I saw Avenue Q July 2010. It wasn't terrible. But it wasn't...good. It was stale. The show seemed very forced to me, and I didn't feel any passion. I saw Wicked (2NT) in December...was pretty disappointed. The cast was just not into it. I felt like with all the different productions, the show was not as unique and lacked the special spark. DG was horrible...SHE (anne brummel (sp?) was good (vocally) but you can give the best show ever but have no character in the Act 1 finale and you're toast. She was sweet at the stagedoor though. Thoughts? No bashing please.
I'm 54 and saw my first professional production in 1966. I must be totally clueless because the only time I can ever remember seeing an actor who was obviously not giving his all was Richard Burton in a revival of CAMELOT in the early 80's. (I read later that he was in severe back pain and taking painkillers so it may have been due to that, not due to boredom). Sure, some shows seem more 'by the numbers' than others (NEWSIES comes to mind), but I honestly can't remember another occasion where I noticed the performers phoning it in.
How many times have you seen those shows or listened to recordings? Sometimes, we have this "seen it/heard it" subconscious attitude about shows we were crazy about at one point, but maybe not anymore.
I think a lot of it, too, just depends on how long the actor has been doing the show. Wicked, especially, rotates cast members. If the show is fresh to one cast member, they should be very excited and lively. If they have been doing it for a long time, or many times, then it is slightly possible that they'll lose some energy, unless they just really love that role.
Several years ago, Les Miserables fired several cast members and made others re-audition for the roles they were playing because the show had grown stale.
It happens, it's not "right" but it happens. Actors get sick, tired bored, crap happens in their personal lives -- of course none of that SHOULD matter, but it does. The average theater goer will seldom know the difference.
I'm not sure what there is to discuss, to be honest.
In most cases, I just don't think it's a reflection of the show itself. Like dramamama said, it's a personal actor-by-actor issue, of getting sick or having problems or drama they cannot get past for those two hours.
Many shows may seem dated if the humor or events are very time-specific, which may be part of Avenue Q's problem, but there's obviously a difference between dated and stale.
The AVENUE Q running at New World Stages feels just that -- stale. It's not the show. It's definitely the cast -- or, at least, it was when I saw it last fall. To be fair, they may not be aware it's a problem. They didn't seem "bored," per se... but the energy coursing through the production is on the relaxed-to-low side, robbing the show of its snap and verve. The actors looked to be enjoying themselves, so I don't think you can say they were phoning it in... but everything came out pretty casually, with a not-overtaxing expenditure of energy, like they knew they didn't have to work too hard to keep that audience's attention.
"Several years ago, Les Miserables fired several cast members and made others re-audition for the roles they were playing because the show had grown stale."
I bleieve that was mid-to-late nineties (98 maybe?). Anyway, they didn't fire several cast members, they fired MOST of the company, but allowed those they considered keeping re-audition. Then, they shuttered the show, brought in the touring cast while the new company rehearsed, and then re-opened.
There is also a lack of effervescence that come from seeing a show repeatedly. There is nothing that can replace the effect of seeing a show for the first time.
And I'd single out Lion King as the best preserved production- I've seen it repeatedly over the years- in NYC, on tour- and I've never seen a stale performance. Excellent work all around.
The worst offenders of this I've seen were London productions of Grease and Starlight Express, though I did experience it the last time I saw Rent on Broadway. My father complained about Miss Saigon just before it closed as it was one of his favorite shows and he said the entire cast phoned it in and the production was a mess. Quite often, long-running shows will simply be abandoned by the producers and director with the stage manager simply assigning blocking and dance captains drilling the choreography. With nobody keeping a critical eye on the production, they can just devolve into run-throughs where the cast is there simply to pick up a check. I remember hearing about this being a major problem during the final years of A Chorus Line.
Does anyone believe that Phantom is stale? I saw it again recently (last couple months) and felt very much like I was sitting in the 80's. I am not a HUGE ALW fan, but compared to the revival of JCCS, Phantom seems ancient. Some shows need to close simply so they can be revived with new life.
Another thing that bothers me is that the revival of Chicago is still running. It doesn't feel like a revival anymore. The word revival... doesn't it mean to to bring life back to? And now it's been running so long that the revivals coming out now seem more stellar than Chicago.
The Chicago revival once works as new and exciting with its non existent set and basic costumes and the band on stage, but isn't time to update again?
