My YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN review -- better than PRODUCERS?
Sweevil
with modest expectations. THE PRODUCERS was such a phenomenon, I
didn't expect lightning to strike twice. But this show, I think, may
actually turn out to be a bigger hit than THE PRODUCERS was.
I'd talked to friends who saw it a week or two ago and felt the
audience response was sometimes lukewarm. Not last night! The show
is very long at this point (overlong is to be expected at this point
in a musical's development). Act One is a solid 90 minutes. But
despite the length, the cast had the audience eating out of their
hands.
Mel Brooks has been writing Broadway musicals since the 1960s, so he's
no newcomer. Still, this score shows definite advances over the
PRODUCERS song stack. The numbers are more varied, more polished, and
they build more interestingly. His style is retro, very 1930s RKO
Astaire/Rogers, but it's HIS style, it fits his sensibility like a
glove, and he makes it work. There are a ton of songs, but nearly all
of them are already landing like crazy. It's been ages since I've
heard an audience scream and cheer not just after one song, but number
and number. This show is REALLY coming together ...
The biggest surprise to me was the size -- not of the Monster's
Schwanstuecke -- but of the show itself. It's immense, titanic. A
much bigger show than THE PRODUCERS, which surprised me, since the
movie is basically a small cast in one set: the castle. As a physical
production YF dwarfs LES MIZ and MISS SAIGON. The only Broadway show
I've seen that can compare to it, in terms of size and quantity of
scenery, is Hal Prince's 1990s SHOWBOAT.
Set after elaborate set, a big lavish orchestra, and a huge chorus (by
modern standards) of about 9 girls and 9 boys (I've misplaced my
program, but I'll post tomorrow with more accurate info) take one back
to the days when Broadway wasn't all about reducing and cutting back.
One great thing: unlike, say, the original SWEENEY TODD at the Uris,
the immense sets don't dwarf the players -- in this case because
they've assembled a dream cast of high-voltage Broadway stars who can
upstage the biggest set. Roger Bart jumps from marvelous character
actor to a commanding star performance, utilizing just enough of Gene
Wilder's high-pitched hysteria to please fans of the movie, while
completely making the part his own. Same with Andrea Martin, whose
Frau Blucher gives us the "greatest hits" of Cloris Leachman's
flawless performance, while expanding and adapting it to her own comic
personality.
If there's one flaw, I would say it's an absence of heart -- even THE
PRODUCERS provided one or two surprisingly touching moments between
the two leads. Nothing like that here. YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is wall-to-
wall spoof, but this is state-of-the-the-art spoof of the very highest
grade.
Megan Mulally has the scary task of stepping into Madeline Kahn's
shoes, and she hits a home run. Like the other leads, she walks the
incredibly fine line between evoking the film performance and making
the part completely her own, without missing a step. Although she
appears only briefly in the first act (knocking a hilarious number out
of the park) she's so great, both vocally and as a comic, I nearly
wept tears of joy that her damn talk show got canceled and she's back
where she belongs. Her evident joy in playing the role and playing
off the audience shows *she* knows this is where she belongs, too.
Not interviewing supporting players from low-rated sitcoms.
The special effects are awesome. One sequence, where Fronk-en-steen
falls asleep in his study and his grandfather appears to him in a
dream, is so startling, I don't know exactly how they did it. (I have
a guess.) The entire set appears to shiver and melt before your eyes.
I've heard this is a $20 million production. Doesn't that make it the
costliest Broadway show ever mounted? I think so. Part of the thrill
of this musical is seeing a production, for once, where no expense has
been spared. All over Broadway these days we see cost-cutting
everywhere. Not here, thank God.
I have more to say, but I'll wait till I have my program in front of
me. I won't ruin the gags or tell you the surprises, but I will say,
if you enjoyed THE PRODUCERS, if you like Mel Brooks' comic
sensibility, and Susan Strohman's antic, madcap choreography, you're
going to love YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. This is truly a show with something
for everyone. I wish I'd bought tickets for more than one performance!
Steve Newport
From: steph...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
This score shows definite advances over the PRODUCERS song stack. His
style is retro, very 1930s RKO Astaire/Rogers, but it fits his
sensibility like a glove, and he makes it work. The only Broadway show
I've seen that can compare to it, in terms of size and quantity of
say it's an absence of heart -- even THE PRODUCERS provided one or two
surprisingly touching moments between the two leads. Nothing like that
here. YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is wall-to- wall spoof
Oh dear.
