Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long | |
| Posted by: ianx73 09:05 pm EDT 08/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| As a12-year-old pre gay boy, I had the breathtaking opportunity to see Barbra Streisand in Funny Girl. ($5.50 for a 5th row orchestra seat on a Wednesday matinee ) although my critical abilities were limited, I recognized theatrical electricity early on and boy was that show electric. I had never seen anyone like Barbra and was overwhelmed by her stage presence and immense talent. The experience remains emblazoned in my mind. A parlor game for gay men who love musicals was to cast the revival of Funny Girl and Lauren Ambrose (wtf) Leslie Kritzer great but no one has heard of her The closest agreed upon candidate was Lady Gaga but we knew that would never happened. When Beanie Feldstein was cast I was surprised but I like her and thought if she is being cast as Fanny she must have an extraordinary singing voice (Wrong!) and at least she wasn’t Leah Michele (Ha!)! So I decided instead of erasing my memory of the original I would skip this one When Julie Benko who I had heard great things about was going to do a month of performance, I thought let’s give it a try and saw the show Friday night First things first, Julie Benko is very good as Fanny. Her singing is exciting, her ability to convey the comic and dramatic aspects very effective. She is very appealing and managed to make the role her own rather than give a carbon cop of Streisand. All in all, she was a good choice to play the role. However, I don’t think that she exhibited the star magnetism to make this creaky show really soar. She did soar in the big numbers but I felt the production undermined her The direction by Michael Mayer is very lax and he didn’t find ways to give it the “socko pizazz” a show like this needs. The sets perhaps were the worst part culprits. Ugly doesn’t begin to describe them. The huge brick rotunda that is the focal point for the show is a monstrosity. When the action takes place in front it, it looks like they’re in a Soviet Union prison. Things get even worse when this thing opens up to reveal other scenes. Many scenes use these mirrors, which I guess are supposed to be smoky but instead just look dirty and cheap. The Ziegfeld numbers are gaudy but cheap and ugly The His Love Make Me Beautiful number doesn’t have a staircase for the girls to descend. Fanny comes unceremoniously out from the sides, completely undermining the humor and surprise. Those scenes are under populated and give no sense of the glamor of a Ziegfeld number, Let’s not even discuss the miserable and dated Rat Tat Tat number. Not only were the sets and costumes awful but also you could not tell who Fanny was supposed to be and bagels hanging around her waist?? The whole thing seemed inadvertently anti–Semitic. The house on Long Island looked cheap (this is the home a great star?) and the Henry Street number has some colored lights inside the Soviet monstrosity. The train station had a clock. Just a clock. You could’ve seen better sets in a college production. Were there budget limitations or is David Zinn just a limited designer The supporting cast was adequate . RR was fine but Nicky Arnstein is always a thankless role. Jane Lynch looked like she was playing Nettie Fowler in Carousel. Who in the hell thought that casting Jane Lynch as a turn of the century Jewish mother was a good idea?. When the stand out in the supporting cast is the woman playing Mrs. Strakosh, you’re in big trouble. I loved Jared Grimes as Eddie but the blind casting I think ran into narrative difficulties which I won’t go into here. An example of the uninspired direction was The Music that Makes Me Dance sequence. In the original, Fanny is in her dressing room waiting for Nick to return, from prison right before she to appear on stage to her big torch song . She sings the introduction (I add 2 and 2, the most simple addition) ) backstage. As the song moves into the body ( I know he’s around) ., Fanny steps out of her dressing gown and moves onstage revealing a glittering black outfit as an off stage voices announces Ladies and gentlemen Florenz Ziegfeld proudly presents Fanny Brice It’s coup de theatre of the first order One that I remember to this day. In this production she just sings it in her dressing room to not much effect. (just another ballad) I would like to see Julie do this role or another musical theater classic in a firs rate production and then I think then we might see the making of a star |
|
| reply to this message |
| A couple of text corrections | |
| Last Edit: ianx73 11:03 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| Posted by: ianx73 11:02 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long - ianx73 09:05 pm EDT 08/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| Please excuse the errors in my text. Somehow my edits didn't make it to the final version. RR is of course Ramin Karimloo before she to appear on stage to her big torch song . should be before she is to appear on stage to sing her big torch song. Offstage voices should be a singular voice And of course Leah should be Lea Thank you for indulging my ocd |
|
| reply to this message |
| Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm | |
| Posted by: young-walsingham 07:43 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long - ianx73 09:05 pm EDT 08/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm | |
| Posted by: Lapsedfan 05:40 pm EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm - young-walsingham 07:43 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| I remember reading a magazine article at the time that talked about the primitive body miking in Funny Girl. It is recounted in Peter Filichia's book "Broadway Musical MVPs: 1960-2010." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The national tour used mics | |
