|Because Salad Days would have flopped and Charlie Girl would have been a disaster|
|Last Edit: AlanScott 01:09 am EDT 07/11/21|
|Posted by: AlanScott 01:08 am EDT 07/11/21|
|In reply to: "Charlie Girl" and "Salad Days" - both long West End runs - why not Broadway? - PlayWiz 07:47 am EDT 07/10/21|
|The reviews for the original production of Charlie Girl generally ranged from dismissive to derisive. The only reason to have produced it on Broadway would have been for the investors to get tax write-offs (if that was part of the tax code at the time). Charlie Girl was a hit in London despite the reviews. I can only imagine the Broadway reviews would have been even worse, and that not even the sort of makeover that Half a Sixpence got would have made them much better. And I can't imagine that any Broadway director or choreographer of note would have been interested in trying to do a makeover.
As others have said, Salad Days was an extremely twee, extremely British show, not to mention an intimate one. Brooks Atkinson wrote, "[N]o one can make anything funny out of such amateur horseplay," and Walter Kerr's review was basically "If you like this sort of thing, you'll probably like it." But I can't imagine anyone ran to the box office after reading his review or even took a leisurely stroll there. Some of the other reviews were more favorable, but not enough to make it a hit.
Just as some Broadway and Off-Broadway hits are not suited to London tastes, some London hits are not suited to New York tastes.
And Robert and Elizabeth would have been a disaster on Broadway.
|Previous:||re: "Charlie Girl" and "Salad Days" - both long West End runs - why not Broadway? - Jack1009 07:10 am EDT 07/11/21|
|Next:||I wonder if "Charlie Girl" might have cast someone like Bobby Darin in the male lead? - PlayWiz 11:22 am EDT 07/11/21|
Time to render: 0.033063 seconds.