Sweevil
regretting they don't make anymore: an old-fashioned musical comedy
chock-full of jokes, dancing, and traditional showtunes. Brooks is
the anti-Sondheim. While Sondheim shows tend to stroke our elitist
side, making us feel intellectual, sophisticated and superior to our
fellow men, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN brings everyone together --
intellectuals and Joe Sixpacks -- into one big happy family having a
wonderful time in the theatre.
Isn't that what you're always wishing musicals would go back to?
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth! :-)
On Aug 17, 10:17 pm, NewportsRe...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:
> From: stepheno...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
Sweevil
The performance you saw sure sounds different than the one I saw, on
Aug. 16th. Audience response "labored and courteous"??? The sold-out
audience I was part of screamed and cheered with joy after nearly
every number. Belly laughs were so loud and long, the actors could
have gone out for a cigarette sometimes, while waiting for them to
subside.
Any comedy, musical comedy especially, takes a lot of fine-tuning to
find its groove. Sounds like they hadn't found it yet when you saw the
show. Believe me, I am super aware when an audience isn't entirely
with a show, or when they're responding politely rather than from the
heart. No question but the show landed all the way through, when I
saw it.
*Unlike* THE PRODUCERS, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN's second act is possibly
even stronger than the first. That's where audience favorite Megan
Mulally gets to shine and some of the film's best loved scenes, like
the blind beggar sequence, are beautifully adapted into musical
theatre. THE PRODUCERS succeeded despite a weak Act Two, but YF does
not have that problem.
I truly think the score is superior to THE PRODUCERS'. This cast
album is going to spend a lot more time in my CD player than the
earlier show's. Greg, yYou didn't find "Please Don't Touch Me"
memorable? I think it may be the funniest comedy song anyone's
written for Broadway in decades. Add the staging and the audience
laughed so hard they nearly choked. Even the cruder humor of "Deep
Love" brought down the house.
I left the theatre humming "There Is Nothing Like A Brain", Bart's
tour de force opening number, which all by itself may win him the
Tony. Sutton Foster's kick-ass hayride number drove the audience into
a joyful frenzy and the eye-popping staging augmented the effect ...
We agree on the cast: individually and as an ensemble, it's hard to
imagine a better line-up. My only reservation (a tiny one) is that
Sutton Foster may be a tad miscast as Inga. Either because of an
innate primness, or because of misguided feminist principles, Foster's
sexpot could be sexier. It's a Marilyn Monroe role, really: a sweet,
none-too-bright girl who is innocently unaware of the fact that her
sex appeal drives mild-mannered men into a lustful frenzy.
Foster sometimes seems to be trying to make Inga a "real" woman, but
she's no more real than Igor or Frau Blucher. Perhaps Foster feels at
some level the character is a sexist stereotype, but that's like Bart
objecting to his role for being a neurotic Jewish stereotype.
Everyone here is a stereotype (archetype would be a better word) and
that's essential to Brooks' comedic vision. You can't make Inga
realistic, any more than you can Igor or the Monster. Mulally fully
understands the archetypal nature of her 1930s "madcap fiance" role.
She revels in the stereotype, turns it various way, and plays with
it. Wish Foster could loosen up a bit and do the same.
But this is a TINY criticism, negligible really. Foster is a dynamite
performer: a superb singer, dancer, and actress. Every moment she's
onstage is a gift. If she hasn't quite found Inga yet, I bet she will
by the time they open on Broadway.
The show's developing from day to day. Friends told me they have a
long rehearsal every day at 1 PM and add, subtract and change things.
The performance I saw was still technically a preview, but it could
have been opening night on Broadway. All of the complex staging and
effects worked. The show's really in marvelous shape and it still
hasn't officially opened in Seattle, even.
See it again, if you have a chance, and see if you feel the same
way ...
Harlett O'Dowd
> From: stepheno...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
Funny, I was just thinking last night that perhaps the chief asset of
the YF film was the score of John Morris, especially the main (VERY
Max Steiner) theme. That's what gives YF the heart and emotional
resonance that other Brooks films lack.
So it sounds as if Morris' theme music went out the window and this is
*only* a laugh bag. I think that's a really bad idea and may hurt the
show's chances of any real longevity.
Sweevil
monster movie and every bit as effective as Morris's work on the
original film. I loved the original film, but I really think the
stage version is superior. Brooks was always making musical comedies,
it's now clear, even when they lacked full scores in the movie
theatre. All the characters in the original film were musical comedy
characters -- lacking songs to sing. The new score completes YOUNG
FRANKENSTEIN in ways that now make the movie seem unfinished.
