http://www.theatermania.com/news/reviews/index.cfm?story=2886&cid=1

Is this critic wrong? Or are the other critics wrong? Or is it simply a matter of differing tastes? Or is it a matter of people being conditioned to expect and/or appreciate a certain kind of musical theatre, who don't know what to make of a new show?

The suggestion that "tourists have no taste" is condescending, elitist crap. That some tourists may be coming to see a different kind of entertainment may well be true, but this does not mean that they have "no taste". Who made us the arbiters of good taste? For that matter, who gave that designation to the New York Times? Let's bear in mind that the film critic for the New York Times was the single critic in the nation who gave a positive review to a film called "Freddie Got Fingered", which was so universally panned by other critics that it was actually a major news story.

The best case scenario for this situation is this: maybe the producers of these shows are keeping them running because they actually *believe* in them, and believe that audiences will enjoy them. This may be an idealist point of view, but I would prefer to believe that producers would run a show because they believe that audiences will enjoy it, rather than close it because critics didn't.

Posted by Dave @ 12/11/2002 07:40 AM PST

I can only comment on the show as I know it (and for some God-awful reason I'm seeing it again this afternoon)--but I read the TheaterMania.com review and I must say...I think they were seeing a different show than I saw. Or maybe they just really wanted to give the show the benefit of the doubt. I know I've made a lot of digs at the show...and probably made it sound like I really wanted the show to bomb. Well...that's not entirely my intent. As an actor I would never wish any of my fellow workers to be out of work...and I feel badly for them that their show is being trashed while they still have to go out and do their best to make it through another performance. I'm willing to give any show a fair shot. I've seen it (going on) four times now. I think that's fair enough. I know from music. I know from theatre. I know what's good...what COULD be good...and what's flat-out bad. There are many things about DOTV that COULD be good. I'll even go so far as to say that there are things about the show that ARE good. The problem is...these "good" and "nearly good" elements only help to point out the bad things in the show--which are the majority in DOTV. Every time I've seen the flying ballet (which at least one critic said was a desperate attempt at invention--I think it's brilliant so you can't tell me that I'm on all of the reviewer's bandwagons) I think "this is what the rest of the show SHOULD be--creative...stunning...unexpected." And then we hear "Total Eclipse of the Heart" and see the vampires standing in the background with their faces lit up with flashlights and the rush that I got from the flying ballet comes to a screeching halt.

This show ran for nearly 60 performances in previews alone--that's eight weeks of previews. Many things could have been improved and weren't. As an audience member sitting in a $90 seat I'm kind of offended by that. I know--if you don't like it don't go--but how's Joe-schmo from Nebraska supposed to know what to shell out good money for? If you've got a family of four and you pay $400 so your whole family can see a show I think you're entitled to a fair summation of what you're getting into. I think that the critics were quite accurate in their summations.

Those are my two cents. Take them for what they're worth.

Posted by Jason @ 12/11/2002 08:43 AM PST

That being said...I'm off to see the vampires dance. Pray for me.

Posted by Jason @ 12/11/2002 08:46 AM PST

Snow, snow, snow....I am going to wash my hair in snow. An Irving Berlin reference. I have snow. Snow I have, hair.... Hmmmmmmm.
Ask BK day.
Did you ever meet - doubt that you worked with - the following people or can you tell us any stories you know about them?

Kevin Coughlin, Carroll Baker, Debbie Reynolds.

Thanks....hope you sell so many books you get a writer's hand!

Posted by Jrand55 @ 12/11/2002 08:47 AM PST

Jason - please let us know if the audience reaction has been changed by the reviews.
I guess I depend on the critics, as you say, to protect me from wasting my money and most of all time when I am in town and can only see a couple of shows. I don't automatically dismiss a show that has been panned, especially if I like the leads or the composer, but if everything else is equal - I try to see something that at least has some promise. I really don't know if I would include DOTV on my list to see. But then, I didn't really like the TITANIC score either, but didn't mind the show - it's very personal. I think when you try to make a show that appeals to us as people or something unversal in people, you might chance on something. But when you do a show that tries to appeal to EVERYBODY, then nobody likes it. 8-( But what do I know, I do shows in a barn in a middle of field in Indiana.
8-D

