| yes, completely in support of the All Roads Theatre Company ... long may they grow and produce! | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 06:56 pm EST 02/26/24 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:54 pm EST 02/26/24 | |
| In reply to: In support of MACK & MABEL and the All Roads Theatre Company - reed23 08:10 am EST 02/24/24 | |
|
|
|
| I'm gonna reply to each paragraph one at a time, and then I think we can put this to bed. -You have been lucky to speak to people who were either more kind and generous than I (surely if I was talking to you in person, and knew you were involved in this production as you seem to have been in some way, I would not have said half of what you read, because I'm not a monster and because, as I made *abundantly* clear, I am very supportive of the effort and dream of this company and this production, and I wish it had turned out for the best. I think my over $100 ticket and having a mind of my own gives me the ability to speak my mind on the internet about what I paid to see, I mean hell I even wrote a trigger warning at the top of my post. I also said I am excited to see what this company does next, and I will be there to see it but, and I sincerely mean this as a theater-lover, theater-maker, and potential/presumed future repeat customer, that they learn and apply many lessons from this production. I'm sorry if the post I said might offend you offended you. I hope for the best for this company but I stand by my critique.) But I know people who had even harsher things to say. And people who liked it much more, or were less caught up in the flaws. You are invalidating my reaction, I'd say your post is all in an effort to do that. But sure. -I'm not sure what you're referring to that you can claim Rosen "has been acclaimed", and I certainly don't know who you read saying she was "revelatory". But if so, great, that's their experience and opinion. As my post indicated, I felt she was among the best things in this production, and that her strong talents were evident, and that she was a good Mabel, and might have been even better with stronger direction. But I guess if you read someone else say she was revelatory then I guess that's true and my take on it isn't. Great. She wasn't, if you ask me, revelatory in the least. She was often wonderful, often impressive, sometimes great in the role. I wasn't meh on her, as you claim, but what I've just said is what I think. And I sung Caroline O'Conners praised. And I even complimented the choreography in her big showstopping number. Stop misrepresenting what I literally wrote. But yes, despite my fantastic experience with her, I heard whispers of the previous night's performance where the crowd leapt to its feet and applauded for "minutes" straight... since you seem to have been at the matinee I was at you well know that did not happen, neither part of it, at the show I saw. I'm thrilled for them if that's the response the number got on Fri night... it didn't happen on Sat matinee, and it also doesn't change that it was fantastic. But don't try to diminish my praise or enjoyment of O'Conner's performance by saying YOU would have received the rest of the production much more warmly IF you were me watching O'Conner's performance. Good for you. I received it as I did. She was wonderful, a standout, I'm glad I saw her do her parts of the show. I'm glad I saw the entire show. My opinion is still mine to have, and my critiques are not only valid but I stand by that they are accurate. -Okay, you say the second performance was "indeed Mulroney's worst" ... well, that was not only the only one I bought a $100+ ticket for, but 1/4 of the entire run. So frankly I do not give a f*ck. Hire someone capable of doing as good or better on day 2 as Day 1, and someone with the experience and skill and comfort and confidence to BE the lead and star of a big musical even when something goes wrong. And maybe the director/producer could have prepared better for how the pie would work and what could go wrong. Maybe he did, and shit just happens, it's live theater. I get it. I do live theater a lot. -I did not say the prices were higher to make up for Mulroney's salary... everyone taking the same base pay is irrelevant. I am saying that the producers promised name stars for this production -- don't ask me why. You will not get me to believe the price of these tickets was not thought possible, in some large part, because there is a movie star playing the lead. He could have been doing it for free and they still would have charged over $100 for most tickets. And whether the marketing made it clear that this was a benefit for the new company... what does that matter? Every production a company does is to benefit future productions by that company. Are you saying they don't intend to make money on future productions? What a strange bit of context to through in. As I've made clear, I'm intending to support this company in their future endeavors ... I care to comment because I care that a company like this might do the kind of work they CLAIM they want to do and will certainly tell people they did do this time. Because I want to see it. And if I'm going to pay for that, I want to see it. But as I've made clear, I would have