Diehard fans of the film will disagree, but I absolutely feel Bart and
Fitzgerald play Frederick and Igor better than their film
predecessors. In 1975, Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman were awfully
full of themselves and their performances are marred, for me, by a
certain self-consciousness. They both spend a bit too much time
winking at the camera as if to say: "Aren't I funny and adorable?
Don't you just LOVE me???!"
It's like the difference between TORCH SONG TRILOGY with Harvey
Feirstein and then with another, better actor in San Francisco (sorry
I forget his name). Feirstein played most of it out to the audience,
like stand-up, reveling in how much the audience adored him. The
other actor played the role straighter, without the self-adoring
narcissism, which made the whole show more effective AND funnier.
I find Feldman in the film frankly tiresome, now, mugging into the
camera. "Look at my funny eyes! Aren't I hilarious! Don't you just
LOVE me?" What I call a "love me" actor. Fitzgerald is more self-
effacing, more disciplined as a comic actor, and therefore funnier and
more TRULY adorable.
On Aug 18, 10:17 am, Harlett O'Dowd <chris.conne...@worldspan.com>
wrote:
Sweevil
Morris's score is definitely superior to music you haven't heard a
single note of. The new overture (to both acts) and underscoring are
lushly scored and wonderfully evocative of 1930s Universal horror
films. The overture had the audience cheering before the curtain even
rose.
Withhold judgment till you actually hear the new music. Then, if you
like, disparage it. :-)
Steve Newport
From: steph...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
TORCH SONG TRILOGY: Fierstein played most of it out to the audience,
like stand-up, reveling in how much the audience adored him. I find
Feldman in the film frankly tiresome, now, mugging into the camera.
I never cared for Feldman. I liked Harvey in TST on Boadway, but hated
him in the film and ever since, for the reason above.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
steph...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
traditional showtunes. Brooks is the anti-Sondheim. While Sondheim shows
tend to stroke our elitist side, making us feel intellectual,
sophisticated and superior
Well, I've liked many more Sondheim shows than Stroman shows. BFS.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Sweevil
collected each of his scores on LP when they appeared. But as an
influence, I think he's pulled musical theatre too much in the
direction of jaded sophisticates and away from the mass audience.
It's as if we said: "Forget Verdi and Puccini! They're shallow
commercial trash. Alban Berg is the only composer of opera worth
listening to."
I love both Brooks and Strohman for returning musical comedy to its
populist roots. I want a musical theatre that's vigorous enough to
produce YOUNG FRANKENSTEINs as well as SWEENEY TODDs. I don't want
the musical theatre audience to dwindle to just the fifty urban
sophisticates who post on RATM, though of course I want Sondheim and
others to go on writing shows that we, with our VAST intellects and
knowledge, will have a special appreciation for, as well ... :-)
On Aug 18, 12:00 pm, NewportsRe...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:
> stepheno...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
Steve Newport
steph...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
collected each of his scores on LP when they appeared. But as an
influence, I think he's pulled musical theatre too much in the direction
of jaded sophisticates and away from the mass audience.
And yet reviving Sondheim is a cottage industry.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Harlett O'Dowd
What I find odd is that you completely didn't get my comment.
I find Morris' work in the film to be such an asset because it gives
the whole thing an emotional core. Based on your comments about the
musical at this stage, the music is lush but there is nothing in the
show - music, lyrics or book - that replicates the emotional gravitas
Morris' work gave the film.
If that is the case, I stand by what I wrote even without seeing/
hearing Brooks' new work. I think *just* playing it for laughs (which
is how I read your review) is a grave (sorry) mistake. If there *is*
an emotional core to the work that I didn't pick up from your review,
please correct me.
In short, the problems you have with Wilder and Feldman in the film
are the problems I'm afraid this entire musical will have. I fervantly
hope that is fixed before it comes to NY.
For the record, my problem with Wilder in the film is that he equates
"mad scientist" with screaming. He screams throughout the film. When
he's not screaming I like him a lot. And in my eyes, Feldman's over-
the-top performance is exactly what the role calls for. I think it's
his finest hour.
BTW, is anyone with a name playing the Blind Man, and is the actor
doubling elsewhere in the show?
