Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - dramedy 09:51 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| ... lets give a thought to a middling musical created by some of Broadway's leading lights: SUGAR based of course on the same film, SOME LIKE IT HOT, opened on April 1972, and ran 505 performances. It had a Jule Styne/Bob Merrill score, and a book by Peter Stone, and direction & choreography by Gower Champion. Sets by Robert Wagner, orchestrations by Philip J Lang. And stars. Robert Morse and Tony Roberts. And Cyril Ritchard. And a world class producer. Unlike SOME LIKE IT HOT, which got mostly very positive reviews, including the TIMES, SUGAR was lambasted by Clive Barnes. "If you go expecting the worst you certainly won't be disappointed." But star power, and Morse and Roberst and Ritchards fabulous performances kept the show open well over a year. Then it toured. SOME LIKE IT HOT has none of the elements that SUGAR had, although it may be a better show (I'm seeing it in a couple of weeks). But it looks doubtful that it will eke out a run anywhere as long as that of SUGAR. I would imagine the producers will try to keep it open until at least Tony nominations time ... but at the moment I dont think many Tonys are in this show's future. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: toros 09:28 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| " It had a Jule Styne/Bob Merrill score, and a book by Peter Stone, and direction & choreography by Gower Champion. Sets by Robert Wagner, orchestrations by Philip J Lang. And stars. Robert Morse and Tony Roberts. And Cyril Ritchard. And a world class producer." Because of the pedigree of the talent involved, expectations were very high for SUGAR, and many (not all) reviewers were disappointed. But SUGAR was great fun. I love the score, and the OBC CD is terrific. Penniless Bums, The The Beauty That Drives Men Mad, Sun On My Face, Hey Why Not, What Do You Give To The Man Who Has Everything, It's Always Love, When You Meet A Man In Chicago and the title song are all first-rate Style. It is still one of my most frequently played CDs. The musical direction and vocal arrangements by Elliot Lawrence are excellent. Morse and Roberts were hilarious, and Elaine Joyce was darling. Cyril Ritchard's two numbers have not aged well, but that character is, for my taste, about the only improvement in the new musical adaptation, which is entertaining, but completely generic. SUGAR was vaudeville. And forgive me, but SLIH lacks lust, which was a driving comic force in the movie and in SUGAR, which was revived, retitled (SOME LIKE IT HOT) and revised in London, starring Tommy Steele. I didn't see it, and the CD is not as good as SUGAR, but still worthwhile. Some SUGAR songs are cut, and other Bob Merrill songs have been added (Romance, Magic Nights and Dirty Old Men from "Breakfast at Tiffany's). I wish SLIH well, and who knows why audiences don't seem interested, but I think SUGAR is a much better musical, and I'm surprised that it's so consistently dissed here. The real question is why SUGAR wasn't a bigger hit, although it ran a respectable 500ish performances. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Jack1009 03:44 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - toros 09:28 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| Exactly my feelings. Great CD. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| More about SUGAR | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 10:07 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 10:06 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - toros 09:28 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| I saw a fantastic production of Sugar (retitled Some Like It Hot) on 9/5/1999 at a Chicago area theater (in Munster, IN). The estimable Katrina Lenk starred as Sugar Kane and was able to evoke Marilyn Monroe without doing an actual imitation. Other top notch Chicago veterans like Felicia Fields (Sweet Sue), James Harms (Bienstock), Marc Robin (Spats), and Dale Benson (Osgood) rounded out the terrific cast. This production was during the tenure of Michael Weber as Artistic Director of the Theatre at the Center. I agree that the score of Sugar is highly enjoyable, although not regarded as one of Styne's greatest scores. Unfortunately, Sugar seems to be forever tarnished by the mediocre 1992 London revisal and the disgraceful 2002 tour with Tony Curtis as Osgood. I also love the OBC recording and listen to it often. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Last Edit: Ann 09:38 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| Posted by: Ann 09:36 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - toros 09:28 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| There was also a U.S. tour of the renamed Sugar/Some Like It Hot with a book by Peter Stone in the early 2000s, with Tony Curtis. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: toros 12:03 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Ann 09:36 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| And, if you can believe it, I saw it in Italian in Rome about 10 years ago. They cut a lot of songs and added Marilyn Monroe songs (Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend, My Heart Belongs To Daddy, A Little Girl From Little Rock, etc.) It was called "Sugar Il Musical: A Cualcuno Piace Caldo." It was very sexy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 04:20 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| What do you mean it has none of the elements of the (mostly forgotten) Sugar? Tony-winning songwriters, check. Tony-winning book writer, check. Tony-winning director and choreographer, check. Tony-winning lead actor, check. The main difference between the two - aside from the critical response - is that Sugar has stars at a time when stars could be theater famous. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Singapore/Fling 04:20 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I mentioned that about the stars recently. Robert Morse had done a good deal of film and television work, but I think only the film of How to Succeed had been successful at the box office (and that probably only modestly). But he was a theatre star, and the prospect of him in the role, combined with Gower Champion, David Merrick and Jule Styne brought in a big advance, much of which was theatre parties. The big advance helped it weather the reviews. It never really did great business, except during the tryout. And Cyril Ritchard added another name. Neither Morse nor Ritchard on his own would have helped a show's advance sales all that much, but the combination of all these people did. Can we safely say that Gower Champion, Merrick and Styne all had a lot more name recognition (Champion and Merrick particularly) than their counterparts on SLIH? Or am I too out of the loop in thinking that? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: raydan 09:37 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 04:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Robert Morse was also in a few films, TV variety shows and more importantly, a TV star having his own series with EJ Peaker in That’s Life! He was already ‘known’ having been in people’s homes via TV and in movie theaters. Not one of the 3 aforementioned leads in women’s attire on Broadway have had that much exposure. Plus he had a very likable, marketable personality on both sizes of screens. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:34 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - raydan 09:37 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| That was why I wrote, "Robert Morse had done a good deal of film and television work," and mentioned the How to Succeed film. I didn't specifically mention That's Life!, partly because it was not a hit, but still it did reach millions during its single season so it certainly helped his name to remain out there for a whole television season. Borle was prominent on Smash, which might be considered comparable to That's Life! No question, however, that Morse had far more name recognition than Borle, which is what I was saying. Even people who had missed him in his several flop films might have seen them on television, and he did star in one fairly successful film. At least I think the How to Succeed film was fairly successful. It had possibly been on television between its release and Sugar, although a quick search did not bring confirmation. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Last Edit: dbdbdb 11:06 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| Posted by: dbdbdb 11:01 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 10:34 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| As noted below, according to Wikipedia, the film of How to Succeed lost money, bringing in $2.9 million on a budget of $3.5 million. I suppose it might have made up the difference over the years, but not a stellar performance at the box office. Other films with Morse, like A Guide to the Married Man and Where Were You When the Lights Weren't Out were successful. Even The Boatniks looks like it made money. By the time of Sugar, however, his time in features was basically over and he was reduced to making occasional guest shots on shows like Love, American Style. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:13 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - dbdbdb 11:01 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| I forgot about A Guide for the Married Man and didn't check for a list of all his movies, and I don't remember ever before hearing of The Boatniks, although I must have. Thanks for looking into this more thoroughly. I generally don't trust stuff on Wikipedia as I have found so many errors there. I can't tell you that the numbers on Wikipedia are wrong, but what I feel I can reasonably say, having looked at the Wiki pages and at what Variety reported as the gross for each of the films, is that the fact that Wiki uses different sources for different films when reporting this info makes it hard to judge the accuracy. For instance, Wiki uses Variety for both How to Succeed and The Boatniks, and the figures there are the figures reported in Variety. But the figure for A Guide for the Married Man comes from a book on 20th Century Fox, and it is rather more than the Variety figure. Wiki reports $7,355,000, while Variety reported $5,000,000. By January 7, 1976, Variety reported that it was up to $5,500,000, still well under what Wiki reports. Either way it did bring in a lot more (for the time period) than How to Succeed, but which is correct? With Where Were You When the Lights Went Out?, the figure in Variety was $3,500,000, while Wiki, using a website called The Numbers, reports a much higher $7,988,000. That higher figure is also not reported in the Variety of January 7, 1976, which listed all films that had grossed $4,000,000 or more. I don’t see Where Were You When the Lights Went Out? on this list, although I might be missing it as it is a very long list. But it is definitely not in the area of films that made between $7,500,000 and $8,000.000. It’s possible that the figures not from Variety are, in fact, the correct ones or at least closer to correct, but then is it possible that the Variety number for How to Succeed is also too low? In any case, it would seem that How to Succeed did least well of these pictures, which is too bad. Maybe it was too long after the show. Perhaps it would have done better a year or two earlier. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: dbdbdb 05:27 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 02:13 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think the figures listed on Wikipedia may reflect long-term sales, such as video, while the Variety figures may not be so up-to-date. That's just a guess. It would explain the startingly high figure (for 1971) for The Boatniks, which, being a Disney film, was possibly subject to multiple re-releases and DVDs, etc. Anyway, I think it's fair to say that, by the time of Sugar, Morse's star had faded considerably. He was, I'm sure, still a name to contend with on Broadway, however. And, to your earlier point, the combination of him, Champion, Merrick, plus Ritchard, and even Roberts -- not to mention the Billy Wilder association -- surely explains Sugar's healthy presale. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:58 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - dbdbdb 05:27 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| Actually, if we trust Variety, the figure for The Boatniks is low. The 1977 reissue, mentioned on Wiki but the additional grosses were not included, led to a rental figure of $8.9 million by January 1978, after it had been listed in January 1976 at $6.6 million. I'm not sure the explanation is long-term sales for the differences where the source on Wiki is not Variety. I mean, do we think that Where Were You When the Lights Went Out? has been that popular on video? Perhaps it was reissued and did well, although I don't recall a reissue. As I recall, it turned up on television pretty quickly. I do think that the Variety figures are often on the low side. If my understanding is correct, and I’m not sure it is, this is because it represents the rentals to the studio or distributor rather than the actual gross. This is why comparing numbers found in different places can be misleading because some sources will give the total gross and some will give the rentals. Anyway, after searching around for some explanation, I think that may explain the big discrepancy on Lights. But then I wonder how Variety gets those figures. Are the studios really that forthcoming with them? And have they been that forthcoming for all this time? As opposed to Broadway, where, at least until the 2009 change, we have a better idea of grosses if we look back at Variety (although even there we know that at times figures have been reported that were higher than the truth, but that seems, surprisingly, to have been quite rare). As for The Boatniks, I guess Disney films just tended to do well, but that one seems to have done better than some others that are now better-known titles. If anything, its relative success — not a smash but a solid performer — on its first release suggests that Morse's name may have had pretty good currency at the time of Sugar. In 1971, he also showed up on Night Gallery, Alias Smith and Jones, and Love, American Style so I think his name meant something in 1972, although hardly a superstar. Am I the only one who has no memory at all of The Boatniks? Wotta title. I fear this is a confusing post, and I should probably give it a rewrite before posting, but this has been enough for one day. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:10 am EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 07:58 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| I have no memory of The Boatniks. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: dbdbdb 12:37 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Ann 02:10 am EST 12/30/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, it was a Disney picture, and, depending on one's age, it might have slipped by one's notice altogether. I was only dimly aware of it myself, having cycled out of Disney pictures at that point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:16 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - dbdbdb 12:37 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
|
|
|
| Right. I saw a number of good films that year, but definitely not Disney fare. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:04 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Ann 02:16 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
|
|
|
| Although I was not seeing Disney fare at that time — not even Bedknobs and Broomsticks — I feel like I at least remember hearing about the others, seeing ads. I must have seen ads for this one, I probably saw reviews in at least one paper, even if I didn't read any, but the title seems totally unfamiliar, which is odd because it clearly did pretty well at the box office. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 09:32 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 09:26 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 10:34 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| According to Wikipedia, A Guide for the Married Man (which co-starred Morse) was a commercial success, but sadly the film version of How to Succeed was not. However, the same source shows that Robert Morse made at least 15 appearances on network TV from 1954 through 1971 so he certainly was well known to millions of Americans before starring in Sugar, and that doesn't include his performance with the How to Succeed cast on The Ed Sullivan Show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:17 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - BroadwayTonyJ 09:26 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| Sad about How to Succeed. That's Life! was broadcast for 26 episodes, according to imdb, and Morse was on every one. So that ups his number of television appearances during that time. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:50 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 04:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think Gower and Champion were possibly bigger names, but for the same reason as Morse, because theater had more cultural cache. It’s hard to think of someone who should be more well-known today than Casey Nicholaw, who has consistently turned out hit shows for over a decade and often has three shows running on Broadway simultaneously. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:13 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Singapore/Fling 06:50 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think in the Broadway world, Casey is extremely well known. Very few... no, sorry, zero Broadway directors get to be "known" if they don't make a film that is a hit and/or an awards buzz movie. But I'd also say that while his work is usually, but not always, very good... he is one of the most overrated and overused directors and choreographers working today. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:11 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Singapore/Fling 06:50 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think Champion and Merrick were vastly bigger names. Champion, of course, had a career as a performer and he was famous for that before he became a regular presence on Broadway as a director-choreographer. (Phrased that carefully.) And Merrick was a self-promotion genius. Nicholaw has turned out a few misses so he hasn't been quite consistently turning out hits, but a great track record, no question. Anyway, I think we can all agree that things have changed in several ways. And even if Sugar paid off, as Variety reported it did but I have doubts, it was a very mild hit that went through tryout hell. Maybe this material just shouldn't be a musical, even if well-done. I'll use this post to mention that do still have group sales, and even group-sales presentations, as there used to be presentations for the theatre-party ladies, so perhaps that is one thing that has not changed as much as I suggested in other posts. This brings up the question of whether we are in a period of super-low group-sales attendance or if SLIH does not appeal to the group-sales people. I wonder if SLIH didn't do a group-sales presentation, but I would be surprised if it didn't. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 04:51 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 04:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| The market for shows in 1961 was light years different than it is now, during a pandemic when shows cost millions and millions to produce. It's apples and oranges, no matter who wrote it or produced it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:20 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Ncassidine 04:51 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. For one thing, incoming shows don't try to book theatre parties as they used to do. Still, some shows come in nowadays with a big advance and some shows don't. Some things can still cause advance interest. Anyway, I was replying to Singapore/Fling, who was replying to NewtonUK, so that's how those statements and questions came up. No question that things have changed since 1972. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Sugar did not tour | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 04:23 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:10 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| It's easy to get confused because it was produced in 1974 by the Civic Light Operas of Los Angeles and San Francisco for a run in each city, but that was it. It seems to have been pretty much a recreation of the original production, although with some adjustments to the song list, but Cyril Ritchard was credited as director, and Denny Martin Fiinn (a swing in the original) with the choreography. I am guessing Champion was credited as being the original director and choreographer but I'm not sure. David Merrick had nothing to do with this production. Over the several years after the Broadway run it showed up at a few — just a few — of the big regionals that did mostly or entirely musicals. These included a Kenley production with Mickey Rooney, Ken Berry and Elaine Joyce, |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar did not tour | |
| Posted by: BobPlak 07:25 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Sugar did not tour - AlanScott 04:10 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I saw Morse in Sugar at one of those big regionals, and it was unimpressive. The big problems with the show were summed up perfectly by Dan Sullivan in his review in the Los Angeles Times of Sept. 5, 1974: "... this is nowhere near as good a musical as 'Some Like It Hot' was a movie. Jule Styne's tunes and Bob Merrill's lyrics are dreadful, lacking charm, wit, style, texture - lacking everything, in fact, but insistence. (Kert's 'People in My Life' is the most promising song, but it turns into melted ice cream after after about eight bars). "Peter Stone's book is larded with jokes like: 'Do you play the market?' 'No, the ukulele,' which are not charming-because-dumb, but just dumb. "Not only is 'Sugar' labored, it is sometimes downright unpleasant, as when Gordon and a pack of arthritic crocks chug about the stage after a bevy of bathing beauties cackling that even 'naughty old men need love.' ... "But 'Some Like It Hot' was a personal pictture and 'Sugar' is an assembly-line, least-common-denominator musical, and that's the difference. "See it, by all means, for Morse and the other good people in it ... But don't expect a whole lot. When they are in it only for the sugar, this is usually the kind of show that comes out." As Ethel Merman said to columnist Earl Wilson after the Broadway opening: You'd think they could have come up with one good song! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar did not tour | |
| Last Edit: HelenHaze 04:31 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: HelenHaze 04:29 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Sugar did not tour - AlanScott 04:10 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Saw this production of Sugar in San Francisco and it was a very faithful recreation of the Broadway production which I saw several times. Robert Morse and Larry Kert. Gale Gordon played the Osgood part and he was terrific including his trademark cartwheel. I think Leland Palmer played Sugar but my memory might be faulty on that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar did not tour | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:36 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar did not tour - HelenHaze 04:29 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| At the link, there is some info on the production. Cyril Ritchard was originally to have played Osgood, but he suffered a heart attack a day or two before the first preview, and Gordon replaced him. |
|
| Link | Sugar 1974 CLO info |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Last Edit: Jack1009 12:48 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: Jack1009 12:47 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I have seen both the original Sugar and SLIT. I'll take Sugar any day. Great score and funnier. No attempt to 'say' something and make a social point. Just fun. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| SLIT? | |
| Last Edit: Ann 01:01 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: Ann 12:58 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Jack1009 12:47 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Why are the changes in Some Like It Hot "social points"? Aren't they just things people couldn't talk about in the past, and now we (hopefully) can? I've seen both as well. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| SLIH | |
