I never saw the original cast, I did however, see Jason Alexander (who was excellent) and Martin Short (who was great, but not as good). I enjoyed it tremendously.
However, in light of Avenue Q and Wicked (please no bashing, etc...)I think that the Producers has become ridiculously overrated in terms of quality. Being a huge fan of both the movie, Mel Brooks, and the show, I mean no disrespect, but to sweep the Tonys? It's wonderful, hysterical, and deserving of some, but not all, and I think the critics were just laughing so hard they didn't stop to realize that maybe there are other shows that are just as good, if not better.
Namo, may I ask do you work with Forbidden Broadway? Great song! B
"All I ask of you is one thing: please don't be cynical. I hate cynicism -- it's my least favorite quality and it doesn't lead anywhere. Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind, amazing things will happen."
Conan O'Brien
I saw The Producers with Louis G. Spradlin and Don Stephenson, both of whom were terrific, and loved the show - it doesn't need Lane and Broderick to work! What I did notice though was that there seemed to be something of a generation gap at work in the audience. The kids in the crowd didn't seem to enjoy it half as much as those of us who remember the movie.
I assume you mean Louis J. Stadlen, not to be confused with G.D. Spradlin!
To the person who was shocked that Ave. Q won best score over Wicked - when Wicked opened, the overwhelming opinion seemed to be that the score was the show's weakest element, and that if Stephen Schwartz won the Tony, it would be for sentimental, "lifetime acheivement" reasons, rather than for the actual merit of the Wicked score.
I don't think you can call Wicked overrated for the simple fact that the "ratings" for it weren't very good. It opened to good to mediocre reviews. It lost the Tonys for Best Musical, Best Score, Best Book, wasn't nominated for Best Director. So can you consider it to be "over"-rated, when it wasn't "rated" that well in the first place?
As far as The Producers, it is The Funniest Show I Have Ever Seen. Does that make it worthy of all the praise it has received? Perhaps not. The score is good, although certainly not Broadway's best.
To answer the original post, No. Producers is not the most overrated. It is Cats. A show with no plot, cool costumes, and bad songs. I say this as a person who likes most of ALWs stuff. How that show ran so long baffles me.
"Singing is the lowest form of communication" - Homer
Cats was innovative for its time, entertaining, appropriate for audiences of all ages, and provided a memorable score with one of musical theatre's most famous ballads. Its logos and costumes are instantly recognized internationally. Why are people surprised it ran a long time? It's definitely not my favorite show, but I liked it. I was thoroughly entertained. I found the choreography brilliant, sets and costumes imaginative, and the score quite catchy. I know it's considered "cool" to diss a popular show and try to appear "above it", but to question why Cats ran so long without objectively analyzing the show is just silly. You don't have to like it to understand its mass appeal. The same can be said of The Lion King. The work Julie Taymor did with the set and costume designs were breathtaking and innovative. Alvin Ailey's choreography was wonderful. When the show first opened, the opening number alone received standing ovations for the sheer artistry of the staging and music (when was the last time that happened?). Ragtime had the stronger book and score, but it just couldn't compete with the phenomenon that was happenening down the street. To have an opinion that a show is overrated is one thing, to question a show that was long-running means you need to give it a little more thought.
secret-soul - "I realize that many people on this board do not LOVE phantom as I do. But I find that it is successfully a staple of american theatre"
Except that Phantom is not American. It is a staple of British theatre running in America, but it can't be a staple of American theatre without being an American show. I do think Phantom is overrated, but I can certainly understand why it is a worldwide sensation.
I also agree that The Producers is a bit overrated. It's funny and splashy, but I wouldn't classify it as a Best Musical.
Rent overrated? How so? I think it depends on your level of expectations when you first saw the show. If you look at the structure of the score and lyrics, it is quite masterful. Some people think the show wasn't "realistic" enough or "gritty" enough, but the show was not written specifically for them. There is nothing "real" about musical theatre at all and how "gritty" does it have to be? The show is a milestone in American musical theatre and will be regarded as a classic with the likes of Hair and A Chorus Line.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Good post Mister Matt, I complete agree with what you've said.
I guess Cats isn't the "most overrated" show, considering it was never that highly rated in the first place. And I can definitely see why families would enjoy it, since it's kinda like a "Disney On Ice" show, but without the ice. But didn't anyone start thinking it looked and felt dated after awhile? It eventually did turn into a museum piece.
BlueWizard's blog: The Rambling Corner
HEDWIG: "The road is my home. In reflecting upon the people whom I have come upon in my travels, I cannot help but think of the people who have come upon me."