| Posted by: aleck 10:03 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm - young-walsingham 07:43 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| I remember the (ineffective) Marilyn Michaals in the role. She was miked. You could hear her costume rustling against the microphone. Only the major players were miked. No one else. It was very primative. And a really boring experience. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm | |
| Posted by: tmdonahue 08:27 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm - young-walsingham 07:43 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| To actually address your question. I didn't see the original FG. I was twelve. But my later partner/husband did. He told the anecdote several times that he got home from seeing it and told his roommate, "It's a radio show," meaning miked throughout. Jim was a theatergoer and to his knowledge, FG was the first show to use radio mikes. Before that, if shows were amplified at all they used ground row mikes, mikes on the front of the stage floor, that amplified the sound generally. The early radio miked shows had problems of course: occasional feedback, sometime local signals such as from police seeping into the feed. And of course, the stardom of Ethel Merman and Mary Martin et al were based in part that they had voices that could carry to the balconies along with enunciation that could put across lyrics most audience members had never heard before. (There was more to their talents that just this.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:54 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm - tmdonahue 08:27 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| Streisand wore a body mike. A number of other star performers had preceded her in wearing body mikes on Broadway. As far as I know, no one else in the cast wore one. I think some book or article implies that everyone was miked, but that would have been bizarre on Broadway in 1964, and I think it is not true. Floor mikes came along fairly early in the careers of Merman and Martin. Martin may have been the first person to wear a body mike on Broadway. That was in Peter Pan, but (if we can trust what she said) it was turned only when she was flying. She was also wore one in Hello, Dolly! on tour and elsewhere, and I believe she wore on in I Do! I Do! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm | |
| Posted by: Amiens 10:45 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm - AlanScott 08:54 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| Alan, do you (or does anyone) know where these body mics on Streisand and Martin were situated on their bodies or costumes? Not that I doubt that they wore them, but I can't recall ever seeing evidence of the mics in production photos. Were the mics really that tiny and able to be placed so far from their mouths that they wouldn't be seen? I saw Streisand in Funny Girl when I was a teenager but could have easily missed spotting her mic. I had been a precocious young fan since her first album and was disappointed to see her more or less "walk through" the first numbers in the show, before I even understood the term. She finally came alive singing People and was then, as expected, brilliant throughout the rest of the show. Also, those bagels hanging from Private Schwartz's belt were even there in the original production, painted red, white and blue. I think they can be glimpsed in color photos (I still haven't seen the revival). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:11 pm EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm - Amiens 10:45 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think body mikes back then were always on the costumes, usually in the chest area. They were relatively easy to hide in the costumes or to be made to seem part of the costume. In her autobiography, Martin says that even though she was fairly flat-chested until she was 50, she still had to try to flatten her breasts as Peter Pan. So she wore a girdle with the legs cut off and she "pulled it on upside down," over her shoulders. She wrote, "The cut-down girdle was also handy for holding the microphone, because all during the 'I'm Flying' number I was sailing so high into the wings that the sound wouldn't come down unaided. I had a mike which slipped into a little green pocket where the girdle and I met at the top. The batteries for the mike were attached to my harness by a belt at the back, and I used it only during the flying ballet." It may be that some performers who were body mikes in performance did not wear them at photo sessions. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Fascinating! | |
| Posted by: Amiens 07:41 pm EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm - AlanScott 07:11 pm EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for your response, Alan. I find it so interesting that whatever the mikes were like back then, they were apparently very successfully hidden. How distressing that modern mics have been so readily accepted as something we're "not supposed to see" yet are often glaringly evident on too many foreheads. Clearly, the sound designers won the battle over the costume and wig designers. And not be argumentative, but there are so many production photos of Streisand in FG, and her gowns for People, You Are Woman and Music That Makes Me Dance are all quite low cut in the neck line.....can it really be those photos are all from staged photo shoots where the mikes could be removed? That's still a bit of a mystery to me. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Fascinating! | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:13 pm EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: Fascinating! - Amiens 07:41 pm EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| She's still with us...someone should ask her lol. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm | |
