loved it! - Bwayguy 02:40 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Sills has a gorgeous singing voice, but as others have noted here, his barked-out dialogue was often inaudible after the first couple of syllables. Still, imperfect as the show is, it was wonderful to see a relatively fleshed-out performance and hear that gorgeous score. The only professional production I’d ever seen had been at the State Theatre of New Jersey decades ago. It starred the chiseled Lee Horsely, at the time the star of a TV western series. The production added what I rightly assumed was a gratuitous shirtless scene to capitalize on his macho image. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 08:24 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Mack & Mabel tonight. - Amiens 11:29 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree that it was very hard to understand much of the dialogue and lyrics - Sills especially - but everyone. The sound designer, Kai Harada, is one of our best. FUN HOME and BANDS VISIT were his designs - so was HEAD OVER HEELS with the hideous blasting pre show music. Encores sound design usually falls to Scott Lehrer. There is no one working that can make these acoustic era shows sound acoustic - and crystal clear - like Scott can. He gets the sound, the aesthetic of these shows. Scott is doing PLAZA SUITE so was probably tied up out of town. Pity. MACK AND MABEL, like CANDIDE and MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG remains a great score in search of a book. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) | |
| Posted by: LynnO 09:55 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) - NewtonUK 08:24 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I was sitting on the left side of the orchestra and had no trouble hearing every word! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| But the people behind you | |
| Posted by: dramedy 01:14 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) - LynnO 09:55 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| View was blocked by your ear trumpet bugle horn | |
| Link | https://www.ebay.com/i/223833698849?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=223833698849&targetid=860671600301&device=m&mktype=pla&googleloc=1013585&poi=&campaignid=6469750489 |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Ha! | |
| Posted by: LynnO 01:52 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: But the people behind you - dramedy 01:14 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, you know that I am deaf in one ear, but luckily my hearing aid isn’t quite as big as a horn!! Lol | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) | |
| Posted by: dlevy 09:51 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) - NewtonUK 08:24 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Mack and Mabel is from 1974, not exactly the "acoustic era." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 11:01 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) - dlevy 09:51 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I call it this, because for shows like this, with 'musical theatre' songs rather than pop.rock, the goal was (and still is often) to make the shows sound as they did when acoustic, just more clearly cleanly audible to the back row. Not much different than my first show on Broadway, FIORELLO, in 1960. They were using floor mics, and they just bumped the sound a bit - but you could still actually hear the artists. Scott Lehrer did a great job doing this on all teh R&H shows at Lincoln Center. I was actually recently pleasantly surprised at AMERICAN UTOPIA (Which I loved) that the sound was not screechingly loud - it was just right - and I heard every lyric clearly, while enjoying the music immensely. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 09:27 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) - NewtonUK 08:24 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I was sitting in Row E of the Grand Tier last night and heard every word of the lyrics and dialogue clearly. Not sure where the two posters were sitting last night. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I was in Row A of the Grand Tier, off-center house left. | |
| Last Edit: Amiens 09:51 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| Posted by: Amiens 09:49 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) - lowwriter 09:27 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| For me the sound volume wasn't an issue. It was the garbling of words by Sills in dialogue and songs. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I was in Row A of the Grand Tier, off-center house left. | |
| Posted by: makemlaff 01:18 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: I was in Row A of the Grand Tier, off-center house left. - Amiens 09:49 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree completely about Sills being difficult to understand. Granted, the sound could have been better but it was mainly his vocal choices that kept me from understanding nearly anything he said or spoke. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I was in Row A of the Grand Tier, off-center house left. | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 10:20 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: I was in Row A of the Grand Tier, off-center house left. - Amiens 09:49 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| So I was sitting sitting in row E Grand Tier also house left and heard Sills perfectly. Is this an issue of where speakers are placed? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) | |