been much happier to have spent $100, hell, even $200, to see a production that fired on all cylinders and had the forsight to cast a lead actor who could actually do the role and the show and not sink, in many ways, the entirely effort of the rest of the show and the musical itself by not. I applaud and expect a new company to do the kind of Gala opening and fundraising they did. I'm glad they did it. And I'm glad that the performance that audience saw was apparently a lot more pulled together. I think the fact that all tickets were sold is a testament to many things, you left out the interest in this musical... and you included "in the talent", which people can't really see until they see the show, after they buy the ticket. But if you want to tell me I'm wrong BECAUSE people bought tickets, fine. They one weekend 4-performance run was almost entirely old out before the first performance. ... And while you seem to want me/us to believe that has nothing to do with the name movie star they cast and advertised as the lead, that makes his casting even more egregious, and is a much worse look for the producers that this show could sell so well on the name and the connections/outreach/audience the people running this company already had to depend on for a 4-show run without relying on a movie star name who has no business being cast in a lead role of a tricky musical that is this demanding of his vocal and stage acting talents and useable skills, confidence, presence, charm, etc. If you didn't need a name to sell it, then why cast him? If you did, and you believed you could get him there in time despite his lack of experience and specific fit for the role of the lead in a big musical, then... try as you or they surely did, it wasn't enough. It is not my fault as a paying audience member that it was tried and largely failed, it's the companys. (And I mean specifically Mulroney as Mack, not the rest of the show or cast ... though all of that would have been even better and had even more chance to succeed and shine with a lead who could come in and knock it out of the park). -No, your suspicion is wrong... part of the problem is not that *I* "didn't like" almost anything about it "to begin with". I liked everything about it **to begin with.*** They have bases loaded with me, and I will not be blamed for their strikes. The problem, sir, is that they came up short in perhaps the most crucial element -- their lead protagonist star. I had criticisms of many aspects or parts of the production, yes, including direction and some of the choreo (don't tell me it stopped the show 3 times... I went to 1 of 4 shows and it didn't "stop the show" once... the numbers that earned big applause from the audience, at the end of the songs, got that, from me as well... I clapped and cheers as much or more than anyone around me because I wanted to show my support to the cast whether I loved the choreo or didn't love the choreo of any given number). And you're half right... the "stunning graphic effects" as you call them... the projections were sometimes wonderfully rendered/chosen and used, and sometimes not... I'm sorry, if the projection from one location does not change when the scene location changes, I'm going to notice it. It's going to had SOME impact on the scene that is now set in the wrong space. Tech is hard, cues get messed up, I am forgiving. If that was all, i might not have mentioned it. But I wouldn't call them stunning and I think "graphic effects" is a generous way to categorize them, I assume you're referring to things like what happened during "Tap/Troubles" ... and while that was a nice visual addition, I don't think it was necessary or brought that much to it. I'm not going to critique it as not good or worthwhile specifically but I would say, since we're talking about it, that if much money was spent on it, it might have been better used elsewhere or to save for the next production. The choreography, cast, and song itself were more than enough to sell that fantastic number. **I appreciate you calling my "venomous outrage" eloquent. :) -I understand that and why theaters have to have names, and even take chances on them. I'd love to talk to the producers of this and get the scoop on the casting search/process for this production and the role of Mack. Because yes, I admit, I find it hard to believe they couldn't find someone with a name at a similar level to Mulroneys (again, all due respect to the prolific, wonderful and popular Mulroney, but this isn't 1999 or 2008 even, a career anyone would dream of but not someone I consider box office fire in 2024, especially for the crowd interested in Mack & Mabel... if they don't care or know much about M&M, they're going to presumbly be pushed to buying the ticket for $80-125 or so because of the star, and I don't see many people saying "wow I've GOT to see him in this". But I understand I may be very wrong. I guess we'll never know)... but if they couldn't find someone around his level of name-appeal box-office-power who could do it, I think you know I (and many I talked to and those I attended with) would have have MASSIVELY preferred they find someone with a smaller theater-name who could kill the role. I think at least half the tickets, or more, were