To understand the (over)reaction to THE PRODUCERS, you have to understand that when it opened, Broadway was in the last throes of a pretty unimpressive cycle. Excepting MONTY, most of what was running was the tail end of the Brit-Wildhorn-pop-opera trend all of a similar flavor. Unabashed musical comedy was pretty nonexistent. To borrow what Ethan Morden said about KISS ME KATE (that it "Couldn't wait to be a film") THE PRODUCERS transformation into a big splashy specifically AMERICAN Broadway musical seemed inevitable - preordained - and audiences were intrigued that Brooks was writing the lyrics AND music. From the start THE PRODUCERS seemed like a breath of fresh air, a bawdy blast from the vaudeville past, bolstered by its talented stars and a first-class cast of character performers who were all given a chance to strut their stuff. Expertly constucted and crisply paced with not a wasted minute, its score took a back seat to the on-stage hijinks (it's probably better to classify THE PRODUCERS as a Comedy musical rather than a musical comedy). It made hundreds of people excited about Broadway again and it was welcomed like the return of the Prodigal son.
Since then, its luster has been dimmed somewhat by such shows as HAIRSPRAY (same emphasis on fun, but with a better score) MILLIE (which cribbed a fair amount from THE PRODUCERS) and MAMMA MIA (more colorful and MUCH LOUDER). At the 2001 Tonys where THE PRODUCERS swept, I remember the clip from JANE ERYE. No offence to those partisans of the show, but it seemed positively antiquated - a big, trilling dinasaour.
The thing is- its NOT doing as well in other locales & yes the tour is doing ok but not the raves they thought. Toronto is prob gonna close in Sept unless there is abig upturn in bookings The cast are good but They aint Nathan & Matthew who have become a truly great comedy team in these roles. So yeah I kinda think the show is just OK but a trully great comedy team can & does elevate it. ( imagine say Belusi & Ackroyd or even an older Jack Black & David Spade)
Updated On: 6/9/04 at 12:22 PM
Smallish correction: The great Alvin Ailey passed away in 1989. Garth Fagan choreographed "The Lion King."
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
I think Producers is an incredible show, however I don't think it should have gotten best score either. It definately deserved the acting awards it got, and yea best musical.
Its like with Ave Q and Wicked. Ave Q yea I can understand best book (although Wicked is so unique too) and yea maybe best musical, but Wicked should have had best score.
It all depends on the year, I think this year was a really strong year and the year Producer can out it was that, and that was it. I kinda went off topic didn't I?
Funny, all the Wicked people say that it at least should have received the Tony for best score. If I remember the reviews correctly the score was the part least liked by the critics.
Personally, I think Schwartz is vastly overrated. Pippin was all Fosse and Godspell was right place, right time for him. It not a fluke that he has not had a Broadway hit in decades. He had to hide out in Hollywood. Pure pop fluff.
MargoChanning - You are absolutely right! I got confused. Garth Fagan! (who is also a great choreographer) I'm totally embarassed, but not so much that I take back a word of what I said. I saw Garth Fagan's company in 1990 and Alvin Ailey's company in 1991. I loved both of them, but my favorite company of all time would have to be David Parsons' group. I've seen them perform many times, own the DVD, and met the wonderful man myself ("Caught" is one of the most brilliant pieces of choreography). I felt sorry for him after the Capeman fiasco.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
David Parsons Group is great. They are playing at the Joyce through Sunday and anyone who hasn't seen them should go.
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
Everyone else: thank you. I realize what i posted was stated incorrectly. Yes, Phantom is a British show and I respect it as such. What I meant is that it's become such a staple on Broadway and IN America, not necessarily OF America.::)
I've already stated that I do think the Producers is over rated and that I didn't particularly love it I will say that I saw it with Brad Oscar and Steven Weber and thought they were excellent in the parts.
I don't know if I can really say I think it brought people back to "Broadway" so much as I think it brought people to The Producers. So many people only wanted to see it because of Lane and Broderick. In many instances people I know have said if they're not in it they don't want to see it. I personally enjoyed the people that I saw, but I don't think The Producers really did much for bringing people to the theater in general.
It brought people to see the producers, but not any other shows. It attracted people who loved Mel Brooks, and others but, it didn't seem to help the other shows around it!
First of all, there are still a lot of people alive in this country that DO remember the years that the Producers represents...not everyone is 19.
Secondly, it's only the PRESS that tried to make this 'the best musical of all time'. It was funny, smart and enjoyable and had hummable tunes...all necessary for the good musical formula.
Thirdly, it brought energy and crowds back to Broadway...so why is that every few months we drag out the 'let's beat up on the Producers' thread? It may not be the best musical of all time but it has brought life and money back to Broadway and that's always good.
I attended the 2001 Tony Awards when The Producers swept and won 12. I would like to say that beforehand I was young and naive, thinking that winning the award was an honor. Afterwards, it was clear that it's the biggest joke going.
"SUNY Binghamton, yes. I'm sure getting a degree from SUNY Binghamton is very useful. Normally to get a degree with that kind of credibility you'd have to study in Guatemala or Haiti."
"Phantom is MELODRAMATIC! I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it? This isn't an insult - it's written to be a Broadway opera about an opera! Its very form is melodramatic!"