| Posted by: Snowysdad 08:52 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) - NewtonUK 08:24 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| To totally digress for a second: Could not agree with you more, all three are book heavy. Candide, my perpetual windmill (sometimes I fancy myself a bit of Don Quixote) is better served by Hellman's book, which no question is imperfect. At least her tone and Bernstein's score are in sync, while Wheeler's (RIP) is cartoonish in a way that Bernstein is decidedly not. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 09:12 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) - Snowysdad 08:52 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I always wondered what would have happened if Tom Stoppard was ever asked to do a revised book. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) | |
| Posted by: Snowysdad 06:04 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight (re the Sound) - NewtonUK 09:12 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Interesting thought. It couldn't have been worse than Wheeler's. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Mack & Mabel tonight. | |
| Posted by: Beevo_bway 06:26 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Mack & Mabel tonight. - Amiens 11:29 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Boy did you nail it on the head. What a disappointing mess of an evening. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Robert Preston and Bernadette Peters | |
| Posted by: Amiens 09:12 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight. - Beevo_bway 06:26 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| To elaborate a little on my post: It became so clear last night that the casting of those two original stars made up for so much of the lack of cohesion in the book (and even the lesser musical numbers). Their star quality and our familiarity with their personas was shorthand for why Mabel quickly became a beloved star, why Sennett was a revered genius and why they could so quickly and easily fall in love with each other despite their ages and other differences. The two stars took you along for the ride in a way that these two talented but only competent actors can't possibly achieve. Even if you've never seen Mack & Mabel, you get a sense of this from the OCR. This IMHO is what is missing from so much of Broadway musical theater these days. Stars that can lift the material to the stratosphere. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Robert Preston and Bernadette Peters | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 09:37 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Robert Preston and Bernadette Peters - Amiens 09:12 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| As I walking out of the theater last night, at least ta few people next to me praised Sills and Socha. So I guess I wasn’t the only one who enjoyed “the mess” last night. It’s ironic how last year several ATC posters begged Encores to do a complete Mack and Mabel after hearing Sills and Socha do a few songs as part of the first 2019 Encores. And now Sills and Socha are merely competent? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Robert Preston and Bernadette Peters | |
| Posted by: Roz5678 01:46 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Robert Preston and Bernadette Peters - lowwriter 09:37 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I subscribed to Encores because I was hoping they would one day stage Mack & Mabel. I don't think people were begging Encores to do the show only on the basis of seeing Sills and Socha do a few songs. In fact, after seeing "Hey, Look Me Over," I was really hoping they'd cast someone else in the top roles. I'm still glad I will finally get to see Mack & Mabel but I realize that, sadly, I am being unrealistic to expect to enjoy stars of the caliber of Robert Preston and Bernadette Peters. Oh how I wish that were not the case, though. Because I have seen some outstanding performances over the years at Encores. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Robert Preston and Bernadette Peters | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 10:07 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Robert Preston and Bernadette Peters - lowwriter 09:37 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| It’s ironic how last year several ATC posters begged Encores to do a complete Mack and Mabel after hearing Sills and Socha do a few songs as part of the first 2019 Encores. And now Sills and Socha are merely competent? I haven't seen the Encores production, and don't have a dog in this fight... but it's surely not incomprehensible that stars singing highlight songs in isolation might play better than a more fully realized production. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Mack & Mabel tonight. | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 02:16 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Mack & Mabel tonight. - Amiens 11:29 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I totally disagree! This was the first version of Mack and Mabel I’ve seen that worked. Both Douglas Sills and Alexandra Socha were ideally cast. There was huge applause after several numbers. I especially liked the choreography by Josh Rhodes who also worked on Encores’ satisfying Grand Hotel. I’m going back to see the show on Sunday night. I never saw the original Broadway production but I did see a Goodspeed version which was painful to sit through. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 03:17 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 03:15 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Mack & Mabel tonight. - lowwriter 02:16 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Looking back, I see ''Mack and Mabel'' got 8 Tony nominations in 1975, including Best Musical and Book, but pointedly not Score. This show famously has book problems, but that was such a gigantic snub of Jerry Herman's tuneful songs, like ''I Won't Send Roses.'' Here's what WAS nominated for Score: ''The Wiz,'' which won; ''Shenandoah,'' ''A Letter From Queen Victoria'' and ''The Lieutenant.'' I've never heard the music to the latter two shows. Could they have been that much better than ''Mack and Mabel''? |