| Posted by: comedywest 01:55 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: SLIT? - Ann 12:58 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think the problem is not that people couldn't talk about in the past, and now we (hopefully) can, but that the show is set in 1933 and they wouldn't talk about them back then, and they didn't in the movie. In the past, when they adapted a work as a musical, the creators renamed it to show it was rethought (My Fair Lady, She Loves Me, Oklahoma, etc.). When you take the title of the movie, people expect the movie with music. (It's the old Jerome Robbins question: "What is this show about?" In this case it's about the movie.) The movie SLIH has I think one warm-and-fuzzy moment (when Josephine kisses Sugar), and even that is undercut with Josephine bolting. That said, I think they should have stuck to the farce and called it Some Like It Hot...or gone for the more social points/warm and fuzzy (whatever you want to call them) and named it something else, Or done something completely original. For what it is worth, I have no problem with woke musicals--The Prom was pretty woke, and it was the best musical of that season (ahead of Beetlejuice and way ahead of Tootsie). But it was an original musical set in the present, and it also didn't take its wokeness too seriously. Finally, drag is only funny when straight men are uncomfortable about it and put in situations where they have to be in drag. (La Cage's funniest moments are when Dindon is forced t dress up.) A lot of the movie's humor is lost here with Daphne acceptance of being non-binary. It is not bad in and of itself, but it is not the movie. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SLIH | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:29 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: SLIH - comedywest 01:55 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I definitely don't think the problem is that it's got the film title but it's not the film. And I also don't think unfortunately men in dresses is funny. But there are probably a lot of things contributing to this failure. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It’s a really strange situation and poses tons of questions. | |
| Last Edit: ShowGoer 09:13 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 08:55 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| The thought-experiment, and it’s a fascinating one, is what if Some Like It Hot had opened in 2019 (or, possibly, 2024 or 2025, a few years from now)? Is it not doing well because of something inherent in the property itself - either the title doesn’t excite people (or has little name recognition nowadays), the subject matter seems stale, or mode’s the pity, is just a matter of poor timing coming after the superficially similar Tootsie and Mrs Doubtfire - in which case one could argue the show wouldn’t have done well no matter what…. … or is it just a misfortune of being the first new big splashy tired-businessman’s-type musical to open since the pandemic began? Some have questioned whether the show in fact actually has good word of mouth- but in addition to the critics-aggregate website didtheylikeit ranking it with 9 raves and only one negative review, the audience aggregator Show-Score has it at 85% (closing in on 400 reviews) – which is currently higher than the last two Best Musical winners, “Moulin Rouge” and “A Strange Loop”. For my money, while not quite as good as “The Prom” (which was still doing better than this), it’s more consistent in quality and tone, more targeted for a wider general audience, and just overall superior, to most of the last few Casey Nicholaw shows, “Mean Girls”, “Aladdin”, and even “Something Rotten”. Five years ago I can’t help but think these reviews would have made the show a sell-out for at least a few months on New York theatergoers and Broadway sales groups alone… (and yes, Music Man did well a year ago, but a large number of its sales predated 2020, and Leopoldstadt sold well opening in early fall, but that was before people started worrying about a ‘tripledemic’). So as every major fall and holiday film that isn’t an action or horror movie disappoints at the box office, and without the NYC Broadway tourists back in full force, despite the few relative success stories of the last year this show more than any other has me wondering: are people just not ready to come back en masse to the theater yet? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s a really strange situation and poses tons of questions. | |
| Posted by: HunterHailey 02:19 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: It’s a really strange situation and poses tons of questions. - ShowGoer 08:55 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed. The anti-cross-dressing fringe has zero to do with this. The fact is this type of old-fashioned musical just has not done well lately. Non-star driven, a movie with little current name recognition anymore, no major gimmick spectacle, etc. The weather and COVID also hasn't helped. Broadway has unfortunately killed itself with it's business model. Outside of the "tourist" shows - what does well anymore? Too many seats to fill for too long a period to make any money. To expensive for people to spend money on something that already hasn't proven to be a hit. However, I am surprised that it has done this poorly so quickly at this time of year. But I also don't think it has been marketed well and that it relying on too many things that they thought would just make it a hit. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s a really strange situation and poses tons of questions. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:32 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: It’s a really strange situation and poses tons of questions. - ShowGoer 08:55 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| As it often is, I don't think it can be blamed on any one thing and I think it is all of the above. I also note that the Tootsie/Doubtfire fatigue is more of a local audience phenomenon whereas the absence of a star has an obvious effect on the tourist audience. Additionally, this is a show where the demographics of the critics diminishes the size of the portal: the critics know and like the "stars" of this, but tourists don't. (Note also how many of the wider-audience publications tended to be more middling (not pans but with lots of "buts" and "howevers." And nothing about this (including Casey Nicholaw's work that impresses the older, whiter critical platoon) is very appealing to younger and broader audiences that are essential now, or to a family looking for a holiday outing. Add that to the fatigue of the locals and you are starting to get the formula you don't want. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.258373 seconds.