| Posted by: Delvino 10:11 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm - AlanScott 08:54 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| I always appreciate this mic discussions. I suspect the first obvious miking that I heard -- Pearl Bailey's Dolly, National Theater tryout, Washington DC (high school; fall of '67) -- might've been something like the Streisand sound. It was obvious that no one else had a mic but Bailey, and it had a decided "captured" quality, a sense of the performance standing apart. My mom and I even talked about it on the drive home. The Bailey vocals were charming -- she could certainly sing beautifully -- but hers was not a big voice, and the mic made sense. Yet it was odd that her dialog stood out, too. If memory serves. I was of course startled to learn that Promises, Promises (which I saw in the same DC theater in the fall of '68), famously one of the first shows to carefully structure and isolate instruments in the pit and allow the sound mix from the back of the house, per the composer's wishes, did not use body mics (I have a friend who stood by for Fran). People have argued this for years, but as the expert Alan notes, it's never been an exact science until recent decades. I'm now wondering how obviously the Streisand vocals stood apart. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm | |
| Posted by: BroadwayLover 10:45 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Did Barbra fill the theatre with sound naturally or was there amplification in 1964? nm - Delvino 10:11 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| There is a recent interview with Mimi Hines, Streisand's successor, during which she discusses the primitive mic she used while playing Fanny. This was likely the same type of mic that Barbra used. I strongly urge Funny Girl fans to view this Mimi Hines YouTube video. By the way, I saw Mimi in FG and she was very different that Streisand but equally terrific. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long | |
| Posted by: Pokernight 01:15 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long - ianx73 09:05 pm EDT 08/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| As someone who saw Streisand at the Bon Soir, in "Wholesale", and ultimately in "Funny Girl" as well as in several concerts, the Beanie casting seemed absurd. I don't know that anyone could achieve what Streisand did, so it was probably best to have never revived this at all. Those of us who have seen Streisand in person know that this phenomenon can't be replicated. To quote Liza Minnelli's response, when asked to sing 'Over The Rainbow"...'It's Been Done' is the only response to this quandary. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long | |
| Posted by: Pokernight 09:52 pm EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long - Pokernight 01:15 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| To those who objected: why did nothing happen for Mimi Hines (who I love and saw in a Reprise production of "On the 20th Century" where she was superb) or why didn't this revival consider Leslie Kritzer? And what does it mean that "Streisand wasn't Streisand back then? After several luminaries turned down the role, SHE made it happen. Without HER, we wouldn't know about a show called "Funny Girl." or an Oscar winning movie. Was Ethel Merman Ethel Merman in "Anything Goes?" Yes. the book is feeble and the "new" book even feebler, yet it worked with Barbra on stage and on screen. Enough! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 01:00 pm EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long - Pokernight 01:15 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| I recognize that Streisand is a singular talent but Mimi Hines was great in Funny Girl and was nothing like Streisand. And I have enjoyed Leslie Kritzer as Fanny and I think Julie Benko is currently wonderful in the part. I don’t think Funny Girl needs Streisand to work. I am so glad I got to hear the score again on Broadway. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long | |
| Posted by: Ann 05:13 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long - Pokernight 01:15 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| But ithink the majority of today's Broadway audience members did not see Streisand (especially on Broadway and even the movie). So, potential ticket buyers don't know it's "been done," so why shouldn't it be revived? (I think a better argument would be that it's not a great musical, but has a reputation of being one.) Just my opinion. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long | |
| Posted by: Delvino 10:48 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long - Ann 05:13 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree. As I said to someone after I saw it, "Who knew that Funny Girl only deserved Encores?" The book issues are so structural, the Fierstein work is almost irrelevant. This house didn't need a coat of paint; it needed a new basement. It's startling to watch how the show strains to contain its root-for: an unlikely star aiming for a shot at the bigtime. A perfectly legitimate story construct that's actually undercut rather than helped by the romantic plot, which intrudes on act one -- sorry, the way it plays out -- as the biggest obstacle in Fanny's life, not enhancement. Yes, okay, that seemingly makes her story complicated. But the show doesn't seem to know how it feels about Nick, and Fanny's accommodations. The scene that gives us the signature act one close to me makes no storytelling sense. This woman abandons the sought-after career in a heartbeat to belt a vehement warning to anyone who dares stop her, including Ziegfeld. She then gets the guy, to a point, and spends an hour wrestling with what we already know: he's woefully unworthy of her. Maybe that's a complex love story, but if it is, the show doesn't set it up. Does Fanny dream of being loved? Not really; she's the greatest star. Nick is suddenly a goal demanding the jettisoning of a career, and then an obstacle. And the second act -- Styne triumphs aside -- just grinds on until the titular character faces her bad choice. To me, and others disagree, it's so fundamentally wrong-headed as satisfying story, it's just unfixable. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 : Streisand wasnt quite 'Streisand' when FUNNY GIRL was on Broadway ... | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 06:48 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long - Ann 05:13 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| And there were several terrific Fanny Brice's in FUNNY GIRL in the original production and tour. Mimi Hines was great, and Marilyn Michaels, who did the National that came to the West Coast, was very fine as well. Streisand had not become a household word, an icon. She was still a very funny, slightly gawky young woman, with an amazing voice, and charisma by the barrelful. But one didnt feel cheated or let down by seeing Hines or Michaels. We were still seeing (and hearing) FUNNY GIRL. Mimi Hines is, appropriately, brought up a lot - she did the last 18 months of the Broadway run, and was universally admired, loved in the role. We didn't feel cheated at all when we saw her, The problem with this revival was very simple. Fanny is a 'big sing' for anyone. The role requires you to be able to belt and croon and everything in between. It requires you to act. And it requires you to be a very funny actor indeed - with clowning instincts. Streisand and Hines both had these in spades. The book was never very good - but it did its job well enough without Mr Fierstein's ministrations - and definitely without adding 2d drawer songs from the film for no good reason. When Ms Feldstein was announced for the role, there was indeed general consternation among many musical theatre fans. Could she sing? Could she be funny on stage? Could she act it? Why would Nicky fall for her? (Fanny wasnt especially sexy. Barbara was. The role was written to accommodate that) . We all know the answers to these questions. Now Ms Michele will be taking over. We know (we think) that she can sing it. There is no documentary proof that she can be funny. We'll see in a few weeks. Despite sniping on this board, Both Sheridan Smith and Natasha Barnes did a lovely job with this role in the UK. Neither can sing like Streisand, but they can sing well and put over the material. ANd both can be very funny. The production was small scale, unpretentious, and worked like a charm. Besides a major casting miscalculation by the producer and director - they also erred, IMHO, by not creating an entirely new production for Broadway. Part of what made FUNNY GIRL work was that it was a big show business tale - sets, costumes, lighting, a big band. The producers decided to keep the low tech, small scale, (yes, ugly) UK production values. That hasnt helped either. FUNNY GIRL's cast of 43 was reduced to 22. A 14 piece orchestra replaced the original orchestra of at least 24. The brass section n Chris Walker's orchestration (and he is a great orchestartor), is 2 trumpets, a trombone, and a french horn. Originally it was 3 trumpets and 3 trombones. There are currently 3 reed players. Originally there were 5. Today one percussionist, Back then, 3. Today 2 keyboards, 2 violins, cello and bass. Then a full string section. It makes a difference. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 : Streisand wasnt quite 'Streisand' when FUNNY GIRL was on Broadway ... | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 01:03 pm EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 : Streisand wasnt quite 'Streisand' when FUNNY GIRL was on Broadway ... - NewtonUK 06:48 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| So have you seen Julie Benko who can sing and act the part extremely well? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 : Streisand wasnt quite 'Streisand' when FUNNY GIRL was on Broadway ... | |
| Posted by: raydan 08:08 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 : Streisand wasnt quite 'Streisand' when FUNNY GIRL was on Broadway ... - NewtonUK 06:48 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| Agree with your post sooooo…is there any precedent on Broadway where the producer/backers say…..”we heard the opinions, we read the reviews and for this new leads cast, we’re putting in another $750k to cover the costs of better sets, costumes and additional musicians.” ? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Funny that you mention Mrs Strakosh. | |
| Posted by: Genealley 01:08 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long - ianx73 09:05 pm EDT 08/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| Toni DiBuono was the only well cast person in the show. IMHO. Will never forget her in the original FORBIDDEN BROADWAY! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long | |
| Posted by: dreamawakening 12:24 am EDT 08/08/22 | |
| In reply to: Funny Girl 1964 vs 2022 Very Long - ianx73 09:05 pm EDT 08/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for such a thoughtful intelligent opinionated post. I wish more people here wrote posts like this, myself included! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 2.123374 seconds.