|
| Link | N.Y. City Center posts highlights from 'Mack and Mabel' at Encores! |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 08:58 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - WaymanWong 03:15 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| It was clear out of town -- I saw it at the Kennedy Center, and was in my early 20s -- that the score was a keeper. You knew right away with "Look What Happened to Mabel," which Peters endearingly knocked out over our heads in the Opera House. The show felt out of focus, bloated, and digressive at times. But the songs, we knew right then, were great show music. I remember feeling "meh" but "can't wait to get the album." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: Ned3301 04:21 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - WaymanWong 03:15 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Some forces connected with the Tonys were presumably using the Best Score award to attack Jerry Herman and nominating more or less anything other than Mack and Mabel, to spite him. A Letter For [sic] Queen Victoria was not even a musical, but rather another of Robert Wilson's tedious plays with incidental music. I don't remember any songs in it at all. The Lieutenant got a cast album that was not released, and I'll leave it to others to comment on its qualifications for a Tony award. But to scorn Mack and Mabel, arguably among Herman's best work, reminds us how unstable the whole awards system is. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| the Tonys and Jerry Herman | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:15 pm EST 02/22/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - Ned3301 04:21 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Go figure. One of his best scores isn't nominated out of some spite, and then Sondheim who the Tonys generally adore writes one of his best and it loses to a Herman score that is wonderful but I don't even think as good M&M. What caused such spite for Herman at this time? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the Tonys and Jerry Herman | |
| Posted by: simbo 05:51 am EST 02/23/20 | |
| In reply to: the Tonys and Jerry Herman - Chazwaza 05:15 pm EST 02/22/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think you're assuming that the Tony voters in 1975 and 1984 were the same people. And I get the feeling Herman had fallen a lot out of fashion by 75 (it's almost impossible to imagine if it had been nominated, it wouldn't have lost to "The Wiz" anyway,). There was a slight feeling from the older members that he was a bit of a latterday arrival who hadn't quite earned his stripes (after all, from "Dolly" he'd been successfully sued for plagarism on the title song and also had an interpolation with "Elegance"), and from the younger members that he was out of touch with contemporary music. His last successful show was already 9 years in the past. And the show had been a fast-folding flop. It's not right, and it's not kind, but it's the case that some scores just aren't appreciated in their time. And Herman was not the kind of composer the 1970s generally were looking for. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the Tonys and Jerry Herman | |
| Last Edit: CCentero 10:11 am EST 02/23/20 | |
| Posted by: CCentero 09:59 am EST 02/23/20 | |
| In reply to: re: the Tonys and Jerry Herman - simbo 05:51 am EST 02/23/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with most of your assessment and would add that the old guard had suffered one failure after another during the time when Herman was riding high with two smash hits that contained songs that played endlessly on the radio and TV variety shows. The shows that toured and everyone wanted to do and in stock were Herman shows cheapened by aging stars. I don't think the Dolly plagiarism suit really figured into things all that much and it wasn't all that unusual for a show to contain one or two songs that were written by others. In any event, "Elegance" really isn't an important hit song that Herman got credit for. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 10:12 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - Ned3301 04:21 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Assuming it's true, can you elaborate on why some forces associated with the Tonys wanted to spite Jerry Herman? Did he do something terrible around this time that warranted spite? It DOES seem, which such a tuneful score, that they were going out of their way to nominate anything but Mack and Mabel. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 10:55 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - EvFoDr 10:12 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think there was any conspiracy to shut him out. But he had been hugely successful in the 60s with 2 shows that were seen as middle of the road star vehicles. Then came some big disappointments like DEAR WORLD and GRAND TOUR. I think he was perceived as passe in the world of Sondheim and pop rock musicals. How else could a show like THE LIEUTENANT (of which no one knows a single song) or a Robert Wilson piece with music could be nominated over a score like MACK AND MABEL? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: Jack1009 01:31 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - Billhaven 10:55 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Grand Tour came after Mack and Mabel | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 01:42 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - Jack1009 01:31 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| You are right! Sorry. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 03:05 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - Billhaven 01:42 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| For the record, the Tonys DID nominate Jerry Herman for ''The Grand Tour'' at the 1979 ceremonies. But they managed to snub another noted theater composer that year: Marvin Hamlisch (and lyricist Carole Bayer Sager). ''They're Playing Our Song'' got 4 Tony nominations, including Best Musical, but its Score was passed over. Sager wasn't the only female snubbed here. So was Carol Hall for ''The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.'' I wonder if ''Song'' was too pop for the Tony nominators, and ''Whorehouse'' was too country for their tastes. So who got nominated? ''Sweeney Todd,'' which won, along with ''The Grand Tour,'' ''Eubie!'' and ''Carmelina.'' |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: BillEadie 10:23 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - WaymanWong 03:05 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| And, as discussed a while back, the "Ballroom" score was also overlooked, despite a nomination for Best Musical and Best Book. Bill, in San Diego |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 11:40 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 11:39 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - BillEadie 10:23 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, the 1979 Best Musical nominees matched up 4-for-4 for Best Book, but only ''Sweeney'' was nominated for Best Score. Usually, Best Score matches up a lot with the Best Musical nominees, but not on this occasion. Go figure. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:13 am EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - WaymanWong 11:39 pm EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| In 1964, 110 in the Shade got a best score nomination, while She Loves Me did not, while the latter was nominated for best musical, and the former was not. The following year, Golden Boy was nominated for best musical, but not best score. One of the four best musical nominees was Oh What a Lovely War, which was not eligible for best score. Nominations for best score went to Fiddler and Half a Sixpence, both nominated for best musical, and Do I Hear a Waltz? and Roar of the Greasepaint, neither of which was nominated for best musical. And, of course, in 1963, Sondheim was not nominated for this Forum score, even though the show won best musical. The score for Bravo Giovanni was nominated over Forum. And in 1984, The Tap Dance Kid was nominated for best musical but not for best score, while The Rink was nominated for score but not musical. I'm pretty sure there are others. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 02:49 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - AlanScott 09:13 am EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| No doubt there are others, where a Best Musical wasn't nominated for Best Score, or vice versa, but that wasn't my point. In 1979, it seemed unusual that 3 of the 4 nominees for Score came from shows that weren't up for Best Musical. It happened in 1981, too: ''Woman of the Year,'' ''Charlie & Algernon,'' ''Copperfield'' and ''Shakespeare's Cabaret.'' |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:59 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - WaymanWong 02:49 pm EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| Sorry, Wayman. Didn't read carefully enough. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 11:20 am EST 02/21/20 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 11:17 am EST 02/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - AlanScott 09:13 am EST 02/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think "Tap Dance Kid" could have been one of the great shows if it had a better score. It had a really good, affecting book, performances and choreography. "The Rink" has a really good score (with maybe one clinker in there), so I think the nominators got it right that year. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 11:17 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Look what happened to 'Mabel' in 1975 - Billhaven 10:55 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| And oh how the pendulum swings---I guess they made it up to him in 1984 :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| What was the run time? | |
| Posted by: kieran 11:59 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
| In reply to: Mack & Mabel tonight. - Amiens 11:29 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: What was the run time? | |
| Posted by: Amiens 12:07 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: What was the run time? - kieran 11:59 pm EST 02/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I didn't clock it but would guess it was 2 hrs. & 35-45 minutes. Act II really dragged. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| thanks! | |
| Posted by: kieran 12:15 am EST 02/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: What was the run time? - Amiens 12:07 am EST 02/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.184170 seconds.