Posted by Jrand55 @ 12/11/2002 08:53 AM PST

Valid points all, Dave. I suppose where I stop understanding the way producers work today is when they keep spending millions of dollars to keep shows open when the ultimate result is a total loss of investment. So, is it right to keep the show open, costing investors and themselves millions on top of the initial huge investment, or is the financially feasable thing to do to do what Mr. Merrick used to do - cut his losses and move on. Ultimately, audiences do decide - no amount of hype or money could keep Once Upon a Mattress (the revival) open. Unfortunately, in today's climate, it is these mega things that seem to run, no matter what the reviews, and new works for the musical theater that are in the classic B'way mold just don't seem to get done or they don't get done well. Seussical is an example of the latter, and as hard as those producers tried they could not keep the show open even though some audiences clearly were having a good time. It's just weighted towards the mega things - those seem to be cut slack, producer-wise, even though they ultimately do take the financial bath they're trying to avoid.

And to play devil's advocate - Scott and Barbara Siegel (two of the nicest people in show business) are cheerleaders. They are there to be supportive and I don't think I've ever seen them give a bad review to anything.

Now, where are some terse, florid or torpid questions?

Posted by bk @ 12/11/2002 09:19 AM PST

Spaghetti, spaghetti, spaghetti...

Posted by Spaghetti @ 12/11/2002 09:31 AM PST

Since for some reason the revisal of ONCE UPON A MATTRESS keeps getting mentioned as a show that stayed open longer than it should have, I would like to say something that few people probably realize: this show used the score from MATTRESS (plus one new song) and the basic plot, but most of the dialogue was changed and it was not nearly as funny as the original. The show has succeeded in many productions without Carol Burnett because the original book is so funny. Even with a less than ideal cast, had this show trusted the original book it would have been a much better show and worthy of a longer run.

For Aks BK Day:
Do you and Guy Haines exchange Christmas gifts? Obviously you won't want to give away what you are giving him this year, but what are some of the gifts you gave him in the past and what are some of the gifts he gave you?

Posted by William E. Lurie @ 12/11/2002 10:06 AM PST

How about a twist on the conversation that has threaded its way from yesterday into today's posts: what about excellent shows that for whatever reason didn't find their audience quickly enough and closed after a short run? Although I never saw them in New York, I've seen lovely productions of A NEW BRAIN and SIDE SHOW here in Los Angeles, and it boggles my mind that they didn't catch on when they played in New York. I am sure that the dear readers of HHW can come up with a plethora of other examples!

Posted by Jay @ 12/11/2002 10:22 AM PST

Dear BK,

How are the literary techniques in Edgar Allan Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado" similar to those in Edith Wharton's "Roman Fever"? Also, how are they different?

Can you tell I have another paper due?

Posted by Sandra @ 12/11/2002 10:45 AM PST

Jay---
A NEW BRAIN was a limited engagement to begin with although I'm sure if there was enough demand it could have been extended. SIDE SHOW was never properly publicized. The posters were ugly, pre-opening articles pushed the "camp" aspects of the show, and even after it opened people didn't know what to expect. Also, as much as I loved it, it was not really the kind of show that mass audiences want to see these days and it elicited as much negative word of month as positive. Some people loved it and others hated it.

Posted by William E. Lurie @ 12/11/2002 10:48 AM PST

I saw SJP in Mattress and will say that it failed on many levels. The biggest, I thought, was in the casting of SJP. I think the role of "fred" is best when played unprincess like to the most - which is one of the reasons that Carol Burnett was ingenious at the role. Sarah was too graceful and winsome in her portrayal that the humor was lost.

Posted by Craig @ 12/11/2002 10:53 AM PST

Craig---
But if SJP had the original dialogue she would have (which is actress-proof) she would have been much better. Perfect, no; miscast, yes; but not nearly as obviously so.

Posted by William E. Lurie @ 12/11/2002 10:59 AM PST

Pardon the typo... it's a busy day.

Posted by William E. Lurie @ 12/11/2002 11:00 AM PST

I also thought the sets were rather summer stock..not to knock summer stock productions of course...

Posted by Craig @ 12/11/2002 11:41 AM PST

I think the term is "low budget". And did you ever see pictures of the original sets from 1959? They made these look lavish.

