| re: oof, "Rich and Happy", you are missed | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:25 pm EDT 07/11/24 | |
| In reply to: re: oof, "Rich and Happy", you are missed - Jason 03:30 pm EDT 07/11/24 | |
|
|
|
| While I haven't rewatched in full since I saw it in cinemas, I have basically nothing good to say about the filmed London production which was the basis (and almost the same exact one, as I'm told) for the broadway revival... I hated it, the direction, sets, staging, acting, music... and the version, of course. But I wouldn't be surprised if I found myself agreeing about Mendez vs Russell. I guess we'll see when the filmed broadway production comes out. And I am also baffled that they didn't keep it running with replacements, not only do I think it's easier to cast, I think a LOT of talented people would want to do it. It's always hard to find people with names who want to replace a beloved star who just won a Tony for their performance, and where the 3 leads were largely thought of as the reason this production worked so well. But I really do think they could have run at least 6 more months with 2 sets of replacements for 3 months each. The original production failed because of a mix of what Broadway audiences were open to in 1981 and Hal Prince's creative breakdown during the process. I will never not stand firm that the musical they were doing, the score and script from that production, are BY FAR a better musical than anything we've seen it be since it started getting revised. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: oof, "Rich and Happy", you are missed - Jason 03:30 pm EDT 07/11/24 |
| Next: | re: oof, "Rich and Happy", you are missed - Broadwaywannabe 08:37 am EDT 07/10/24 |
| Thread: | |
Time to render: 0.011172 seconds.