sold to people who'd have likely bought a ticket to this production of Mack & Mabel with or without a name actor as Mack (or Mabel, which they obviously didn't have -- all due respect to the very winning and talented Rosen, she knows she's not a name yet)... the last time I'm aware of this show being done in LA, it was with a Tony nominated Mack who isn't famous to anyone outside of Broadway fandom (Douglas Sills), and a Mabel who was a Tony nominee and TV star (Jane Krakowski)... beyond any "fame", both had more than enough talent and skill to do their roles justice. I wish this production had those priorities when casting Mack. I also have to say that doing a production of this particular musical, especially one the producers/director clearly want to be taken/seen as a high quality and notable production, is absolutely in no way the same as doing Mame, one of the most popular musicals in America for decades, with a popular OBCR and a film etc. M&M is hardly ever produced. Most people who don't know musicals well do not even know it exits. So yes, part of my outrage (which is passionate and intelligent, rather than just "venomous") is because it was Mack & Mabel, not Mame. I wouldn't have bothered to say anything were this ______ under-qualified (or even just under-rehearsal hasn't been on stage in forever) movie star in a benefit 4-show run of Man of La Mancha or even Company. When you do a show like this I think you have even more responsibility to be careful about how it's cast and that you actually can and do pull off what you're trying to pull off. Maybe had this been a semi-staged concert of M&M, where all Dermot had to juggle was learning the lines and songs and standing and talking to his audience or his scene partner, it would have come off much better, he'd have come off much better and had a chance to really not flop. Then the big numbers without him could be those, like in any semi-staged concert, and the scenes and ballads etc could be what they are. But this production seemed to refuse to know its own limitations, and was very very ambitious for the time they had and the Mack they had, and I think there's a hubris here, not understanding how to make it all succeed in what the reality is. Clearly you think I should have been more forgiving, and I can tell you with certainty that had it not been a rare gem show I love that's never done, that I've never seen before and may never get to again, I would have been. Though even still, at those prices, presenting something where everyone is set up to succeed and the audience doesn't have to be generous with what filter they receive the effort in, is a much better way to do a fundraising production for a new company. -I didn't see it, I wasn't even alive until well after it ran on broadway... so we are coming from different places. But I obvious know the album, have seen every bit of footage that is accessible, and am also haunted by it. You got to see it in its big original production with a brilliant team and an unbelievable cast. No one has "fixed" the book yet, so I dare say you got to see what will likely still be the best production there'll ever be of it. I didn't. This is just icing for you, for fans like me this is likely the first and last time we'll get to see a staged production of the show (and of course with the poorly rewritten new book to boot). -Yes, LA theatre is in a bad way. Trust me, this is not lost on me. I am a theater make and avid theater goer, in LA and NYC. You say: "A new theatre company aiming high with a fair number of Equity contracts, large number of musician/tech/ensemble/front-of-house positions, doing interesting musicals and plays, with a new-works program and a training/education wing, has my full support." ... This is perhaps the one point we both agree about very strongly. I feel I made that clear in my original post... and I mean it. That's even more reason why I wrote my take and my criticisms out. I don't think anything I said will make people interested in what this company wants to do NOT go see their next show. But I, again, genuinely hope my honest take as a paying audience member who loves this musical and loves musicals and theater, sees a ton, makes it also, will help them not make similar mistakes again. You clearly didn't share my opinion or "outrage", but I think whether you do or not, you don't want to have audiences leaving thinking what I thought. And i ASSURE you I am not the only one, or the harshest one, even if the majority of people (at least at the sat mat) enjoyed and/or loved it (in a way I went in hoping to and being very ready to). Thanks for your thoughtful engagement. I'm not sure there's anything else to say on this. But if you have something you decide you want to say back to anything I said here, I'll read it. I respect your intelligence and passion. I'm very excited to see what All Roads Theatre Company is planning for their next show, or first season, or whatever. I will be attending, with my sharp and venomous eyes! |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | In support of MACK & MABEL and the All Roads Theatre Company - reed23 08:10 am EST 02/24/24 |
| Next: | key typo... - Chazwaza 02:50 am EST 02/22/24 |
| Thread: | |
Time to render: 0.024992 seconds.