"Another thing that bothers me is that the revival of Chicago is still running. It doesn't feel like a revival anymore. The word revival... doesn't it mean to to bring life back to? And now it's been running so long that the revivals coming out now seem more stellar than Chicago."
Slightly unrelated, but that's what bugs me when musicals put "A New Musical" in its title. Recently, a community theatre in my neck of the woods did "Titanic: A New Musical" fifteen years after it was on Broadway. It makes me want to go up to a fifteen year old and go, "It's Matthew. A new person."
I think it's important to differentiate between production and show. The show isn't necessarily stale, but the productions can be.
Phantom and Chicago are perfect examples I think. And stale is the perfect word. When a new production opens, it can make an old show feel fresh. For instance, I saw Phantom and South Pacific the same day. South Pacific is obviously a much older show, but because Phantom was an older production it felt very, very stale and old. Whereas South Pacific felt fresh and new.
haha, yeah Titanic is def not a "new" musical anymore. But in that same respect, neither is "Wicked" anymore and it still has "new" in its logo.
So when is "new" no longer appropriate? And when is a "revival" no longer a revival? Is it awarded the title revival forever simply because the original closed? I bet you could ask some people and they wouldn't even know that Chicago is a revival.
A few years ago, I took a friend to Phantom of the Opera on tour because she has never seen it and rarely gets to the theatre. Having worked with the first two tours, I was expected to be bored by a stale production, but it seemed as fresh as if I were seeing it for the first time in the 80s. I was HUGELY impressed with the care taken on that tour and it reminded me exactly what made the show a sensation in the first place. Still not one of my favorite shows, but I had enormous respect for how effective it could still be when the people involved actually care about the production.
The official Titanic "logo" reads "Titanic: A New Musical." If you do that show and want to use the provided graphics and posters, that's what you get.
"The official Titanic "logo" reads "Titanic: A New Musical." If you do that show and want to use the provided graphics and posters, that's what you get."
I'm not faulting the community theater. I'm faulting the creators.
I saw it about a month ago (on a Thursday night) and it was definitely staler than it had when I saw it five years ago (on a weekend matinee) -- that performance felt so fresh and energetic. This was fine, but nothing special.
I went to see "The Producers" a 2nd time because a very dear friend of ours in NY wanted to see it. I was very surprised that it was "stale" even with Lane and Broderick (their 2nd time doing the show) who appeared to be going thru the motions to me.
On the contrary, I saw Phantom in early January and happened to catch one of Hugh Panaro's understudies and it was one of the worst shows I've ever seen. I was bored, there was almost nothing good happening on that stage when I saw it, except for the Raoul who wasn't even the normal Raoul - he was filling in for a short time.
Which makes me wonder if Phantom is a good, not boring/stale show right now because of Hugh or not. Because it sure wasn't when I went.
I think the point is that "new" doesn't belong there whether official or in a logo. New is for new shows, and titles should be renamed to take out "new" if it ain't new anymo! You hear me "Wicked" people?
Besides, what's new anyways these days? Everything seems to be recycled from an older idea... Nice Work, Lysistrata, Once, Leap (puke), Ghost, Newsies...
Drama Desk Award Winners - MATILDA, VANYA AND SONIA, PIPPIN, VIRGINIA WOOLF & More!
STAGE TUBE: MATILDA Cast Performs on The View!
John Bantay Talks to Richard Jay-Alexander About Musical Mondays Farewell
CHUCK Star Zachary Levi and Krysta Rodriguez Set to Lead FIRST DATE
Paris SUNDAY IN THE PARK Now Available For Download
Jennifer Hudson Joins AMERICAN IDOL's Judges' Panel!
VIDEO: Rooney Mara & Casey Affleck in First Trailer for AIN'T THEM BODIES SAINTS
Rihanna for River Island Summer Collection Lands May 25th
Exclusive InDepth InterView Audra McDonald Talks GO BACK HOME Album & PBS Special, MARLENE DIETRICH'S ABC, Upcoming Projects & More
Donkey Kong Country Returns is Back and Optimized for Portable Play
BWW Blog: Leah Edwards - Practice. Perform. Repeat
BWW Reviews: Millepied, Wheeldon and Martins - A Mixed Bag for City Ballet
Regional Orchestra of the Week: Reno Philharmonic, NV
joined:9/12/10
Posted: 4/29/12 at 09:55pm