Harlett O'Dowd
> From: stepheno...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
> TORCH SONG TRILOGY: Fierstein played most of it out to the audience,
> like stand-up, reveling in how much the audience adored him. I find
> Feldman in the film frankly tiresome, now, mugging into the camera.
The single most frustrating callback I've ever had was for TORCH SONG.
It was between me and this other guy. I believe it was the single best
cold reading I have ever given in my entire life. SO much was
happening emotionally on that stage. And the other guy just played it
as stand up and everyone in the room was eating it up with a spoon.
The more "real" I got the broader he became. And this went on for over
an hour - we read scene after scene together.
And all through this I knew the other guy was gonna get it. And he
did.
And that's show biz, kid.
Sweevil
Inspector Kemp (with the the prosthetic arm). He's great in both
parts, and he gets a tender, funny song of loneliness to sing, as the
hermit.
Harlett, I understand your comment better now. I guess where we
differ is on the "emotional gravitas" of the original film. I get no
gravitas at all from the film, with or without Morris's effective
music. The lack of heart I referred to is in the source material. I
don't think there's anything in any version of YF that compares with
the oddly touching relationship between the two leads in THE
PRODUCERS.
Roger Bart includes just enough Wilder-like screaming to please fans
of the film -- but I wonder that he's able to scream like that AND
sing so much and so well, without losing his voice ... It's quite a
feat.
On Aug 19, 7:45 am, Harlett O'Dowd <chris.conne...@worldspan.com>
wrote:
Steve Newport
From: steph...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
the oddly touching relationship between the two leads in THE PRODUCERS.
I find emotion totally missing from the musical of THE PRODUCERS,
especially when Nathan Lane is involved.
Remember when the anti-Sondheim was Jerry Herman. (LA CAGE over SITPWG.)
I wish he'd start writing again.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Stephen Farrow
> Fred Applegate plays the blind hermit and yes he doubles amusingly as
> Inspector Kemp (with the the prosthetic arm). He's great in both
> parts, and he gets a tender, funny song of loneliness to sing, as the
> hermit.
>
> Harlett, I understand your comment better now. I guess where we
> differ is on the "emotional gravitas" of the original film. I get no
> gravitas at all from the film, with or without Morris's effective
> music. The lack of heart I referred to is in the source material. I
> don't think there's anything in any version of YF that compares with
> the oddly touching relationship between the two leads in THE
> PRODUCERS.
??
The biggest problem with "The Producers" on stage is that is is
absolutely, utterly devoid of anything resembling emotional depth. It's
a gag machine with zero emotional content.
--
Stephen
What is this, an intervention? Shouldn't all my demon friends be here?
Harlett O'Dowd
> From: stepheno...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
> I don't think there's anything in any version of YF that compares with
> the oddly touching relationship between the two leads in THE PRODUCERS.
> -------------------------------------------
> I find emotion totally missing from the musical of THE PRODUCERS,
> especially when Nathan Lane is involved.
>
> Remember when the anti-Sondheim was Jerry Herman. (LA CAGE over SITPWG.)
> I wish he'd start writing again.
I wish Harman had done THE PRODUCERS when he was asked.
Sweevil
>
> The biggest problem with "The Producers" on stage is that is is
> absolutely, utterly devoid of anything resembling emotional depth. It's
> a gag machine with zero emotional content.
Yes, but that's true of many classic musical comedies: I defy anyone
to find emotional depth in BOYS FROM SYRACUSE, FORUM, OF THEE I SING,
ON THE 20TH CENTURY, or the ice-cold CHICAGO. Yet these are all
marvelous shows ...
Harlett O'Dowd
> Harlett, I understand your comment better now. I guess where we
> differ is on the "emotional gravitas" of the original film. I get no
> gravitas at all from the film, with or without Morris's effective
> music. The lack of heart I referred to is in the source material.
On that we have to agree to disagree. It may be a commentary track on
the laser (?) edition of YF that has WIlder talking about Froderich's
as well as the Monster's yearing for home and acceptance and how the
bulk of Wilder's film work - especially those films in which he
contributed to the screenplay - deal with outsiders trying to find a
home.
There are many lump-in-the-throat moments in the film for me - when
Wilder cradles the Monster and screams "My name is Frankenstein!" and
the Monster repsoiding to Cloris' violin and climbs up the castle wall
back to home, etc.
In its way, I find the maker/creature relationship in YF more
emotionally compelling than Bialystock & Bloom in THE PRODUCERS. And I
agree with Farrow - there is ABSOLUTELY no emotional core to the
PRODUCERS stage musical, but unlike Newport, I pin most of the blame
on Broderick's perverse performance, not on Lane.