Posted by William E. Lurie @ 12/11/2002 11:47 AM PST

Oh..see. and I thought the actual term would have been "crap" lol j/k...mostly.. OUaM (once upon a mattress in internet lingo) was actually one of the worst shows I have seen on Broadway. It was aces compared to Toni Tenille in the touring production of Victor/Victoria. OUCH - that was extremely painful!

Posted by Craig @ 12/11/2002 11:51 AM PST

Can you write one or two sentences what it was like working with the following people: Brent Barrett, Liz Callaway, Petula Clark, Jason Graae, Randy Graff, Debbie Gravitte,Judy Kaye, Rebecca Luker, Sally Mayes, Michelle Nicastro Christian Noll, Paige O'Hara, Helen Reddy, Emily Skinner and Alice Ripley and Twiggy.

Posted by Michael Shayne @ 12/11/2002 12:14 PM PST

I agree that OUAM was painful, but it was painful mostly because of the script changes. While the production was not as well cast or well directed as it could have been, had they used the original script it would not have been nearly as bad. It would still been a less than perfect production, but at least the original dialogue would have made many of the production's flaws less noticable.

Posted by William E. Lurie @ 12/11/2002 01:19 PM PST

Tourists and tastes: I probably inferred much about tourists myself. I am one. And what are my tastes? Like many other tourists to the West End and to NY, limited time and limited money restrict you to not taking risks on the unknown. I went to see "The Producers" (loved the film), "Seusical" (loved the Cd and the other work by the writers), and "Follies" (Sondheim after all AND I had never seen it staged professionally and was unable to say that the original was so much better). I loved all three but I also would love to have had the chance to see "Fosse" and "A Class Act" too.
I don't know how it works in the USA but travel agents here in OZ know nothing and would probably suggest to their clients wanting to know what to do in NY that they see "Phantom" of "Grease" and it is paid for as part of the "package" tour. I imagine it is really difficult for a show to "find" its audience under such circumstances. Do New Yorkers support theatre and get these shows up and running or do producers have to rely on the out-of-towners?
What about tastes? A "theatre queen" friend in Sydney loves the Vampires Cd (do you really listen to it Jason) and I loathe "Blood Brothers". Thank goodness for variety in tastes. I know of people who think everything written by ALW is wonderful. But I think everything written by Mr Sondheim is brilliant. So be it.

Question time: Do you have any favourite ALW show tunes BK? It is so easy to "knock" them for being repetitive and derivative but it is hard to get them out yout head.(I really like "Variations")

Posted by Tom from OZ @ 12/11/2002 01:29 PM PST

In light of the above discussion I have an additional Ask BK Day question:

If a school, community theatre or stock company wanted to present ONCE UPON A MATTRESS (or some other show that had an ill-advised book re-write in recent revival such as DAMN YANKEES, ANNIE GET YOUR GUN or BOYS FROM SYRACUSE), are they stuck doing the new version or can they still do the original script? Does the original librettist (or his/her estate) have any control regarding this? I know that when the late George Abbott tried to complain that his book for DAMN YANKEES was ruined in the revival he was legally unable to do anything and was told not to publically complain. Whatever happened to copyright protection?

Posted by William E. Lurie @ 12/11/2002 01:32 PM PST

Tom---
First of all, GREASE finally closed about two years ago and the outside of the theatre has been restored to its normal color (for those who did not know, the theatre was painted Pepto Bismol pink for the run of the revisal). As for who attends Broadway shows, I have read that New Yorkers account for the first three months of a show's run after which the shows depend on tourists. Of course the big hits get the publicity so that is what the tourists want to see whereas if some of the other shows were better publicized outside of New York, maybe tourists would be interested in attending them. A smart producer should invite major travel agents to New York to see their shows so the agent will suggest them to their clients.

Posted by William E. Lurie @ 12/11/2002 01:40 PM PST

I have realized that several of our most loyal and true Hainsies/Kimlets (you know who you are) have been most errant and truant of late. I do know this is the holiday season, but at least come visit and post once a day so we know you're alive and well and living in the state of your choice. I, for example, live in the state of Bliss.

I now return you to our regularly scheduled topic of discussion.

Posted by bk @ 12/11/2002 01:52 PM PST

Bruce -

How do I get to bliss? Currently I am in the state of confusion...

