Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Last Edit: ryhog 03:02 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| Posted by: ryhog 02:59 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I didn't see this posted. Hope I didn't miss it it someone else did. Produced by Jeffrey Seller, directed by Kail, likely at the Lunt, capitalized at $14.5mil, projected weekly at $840k. | |
| reply to this message |
| Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... | |
| Posted by: DistantDrumming 10:15 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - ryhog 02:59 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Groban strikes me as bizarre casting and I am not looking forward to his pop-bari-tenor vocals. I know he's done theatre and that he has deep respect for Sondheim, but he seems completely off for this role. I know he's in his early 40s now, but he still reads somewhat boyish. How are his dramatic acting chops? I've only seen him on screen hamming it up and I'll admit he's got pretty good comedic timing, but he doesn't seem at all 'heavy' enough for Sweeney. Is he really that big of a draw that they couldn't find someone more suitable for the role? I'm relieved to hear there will be a full orchestra, though, conveniently, there's no definition of what a full orchestra's size is. It won't take much to dwarf the orchestras of the revivals. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... | |
| Posted by: StageLover 08:31 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... - DistantDrumming 10:15 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| "and I am not looking forward to his pop-bari-tenor vocals." The good news is, no one's forcing you to go. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... | |
| Posted by: DistantDrumming 09:55 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... - StageLover 08:31 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I mean, sure. But, we're allowed to express disappointment in what (it appears) many of us find puzzling casting for the title role in what might be the first 'full production value' revival of a beloved Sondheim classic on Broadway. I have nothing against Grobanites and their devotion to this man even though I personally find him milquetoast and dull. But, he's essentially his generation's king of easy listening. I don't think it should be a shock that many of us are disappointed in this casting. It's not a stretch to think this could be the last major revival of Sweeney in some people's lifetimes, so a desire to get it right isn't unfair. I'll happily eat my hat if he turns out to surprise us, but I have very strong doubts and will be interested to learn more about understudies and standbys. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:27 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... - DistantDrumming 09:55 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| It's not a stretch to think this could be the last major revival of Sweeney in some people's lifetimes, so a desire to get it right isn't unfair. Every revival of anything is the last major revival in some people's lifetimes. Are you just talking about yourself, lol? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Groban cannot act | |
| Posted by: manchurch03104 07:11 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... - DistantDrumming 10:15 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with you. Bad casting choice. Sweeney, Jr. for sure. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Groban cannot act | |
| Posted by: jeffef 10:24 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: Groban cannot act - manchurch03104 07:11 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| What do you base this assessment upon? I was first introduced to him on Allie McBeal. Very convincing. Excellent voice. It will all come down to direction. I didn’t get to see him in Natasha… |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Everyone can act | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 07:14 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: Groban cannot act - manchurch03104 07:11 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| We’re all innately capable of good acting. Josh is no exception. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... | |
| Posted by: TGWW 05:27 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... - DistantDrumming 10:15 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Dude, Sondheim approved Johnny Depp for Sweeney, you have nothing to worry about. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I'm not sure what I might have been joking about. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:14 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Bizarre, but.... you're joking.... - DistantDrumming 10:15 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I am wondering if you posted in the wrong place? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I'm not sure what I might have been joking about. | |
| Posted by: DistantDrumming 11:35 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: I'm not sure what I might have been joking about. - ryhog 11:14 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| No, not at all. It's just a Sondheim lyric (from Night Music). "Bizarre" was the first word that came to mind when reading about Groban's casting. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I'm not sure what I might have been joking about. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:08 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I'm not sure what I might have been joking about. - DistantDrumming 11:35 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Ah, I knew the quote, just didn't understand the application but it's all good. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 03:55 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - ryhog 02:59 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think I've seen anything about it here, but it's been on the other board for a while, on info from a poster who's apparently considered a reliable insider. Although Schoenfeld in the fall was, IIRC, the prediction. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Thom915 03:51 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - ryhog 02:59 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, this will be a challenge for Groban and I hope he pulls it off. If Merrily moves as has been suggested it will mean three Sondheim revivals in a single season on Broadway. (on the other hand I think that Merrily will have to have stupendous reviews at least for the three principals for a move to be likely) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:30 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Thom915 03:51 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I certainly hope they aren't on Broadway and Tony eligible at the same time. It does neither show any good to compete against another high profile Sondheim show at the Tonys. And since the extremely buzzed about and acclaimed and high concept John Doyle Sweeney revival somehow lost the Tony to The Pajama Game... I think this one is even more likely to take it home if it's as good as it could be. And of course Merrily has been waiting for its due for decades, and despite this being based on and remounted from an embarrassingly bad production (that many seemed to love and rave about), it's a tough show to sell... I think it also has a lot of good will behind it with Sondheim's passing, I am willing to bet most Tony voters want to vote for it unless they're given reason not to. And the of course there's Into the Woods... which is beloved as a show and critically acclaimed as a production. It stands a very good chance as well, in any season. But we have had SOOOOO much Into the Woods since the original, including the Lapine revival which won the Tony also... I can see this production just not having the momentum or appearance of the *need* for a Tony win for Revival by the time voting comes around. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 03:57 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Thom915 03:51 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Reviews will be helpful for MERRILY, but I think a transfer to Broadway hinges on one question only: Does Daniel Radcliffe want to do it? The off-Broadway production wouldn't have happened without Radcliffe and I think that would be the case with every single production Radcliffe has done in New York and London. Apparently, he sells tickets. And that's all that really matters to producers. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 08:45 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:39 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - JereNYC 03:57 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I genuinely do not think he'd have signed up for this production if he didn't want that to happen. Assuming it goes well at NYTW... a safer place for it to quietly fail or do its respectable run for those who care and then go away. But if it is a ticket hit or a critics hit, why wouldn't he want to take it to Broadway even just for a brief run where he can continue in what would then be a supporter and acclaimed production, and with the likely chance of Tony noms or wins to add to it? He's done already FOUR productions on Broadway and has had excellent reviews, generally strong box office power, and has not gotten a single Tony nomination. This includes starring in a big musical, with one of the biggest male lead roles there are, and he was not nominated for that. He worked very hard for that production (sadly under a misguided director), and I have no doubt he wants a chance at at least a nomination for a Tony nomination, if not a win. And in a Sondheim show? THIS Sondheim show that is such a famous but beloved blight on his record, but that has so many fans anyway, a show many will be rooting for to reestablish itself as a working musical after being a legendary flop? Especially right after Sondheim passes? He's been committed to doing theater more consistently than most movie stars with name power... and he keeps coming back, even off-Broadway. Of course he's not a super star name, but he still has a massive following, and does solid work on stage. I feel confident moving this to Broadway is something he wants if the reception of this production off-broadway warrants a move in the first place. (Again, even with this cast, if it's anything like Maria's direction/production filmed from London... I would say it doesn't need to be on Broadway, but I am genuinely hoping for the best). And if it moves but then doesn't do well on Broadway or the Tonys "snub" him again for it, he will still come off very well, and without the pressure of having opened Merrily's first broadway revival directly ON broadway. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway | |
| Posted by: mikem 11:21 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway - Chazwaza 08:39 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I am sure Radcliffe would jump at the chance to play Charley Kringas on Broadway, but fortunately I don't think he is choosing his roles based on awards potential. Charley Kringas is not the role to pick if you're laser-focused on getting a Tony nomination. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:21 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway - mikem 11:21 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I disagree about the latter point. If you put Charlie in Featured, the role has a big comic number, which is Featured bait, as well as the chance to show gravitas. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 02:03 am EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway - Singapore/Fling 12:21 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Radcliffe will be above the title, so he's automatically Leading. ''Merrily'' could petition the Tonys to bump him down to Featured. Only time will tell how the Tonys rule. It seems they oftentimes grant petitions, but they have the discretion to turn them down, too. Meantime, maybe it's a foregone conclusion, but ''Merrily'' still needs to be announced for Broadway. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| people have won Tonys for less than what is required of Charley... which is, also, a standout character with fantastic songs/scenes... | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:51 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway - Singapore/Fling 12:21 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| This isn't him playing Joe... He is one of the 3 central characters, with several fantastic songs to show range and depth in comedy and drama. The most likely to get Tony recognition of course is Mary, but then Charley... the least likely is Frank. But Groff already has 2 Tony noms (and Mendez has a Tony). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 12:14 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 12:08 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway - mikem 11:21 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with Mikem. I believe Radcliffe does theater that interests him, and that winning awards isn't what motivates him. Also, Charlie Kringas isn't an especially award-baity role. I can't think of any actor who's been nominated for a notable award for that role. Malcolm Gets got a 1995 Drama Desk nomination and Daniel Evans won a 2001 Olivier Award, but those were for playing Franklin Shepard. Anyway, to get back to Radcliffe, back in 2011, he was passed over for a Tony nomination for starring in ''How to Succeed.'' His reaction? He said he was flattered to be thought of in the same class as that season's nominated actors, which included Norbert Leo Butz, Josh Gad and Andrew Rannells. However, Radcliffe added: ''The thing that shocked me was everybody else’s reaction to me, and how they started treating me — because it was like I lost a relative. In my opinion, it was sweet, but over the top. People would ask me, ‘Are you OK?’ And I’d go, ‘I’m really OK!’ ''I think I speak for 99% of actors when I say that the reason we do this job, while it’s lovely to get recognized by your peers, it’s not the reason why we do it. The people that do this job for awards and recognition are kind of worshiping at the wrong altar.'' (For the record, Radcliffe has 3 Drama Desk nominations: for ''Equus,'' ''How to Succeed'' and ''The Cripple of Inishmaan.'') |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 02:55 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:54 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway - WaymanWong 12:08 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I didn't say he was motivated to do the show for the chance at a Tony. I'm speculating, I think very reasonably, why he would not only want this Merrily to transfer to broadway (assuming it's well received), but be planning for that possibility in taking the role in the first place. Obviously if he was hell bent on a Tony nom for his next show, this wouldn't be what anyone would consider a slam dunk. But I do think if this show is well reviewed and moves to Broadway, there's very little chance that all 3 are not nominated for Tonys. Whether they have a shot to win is another story, but I do absolutely think Radcliffe would get that elusive first Tony nom for this if it transfers. And though I don't think that likely possibility is why he was motivated to take the role, or the sole reason he'd want it to move to Broadway, I am certain he and his team are very aware of this element being at play. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 01:54 am EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway - Chazwaza 02:54 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I suspect, we, as Tony junkies, give this more much thought and time than Radcliffe ever does. ;) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Daniel Evans played Charley. Julian Ovenden was Franklin. And . . . | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 02:40 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:34 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I have no doubt Daniel Radcliffe wants to do Merrily on Broadway - WaymanWong 12:08 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| . . . it seems to me that Charley is exactly the sort of role for which actors get nominated and sometimes win, with Evans being an example. Ovenden was not nominated. Admittedly, Damian Humbley was not nominated for the first incarnation of the Friedman production. Neither was Mark Umbers. There was some surprise about this at the time. Perhaps a problem with actors getting nominated for playing Charley is the question of category: lead or supporting/featured? And obviously Lonny Price was not nominated for a Tony, but the only Tony nomination for the original production went to Sondheim. The only Drama Desk nominations went to Sondheim. It looks like the Drama Desk decided not to give awards in 1995 for featured actor and actress in a musical. That may be why Adam Heller was not nominated, although some people who probably should have been in featured, had the categories been there, were nominated in leading categories. I would put Charley in supporting or featured. In 1990, both Victor Garber and David Garrison were nominated for Hayes awards as leading actor in a musical for the Arena Stage Merrily. Garrison won the award, in a tie with Scott Morgan for Children With Stones at the Source Theatre. David Eric played Charley in the 1983 Los Angeles production and won an L.A. Weekly award and a Drama-Logue award for his performance. All three leads — Kevin Gudahl (Franklin), Judy Kaplan (Mary), Frank Farrell (Charley) — in the 1985 Pegasus production in Chicago were nominated for Jefferson awards, which in those days were just generally for performance rather than having specific categories, and then there were a certain number of winners. I guess kind of like the Drama Desk awards in the early 1970s. Anyway, Kaplan won one of the awards. (And I just called Charley one of the three leads, while earlier I said that I would put the role in supporting or featured. It's that kind of role.) OK, enough research for tonight. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Daniel Evans played Charley. Julian Ovenden was Franklin. And . . . | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:35 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: Daniel Evans played Charley. Julian Ovenden was Franklin. And . . . - AlanScott 02:34 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Admittedly, Damian Humbley was not nominated for the first incarnation of the Friedman production. Neither was Mark Umbers. There was some surprise about this at the time. I was not happy with Umbers either in the original video of the production, or when he played the role in Boston (Huntington THeatre, 2017). So no surprise from me. Humbley, on the other hand, was very good IMO. But also IMO, there was really no overwhelming reason to cast the 3 leads "out of town" for the Boston production, aside from the fact that I assume that the 2 men came with the territory. The Boston actors who played the supporting cast were equally as good. Having Eden Espinosa as Mary was great, but in particular, the 2 men could have been local actors and it might have been even better. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Daniel Evans played Charley. Julian Ovenden was Franklin. And . . . | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:26 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Daniel Evans played Charley. Julian Ovenden was Franklin. And . . . - Chromolume 12:35 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I thought Humbley was the best Charley I had seen since Lonny Price, to the degree that I could judge from the film. I thought he could have found a bit more variety, but still I thought he was the best since Price. I had rather mixed feelings about it overall. It certainly didn't convince me that the revision is an improvement rather than a diminishment. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Daniel Evans played Charley. Julian Ovenden was Franklin. And . . . | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:24 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Daniel Evans played Charley. Julian Ovenden was Franklin. And . . . - Chromolume 12:35 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Funny, I thought Umbers was the best thing about that production... which sounds like faint praise, since I don't think it's a great version of the show, but I did find him quite compelling. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Wow, Alan, you really did your research | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 03:46 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 03:33 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: Daniel Evans played Charley. Julian Ovenden was Franklin. And . . . - AlanScott 02:34 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I usually focus on N.Y. or London awards of note (not so much L.A., D.C. or Chicago). ... And I stand corrected about Evans. The one time I've seen Evans on Broadway is in the 2008 revival of ''Sunday in the Park With George,'' where he played the title role. I assumed he played Frank in ''Merrily'' because he won Best Actor. I always think of Frank as being the lead role and Charlie being supporting. ''Merrily'' is the tale of 3 friends, but for me, the story revolves more around Frank's arc and how he changes the most (i.e., sells out, rationalizes). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wow, Alan, you really did your research | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:31 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: Wow, Alan, you really did your research - WaymanWong 03:33 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| It wasn't really all that much work. Just had to check on a couple of names I didn't remember and then check on the relevant awards. The first part was easy because of the info on ovrtur, and the second was pretty easy because of ProQuest. It took a bit of time, but less than I have spent on answers to a lot of other questions here over the years. I agree that the show revolves around Frank's arc. Charley is a great role, and perhaps even a bigger role than some roles that I would consider leads, but functionally he is a supporting character. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:21 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - JereNYC 03:57 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Hard to imagine a Merrily that truly hinges on the guy playing Charley. That, and that awful set. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Thom915 05:28 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - JereNYC 03:57 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Radcliffe will have to be part of the deal to make the move feasible, true enough (part of the reason may be that I for one have never been really disappointed in a Radcliffe performance, perhaps in the play he was in butalways felt his performance was worth seeing) but in order to really make a transfer and not just an OOB extension viable, the reviews must be really really good. he is not a Hugh Jackman nor a Daniel Craig. His first few outings in theater maybe but now he is just a star not a phenomenon. :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Last Edit: Roman 03:51 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| Posted by: Roman 03:44 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - ryhog 02:59 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Aww, nuts. I was holding out for Toni Collette or Donna Murphy (yeah, I said it — come at me! She’d be a sensational Lovett. And the age difference would be an interesting angle.) I’m still annoyed by the tics, dips, and just flat out weird and increasingly odd choices Ashford made the longer her Kinky Boots run went. It was nuts. She was in another show altogether. I’m afraid she’ll mug her way through Lovett. I sure hope not, but I am in no way convinced this is the right role for her. Hers is not thoughtful casting. Collette or Murphy paired with Groban would make this a very, very big event. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: mikem 09:57 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Roman 03:44 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think Ashford is extremely talented, but I find she often seems to prioritize going for the laugh, even if it sacrifices being true to the character. Quirky inflections amuse the audience, but when she speaks or gestures in a way no real human being would speak or gesture, it takes me right out of the show. I wish she would trust her gifts and stop going for the cheap laugh. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 07:16 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - mikem 09:57 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Are we just talking about Kinky Boots? Or is this the case with other projects? I thought her performance as Paula Jones in impeachment was pitch perfect. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Jason 05:18 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Roman 03:44 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| As much as I like Groban and Ashford and consider them very talented, the casting doesn't excite me. It feels a bit uninspired. Would love for them to prove me wrong though. Now, Toni Collette as Mrs. Lovett is brilliant. Can we just remake the movie and cast her? Donna Murphy would be wonderful too. She's one of those actresses who surprises you with her outstanding comedic chops. What I've seen of her Cora Hoover Hooper was fabulous! Take care, Jason |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 03:54 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Roman 03:44 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Did Ashford do that as Dot? Or in any other role? I mean, I would make the same comment about Ben Platt in Dear Evan Hansen, which I started calling Tic Tic Platt. But has he done it in other roles? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Last Edit: Roman 04:05 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| Posted by: Roman 04:02 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Chromolume 03:54 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Ha ha — oooh, I’m gonna remember Tic Tic Platt. She was a fine Dot. No Peters or Plunkett. Not much room for mugging in Sunday. Importantly, though, that was a limited engagement. She stayed with the open-ended Kinky Boots too long. It was as if she got bored and did these odd histrionics to keep herself entertained. It was something (confusing, frustrating, irritating). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 04:11 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:07 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Roman 04:02 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| The other problem with Ashford's take on Lauren is that everyone else seemingly thought it was written that way. When women started using "The History Of Wrong Guys" as an audition song, I wanted to tear my hair out from the awful Ashford impressions I heard... Very much to her credit, one of my former students, Lauren Chapman, who was in the Broadway company and the tour, and covered the role of Lauren, did her own honest take on the song. Still quirky, but without it being the "point" of the performance. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:21 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Chromolume 04:07 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| She had the advantage of being able to play the part within her own name. No doubt inducing greater honesty. :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:26 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - ryhog 04:21 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Though of course she never sings her own name. Just Cha------ah-----leeeeeeee....:-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 04:01 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Chromolume 03:54 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Sunday probably didn't run long enough. Though her Dot was an...active interpretation? Lots of little highlights and underlines, not to the point of feeling like she didn't trust the material, but more than might be usual. She made it work...I wouldn't have called it overly fussy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: pecansforall 03:03 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - ryhog 02:59 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Is this a fact? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: ryhog 03:14 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - pecansforall 03:03 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I did not post the link that Ann posted below because I thought Boroff had it paywalled. In case it is, the fact is that the info is from the offering, which might not mean much in every case but with Seller at the reins and with the talent lined up, I would say it is pretty close to a definite. They will certainly have the money. I forgot to add: Spring 2023. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Ann 03:06 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - pecansforall 03:03 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Link | Per here |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Unhookthestars 03:51 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Ann 03:06 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| “… with a full orchestra playing the score.” That’s music to my ears. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Roman 04:07 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Unhookthestars 03:51 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| The orchestra and orchestrations on the OBC are as much a character as Lovett or Todd, no? Just goose-bump raising. So it’s reassuring to know that we’ll get a full orchestra. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Unhookthestars 04:13 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Roman 04:07 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Definitely, at least for me, which is why I found the absence of an orchestra in the John Doyle Sweeney Todd a disappointment. Same goes for the 2019 Fiasco revival of “Merrily.” That music needs to be brassy in many places and that just wasn’t possible with this production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:31 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Unhookthestars 04:13 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I actually admired Sarah Travis' orchestrations - except (and this probably links with your comment) when the full cast had to be singing, meaning sometimes only piano was playing, which was not at all enough. I always kind of wished that Travis would have been asked to flesh out her inventive orchestration to get rid of those "holes" in the sound, and let MTI offer it as an alternate orchestration (i.e. NOT to be performed by the cast.) For me, that production of Sweeney was a very good concert. That's it. For the most part, I felt people were too busy playing orchestra instruments to also look credibly involved in the scene. No acting, no theatre. It was a concert. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Last Edit: Unhookthestars 08:27 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| Posted by: Unhookthestars 08:24 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Chromolume 04:31 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Chromolume — You’re absolutely right. On second thought, I do quite like the “Teeny Todd” orchestrations and listen to the cast recording often. But those same orchestrations felt unsatisfying to me when I saw the show live (on tour); their lack of “oomph” simply failed to serve the story. I also agree that the actors were so busy fiddling with the instruments and trying to keep them in a position that would allow them to be played properly that it probably took up the attention and energy they could have otherwise spent on playing their characters instead. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:09 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Unhookthestars 08:24 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| If I'm not mistaken, "Teeny Todd" was the nickname given to the 1989 revival at Circle in the Square, directed by Susan H. Schulman, the first Broadway revival. It was sadly not recorded. The 2006 revival was also teeny but I don't think it was called that, and was small in a very different way than the 1989. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Last Edit: Unhookthestars 12:09 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| Posted by: Unhookthestars 12:08 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Chazwaza 09:09 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| You’re right about “Teeny Todd,” of course! Thanks for the correction. Now we need a different nickname for the Doyle production. How about “Teeny-Weeny Sweeney”? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:03 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Unhookthestars 12:08 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Creepy Todd? Loony Todd? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: skier74 09:36 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Chazwaza 09:09 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| The Forbidden Broadway "Teeny Todd" was DEFINITELY pre-2006. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 10:02 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - skier74 09:36 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Oh yeah, I forgot that's where the name came from. Yeah, that revival hasn't had much lasting impact in the annals of Broadway history... largely because it didn't win any Tonys, wasn't nominated for many (though it did get nods for Best Revival, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, and there was no cast album or video recording made of it. I would say it is notable because it made Susan H. Schulman one of the few female directors nominated for a Best Direction Tony, it was also the first revival on Broadway of a Sondheim/Prince musical... Forum was revived in 1976 for a short run, but otherwise no other Sondheim show prior to 1989. And then the next one was in 1996 when the Nathan Lane Forum revival competed against the first Company revival (Forum won). If we count Gypsy then of course that had revivals in 1974 and 1989. There was of course the 1984 off-broadway revival of Pacific Overtures, but that was off. And Merrily was done in 1994 off-broadway, again directed by Schulman. Sad that we didn't get a cast recordings of Teeny Todd... unlike the Gypsy and Forum revivals, it was markedly different in approach and scope and orchestration than the original, and so I think justified an album... but of course, there are many reasonable reasons not to record a short lived revival that won no Tonys, had no stars, and opened just years after the OBC album came out. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: bmc 11:16 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Chazwaza 10:02 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Can an ANYONE CAN WHISTLE revival be far behind? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: pecansforall 03:23 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Ann 03:06 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I just can't picture Josh Groban as Sweeney. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 05:36 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - pecansforall 03:23 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| A very vulnerable, very sad Sweeney rather than a sociopath… | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:26 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - lordofspeech 05:36 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| There's really nothing in the text of Sweeney that makes him a sociopath until he snaps after missing his chance to kill the Judge. So that will be the challenge for Groban - does he really change at "Epiphany?" I think too many of us grew up with the tour video of the original production, with George Hearn being "booby hatched" from the first moments of the play. Not the way it should go, IMO. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 09:28 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:15 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Chromolume 08:26 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yeah, and to dismiss him, or have a production/performance guide you to dismissing him as an actual sociopath or an unhinged maniac kind of defeats some of the point of the story. If he's just insane then he isn't relatable, and nothing that drives him to this place of violence can really be blamed. Of course making the choice for his revenge is one thing, but we are meant to consider the circumstances. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 04:04 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - pecansforall 03:23 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| It's certainly strange casting. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Cariou's Sweeney was wistful... | |
| Posted by: peter3053 04:43 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Boroff: Sweeney: Groban+Ashford - Ncassidine 04:04 pm EDT 08/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| ...by turns; he was very affecting in "The Barber and His Wife", and even when he caressed his "Friends" the razors. Elsewhere he was resentful, then ready to pounce, then wounded, then enraged (and genuinely scary)... It was the most nuanced performance I ever saw in a musical and must have been exhausting. But one shouldn't criticise Hearn on the video performance - he had been playing it for about two years and it looks as if his emotional references may have passed their used-by date in some areas. A fine and sensitive performer. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Cariou's Sweeney was wistful... | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:18 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: Cariou's Sweeney was wistful... - peter3053 04:43 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| While it's not fair to blame Hearn entirely, and the context of the performance matters... it is not going to be considered by almost anyone. This is why these shows should be revisited and guided by the director when they are going to be filmed. This is THE record of the original Sweeney... it's a shame we have a coked-up Johanna "Green Finch" and an "arriving over-done" Sweeney... I was still mesmerized and in love, but there are more nuanced and stronger/deeper performances of Sweeney (the role) to be had and I wish that had been preserved on video for posterity. As wonderful as replacement performers often are... I'm always quite bummed when a show is finally taped for release to the world and it is not with that original cast who made the show, or it has been so long that their performances have loosened or lost things. I'm think of Sweeney, Piazza, and several others I'm sure. I wonder if Hal went to visit the Sweeney tour for a few performances before it was filmed and held a rehearsal or anything to brush them up to how he actually wants it. Maybe he did. Maybe Hearn, too, just isn't quite as good as Cariou. Who knows. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Cariou's Sweeney was wistful... | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:36 pm EDT 08/24/22 | |
| In reply to: Cariou's Sweeney was wistful... - peter3053 04:43 am EDT 08/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| A fine and sensitive performer ...who got roasted in Forbidden Broadway with "I Ham What I Ham." Yup... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.249614 seconds.