Harlett O'Dowd
wrote:
HErman. (Harlett, learn to type)
Harlett O'Dowd
But I think those that DO manage to combine heart with comedy (MUSIC
MAN, MAME, even the end of KMK if done right) have a better chance of
immortality than those without.
Much as I love the songs in GUYS AND DOLLS, those are not people I
have a real desire to re-visit, no matter how good the production. And
while I think one could successfully argue that PAJAMA GAME is a
better show than DAMN YANKEES, I find the characters in DY more
compelling.
And even a farce like OTTC has to be grounded in some reality. No
matter how over-the-top and co-dependant Lilly & Oscar are, the
audience has to see that beneath all the shouting, like Lili & Fred,
there's genuine emotion there.
And Pseudolus has to engage us enough that we WANT him to earbn his
freedom.
Sweevil
the DVD commentary, I've never seen anything I would call emotional
depth or sincerity in his performances -- just the occasional treacly
sentimentality successful comedians sometimes confuse with emotional
depth. (Anyone up for another *drama* starring Jim Carrey? Oy!)
Re. THE PRODUCERS, I have to admit, I got a lump in my throat during
the courtroom scene, when the guys confront their mutual betrayals.
DIdn't need a box of tissues or anything, but I felt something
emotionally there.
I've never felt anything of the kind watching the YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN
film, but hey, people respond differently to things ...
On Aug 19, 11:59 am, Harlett O'Dowd <chris.conne...@worldspan.com>
wrote:
VINCE
Sorry to go OT here but does anyone remmeber Jack Leamon's yelling in
"The Great Race"?
I wonder if he didn't lose his voice after a while
--
Check out my new BLOG
-------------------------------------------------
https://be.freelancersunion.org/f/member/14270
<a href="http://www.freewebs.com/vbphoto/">Visit My Website</a>
Harlett O'Dowd
> Re. THE PRODUCERS, I have to admit, I got a lump in my throat during
> the courtroom scene, when the guys confront their mutual betrayals.
> DIdn't need a box of tissues or anything, but I felt something
> emotionally there.
BTW, I've seen the opening scene from THE PRODUCERS printed in duet
scene-study books for student actors.
Sweevil
But you need 'em up to date, since plays date. I just suffered thru a
performance of THE INDIAN WANTS THE BRONX. How stupid, phony,
artificial, and pointless this play seems now, but at the time it
appeared it must have seemed fascinatingly dark, innovative, daringly
colloquial, "realistic" and "what's happenin' now!"
Funny how dialogue considered the ne plus ultra of realism by one
generation can seem so phony to the next. Hemingway's dialogue, for
example, was praised at the time for its extraordinary realism, yet
now it seems about as naturalistic as Restoration Comedy ...
On Aug 19, 1:44 pm, Harlett O'Dowd <chris.conne...@worldspan.com>
wrote:
>
Sweevil
wrote:
>
> But I think those that DO manage to combine heart with comedy (MUSIC
> MAN, MAME, even the end of KMK if done right) have a better chance of
> immortality than those without.
>
you laugh AND engage your emotions. Your examples are excellent.
Even BELLS ARE RINGING, though dated in many ways, pulls this off.
When Ella sings "The Party's Over", you really feel for this girl.
She has a big heart and that touches our hearts.
At the highest level, one has something like TWELFTH NIGHT or GYPSY, a
comedy that produces guffaws and also breaks your heart. That's the
ultimate in comedy, if you can pull that off ...
Harlett O'Dowd
> Wow, that's one up-to-date scene book ...
to be fair, I probably saw that book twenty years ago and the book was
probably the better part of a decade old then. Still....
Steve Newport
From: chris.c...@worldspan.com (Harlett O'Dowd) I agree with
Farrow - there is ABSOLUTELY no emotional core to the PRODUCERS stage
musical, but unlike Newport, I pin most of the blame on Broderick's
perverse performance, not on Lane.
Either way, the critics are catching on with regard to the less than
dynamic duo: Broderick in THE ODD COUPLE and Lane in BUTLEY.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
emotional depth.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
From: chris.c...@worldspan.com (Harlett O'Dowd) GUYS AND DOLLS:
those are not people I have a real desire to re-visit, no matter how
good the production.
But it is a show with genuine emotion. Or should be.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
From: steph...@gmail.com (Sweevil)
generation can seem so phony to the next.