Posted by Craig @ 12/11/2002 01:56 PM PST

In the words of Henry Higgins,
"Damn, damn, damn, damn." I
had an Ask BK question the
other day, but it has since left
my mind. Hopefully it will
return shortly.

Beyond that, I'm alive and well
and not looking forward to
moving this weekend, over a
lovely mountain pass through
the accumulating snow.

Posted by Jed @ 12/11/2002 02:00 PM PST

Returning to the alternate thread of why bad shows keep running, isn't it just true that as long as the production keeps running that the producing office as well as the creative staff continue to get their weekly share of the gross? I know that the creative staff often will take a reduced percentage to keep a show running and in rare instances will take no percentage. Normally, however, the producers, the writers, director, choreographer, etc. get a percentage based on the gross that changes when the show exceeds the break-even point and when the show has paid back its investors. Why wouldn't a producer want to keep a production of his running as long as he can, even if its barely at the break even point? His office continues to get income and everyone else is getting income. Its only the investors who have to suffer the eventual loss of their entire investment. In the past many many shows ran quite a long time and never paid back. I seem to recollect that What Makes Sammy Run did (a bad pun) for a long time (over a year) and probably lost its entire investment. Same with, I think, Woman of the Year. Here's Love, Bajour, Golden Rainbow, etc. etc. all had runs that were not long term but certainly not instant flops. In fact, in the days when a run of 1200 performances was considered a smash run (unlike today's runs of 10 years), shows that sustained a run of a year or less most frequently never paid back their investment unless touring companies or a movie sale brought additional revenue. If today's producers feel that they can get any run out of a show without dramatically going into the red each week, why would they want to close it? Last season, TSSOS got trounced by most of the critics but still ran several months. By keeping it open, Lithgow got a Tony, which he probably would not have had it closed instantly. Also, my opinion in the minority, I liked it as did the majority of the audience I was with that night. So go know, you can't always listen to the critics or the word of mouth on the Internet.

Posted by steveg @ 12/11/2002 02:39 PM PST

Dear Reader Megan says to tell everyone hello. She came over today and we had a cooking lesson. We were so busy cooking there wasn't time to log in.

Posted by Laura @ 12/11/2002 03:06 PM PST

Heaven, I'm in heaven.... (Irving Berlin reference).

I have the Broadway cast album to Baz Lurhmann's production of Puccini's "La Boheme" and it is smashing.

All three casts are featured on the CD...one cast in Act I, another in Act II, another in III and IV. The photos were taken at the Curran Theater during the show's run here.

Posted by Ron Pulliam @ 12/11/2002 04:05 PM PST

IT WAS WORTH THE LONG AND AGONIZING WAIT!!!

Finally got Brent Barrett: The Alan Jay Lerner Album

I've listened to it three times all ready!

I was blown away She Wasn't You. I literally said "Wow" as he sang the finally note. I can't remember the last time I actually did that

The duet with Lauren Bacall is a gem. Tami Tappan is wonderful as always

Posted by Michael Shayne @ 12/11/2002 06:26 PM PST

A question for BK along the lines of our discussion here the past couple days...

Is there a long-running show (or at least not short-running), past or present, that it makes no sense to you why it ran as long as it did?

Posted by Jed @ 12/11/2002 09:21 PM PST

THREE hours between posts? Where the floop is everybody???

Posted by Jed @ 12/11/2002 09:22 PM PST

I think we all waiting for an appearance by the Easter Bunny, Santa, the Tooth Fairy or IMHO, probably Francois.
"Grease" has finished! When does the revisal start?
Great idea Mr Lurie. Those travel agents need something. If they are too busy I'll go ontheir behalf. It will be another three years before I get to o/s wherever.
For what it's worth (not much) I saw the original London production of "Grease". I have not bothered with the show since - it was fun but and somewhat innocent. The movie ruined the tone IMHO.

Posted by Tom Guest (from OZ) @ 12/11/2002 09:40 PM PST

RON: How do you like my buddy Daniel Webb? Isn't he good?!?! (He sings the 'Coat Aria' just prior to Mimi's demise.)

TOM: Yes...I've listened to DOTV several times. Keep in mind though that it is not the current cast on your recording. (Translation: I don't have to listen to Michael Crawford scoop and slide all over the score.)

