Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.023414 seconds.