The screenplay of SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Harlett O'Dowd
> From: chris.conne...@worldspan.com (Harlett O'Dowd) GUYS AND DOLLS:
> those are not people I have a real desire to re-visit, no matter how
> good the production.
> ---------------------------------------
> But it is a show with genuine emotion. Or should be.
Maybe I've yet to see a completely successful production. I connect
with Adelaide and, to a lesser extent, Nathan. Sky & Sarah leave me
totally cold - always, no matter how great their songs/performances.
If I want to see the gambler and the salvation army lass, I'll see
HAPPY END.
I'd love to see what was cut. Abe Burrows' autobiography spends almost
100 pages on G&D, so it works almost as a "making of" book in its own
right. Nathan was originally supposed to be the singing lead with Sky
as the dancing juvenile. When Sam Levine was cast and couldn't sing,
everything was cut and/or taken away from him except "Sue Me" ("Oldest
Established" was written on the road) and Sky's role was built up
vocally when they learned Robert Alda could sing.
Part of my resistance to G&D is that I *know* that Nathan & Adelaide
should be the leads, but Sky & Sarah take up too much time and focus
(the Havanna sequence goes on FOREVER.) To me, the balance in the show
is horribly off. Again, I just don't care enough about S&S to want to
spend that much time with them. I'm always antsy to get back to the
gamblers.
Steve Newport
From: chris.c...@worldspan.com (Harlett O'Dowd) GUYS AND DOLLS:
I connect with Adelaide and, to a lesser extent, Nathan. Part of my
resistance to G&D is that I *know* that Nathan & Adelaide should be the
leads, but Sky & Sarah take up too much time and focus (the Havanna
sequence goes on FOREVER.) To me, the balance in the show is horribly
off.
Having played Sky twice (once in a great production with the cabaret
singer Spider Saloff as Adelaide), Nathan, and directed the show, I'm a
little tired of it.
Apart from Faith Prince, I didn't care for that revival at all. The
black revival had a great Sarah and a good Nathan. I saw a very faithful
stock production starring Joey Adams that had the original Harry the
Horse, Alda's replacement as Sky, a City Center Sarah, and Johnny Brown
from LAUGH IN.
I don't think there's too much of Sky and Sarah, but we shouldn't deal
with their romance first. ("I'll Know" should come after "Adelaide's
Lament.') I would like to see the Havana slugfest cut (I'd rather have
"A Woman in Love") along with "The Oldest Established" "Take Back Your
Mink" and the Sky/Adelaide scene that follows leading into the reprise
of her "Lament." (Act Two should open with the "More I Cannot Wish You")
scene. Nathan needs to sing "Adelaide" and be part of "Guys and Dolls"
and perhaps even "Fugue for Tinhorns."
It's an unusual show in that productions are designed around three
different starring roles. (Sarah originally did not receive star
billing.)
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Harlett O'Dowd
Nathan needs to sing "Adelaide" and be part of "Guys and Dolls"
> and perhaps even "Fugue for Tinhorns."
In reading Burrows, I wondered if Nathan wasn't originally *supposed*
to sing in Fugue and the title song.
Douglas Deane, who originated Rusty Charlie (the third Fugue singer)
was a dancer who got handed a solo. At least originally he didn't have
any dialogue at all - nor a character name. He had to ask Burrows to
create a character name so the listing in the playbill wouldn't look
so silly (It think it originally was listed as Nicely, Benny
Southstreet and "Singer.")
Perhaps "Adelaide" was written for the show and not the film. Again,
I'd love to look at early drafts of this show/score to see how it
developed.
Steve Newport
From: chris.c...@worldspan.com (Harlett O'Dowd) In reading
Burrows, I wondered if Nathan wasn't originally *supposed* to sing in
Fugue
SN: Yes, and it had a different lyric. I think it's on a Ben Bagley
album. I've seen productions in which Harry the Horse sang Rusty's part.
--------------------------------------
and the title song. Perhaps "Adelaide" was written for the show and not
the film.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
Steve Newport
From: chris.c...@worldspan.com (Harlett O'Dowd) <<<I find emotion
totally missing from the musical of THE PRODUCERS, especially when
Nathan Lane is involved. Remember when the anti-Sondheim was Jerry
Herman. (LA CAGE over SITPWG.) I wish he'd start writing again.>>>
I wish Herman had done THE PRODUCERS when he was asked.
------------------------------
Me, too.
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O~O