Posted by Jason @ 12/11/2002 09:42 PM PST

OK, OK, OK... -that was three OKs - I'll post today. I've been visiting and reading when I can the past few days, but I've really also been trying to get a decent amount of sleep each night to finally help me get over this "cold" - which always seems "better" when I actually do get at least eight hours. And since I've been leaving the houser before the day's notes get posted, and getting home after most of the posts for the day have been posted...

-On a very related note, South Pacific is shaping up nicely. What a difference an audience makes. We had a great one tonight - lots of teenagers, and nothing like some mild swearing (damn, hell, etc.), and some sex (Cable and Liat) to get them going. Just one more preview tomorrow, and then we open. -And then comes Monday which has turned out to be the only day I can get my Christmas shopping done. Fun, Fun, Fun!

Regarding all this talk about shows, producers, etc... As for new books, orchestrations, dance arrangements, most of the time it comes down to money. Royalties get redistributed, as do the credits. And as for Damn Yankees, the revival is not the licensed version - at least the last time I checked it wasn't. If it was, a whole new royalty arrangement would have had to be worked out with the orchestrator, book doctor, arranger, etc., for that production. The re-use rights alone for the new orchestrations would be sizable.

And as for producers keeping them running... well, it's again a matter of money as has been stated before. A loss is a loss, but it can also be a write-off. But I do know some producers who try to keep a show open as long as possible in order to keep the actors, musicians, stagehands, technicians, employed for as long as possible. Closing a show is a major decision, and and glimmer of "hope" that the audiences may pick up is usually enough of an incentive to keep it running.

OK... I'm babbling now. Does any of this make sense to anyone? I think I'll get to my questions for BK. And here they are:

-Have you ever played a cast album backward? -a la the Eagles "Hotel California".

-Who has surprised you in a role that you didn't think would be able to pull if off and/or was not appropriate for it?

-Do inchworms stop adding after 16 and 16 are 32?

Posted by Jose C. Simbulan @ 12/11/2002 09:44 PM PST

Question for BK:
Along the topic of the last 2 days--
Am I right in noting that the way a show is developed has changed since the golden age? Aren't workshops relatively new? Wasn't A Chorus Line created by a series of workshops? And what about these heavy advance ticket sales? I read an article not too long ago that chronicled how these society women's groups were the impetus behind the huge advance ticket sales for, I believe, The Producers. Did this method exist before?

Posted by Donna-Cabaret West @ 12/11/2002 10:08 PM PST

It's around 1:40 am and I finally have time to post to the site and ask questions (as always, if it's not too late)! I had a friend in high school whose last name was Bliss. On the back of his senior T-shirt, where most people had their name printed (the printing was included in the cost of the T-shirt), he had "Ignorance Is...". He was perpetually in a state of Bliss.

Bruce, I don't know if this specifically has been asked before, but when you purchase movies or even TV shows (whether video or DVD), do you prefer widescreen or pan-and-scan, or does it matter to you? If you have a preference for one over the other, have you ever chosen not to buy a movie because the only available version was the one that you didn't like? Or, if your non-preferred version is the only one available, would you get it anyway?

The recent DVD release of Warren Beatty's DICK TRACY was in widescreen. The problem (to me, at least) is that the movie was originally shot in the 4:3 aspect ratio. It was cropped at the top and bottom to make it widescreen. Have you gotten this DVD? If not, would you? How do you feel when movies (and now some TV shows) are altered to make them widescreen when they originally weren't?

How many other Bruces have you ever known? Have you ever had a really good friend named Bruce? What's the most number of Bruces that you've been together with at one time? And then, other than family (and you can define "family" any way that you want), how many other Kimmels have you ever known? Have you ever had a really good friend whose last name was Kimmel? What's the most number of Kimmels that you've been together with at one time (including family)?

And finally, what's the one question that you've been asked the most often on Ask BK Day?

Posted by George @ 12/12/2002 01:57 AM PST

I wonder what you call a gathering of "Kimmels". Is there an appropriate collective noun?

Posted by Tom Guest (from OZ) @ 12/12/2002 02:22 AM PST

Jason - what are the musical signatures for scoops and slides?

Posted by Jrand55 @ 12/12/2002 04:52 AM PST