|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 16:53:30 GMT
For me, Playing Nancy is so integral to what the show is saying about how most of us approach life, and how we can be better, happier people. But it's challenging to the audience because it moves us away from identifying with Phil - the main character, the centre of the show - and forces us to think about the people who he (and we) have dismissed as unimportant, and see them as fully rounded human beings. The show is about a man learning to see those around him as real people, not just as stock characters, and in doing so learning how to live a fuller, happier life. Exactly. If anyone thinks the song is unnecessary, they haven't understood the show. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 16:56:38 GMT
It took me a moment to understand the song, but once I thought about it, I really appreciated what it represented in the show.
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Aug 16, 2017 23:48:14 GMT
If Nancy recedes back in to the background and doesn't get given any more attention in the rest of the play, then what was the point of the song in the first place? So she's just being treated like she was before? It felt off to me. The film worked just as well without a backstory given to Ned or any other minor character.
RE the score - I couldn't remember a single tune a couple of hours after I saw the show. I enjoyed it while I saw it but would definitely say it's a *** version of a ***** movie. Perhaps I enjoyed it more for its technical marvels than anything else, which I suppose isn't the greatest of endorsements.
However I'm still glad so many other people loved it. Fabulous to have seen so many West End theatregoers embrace a musical with an original score (albeit an unoriginal book) and give a show the push it needs to get to Broadway without it being the other way around for once. If it does eventually come back I'd wish it well wholeheartedly (what will the shelf-life of Dreamgirls at the Savoy?).
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 18, 2017 10:23:02 GMT
I enjoyed reading that Riedel article, he paints it as a victim of timing more than anything else. Whilst I'm never entirely convinced that there being one other 'more popular' show can destroy you, it at least fits as to why it failed there and succeeded here. We have a dearth of quality musical theatre being produced in London, and so this was clearly a winner, whereas on Broadway there's no shortage of new stuff coming through, and GHD fell by the wayside. In a world where Dear Evan Hansen came a season later, would Groundhog Day have had a chance to develop that infamous 'buzz' and got itself into a multi-year run? Maybe.
I'm sad that it's 'flopped' on Broadway, it didn't deserve that. It's not a completely groundbreaking piece of new theatre, but it was good solid fare, hopefully it can mount a decent London run if they can keep it's costs sensible.
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Aug 18, 2017 12:15:31 GMT
That's true. When I was over there for a few months this summer, I was struck by how few 'stalwarts' there were - just Phantom, Wicked, Lion King and Chicago (whereas we have Les Mis, Thriller, Mamma Mia too). I suppose Book of Mormon, Aladdin and Kinky Boots have been going for a few years now so you can add them as well.
But I don't know if this is just down to theatre space, but Broadway has so many more new musicals - whether they turn out successful or not is a different matter. The Great Comet, Waitress, Bandstand, War Paint, A Bronx Tale, Anastasia, On Your Feet, Dear Evan Hansen, Come From Away and of course Hello Dolly - just imagine a West End with all of these at the same time. Sure, it means a trade-off between fewer plays and more musicals, but the musical 'scene' over there is extremely different. Far more competitive and not a race to the bottom, each show is trying to be distinctive.
So I'm really not at all shocked that GHD didn't find its audience. For some, a musical based on a film might be seen as tacky, and others might be turned off by not even being familiar with a 20+ year old movie. I can't imagine tourist families leaping at it, nor millennial women. The Tonys performance was also a wasted opportunity, too.
I'm not trying to disparage the show in any way, just offering some thoughts after my experience in NYC of how things are different over there, and what explanations there might be for its being a 'flop'.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 18, 2017 15:34:31 GMT
I saw it, bizarrely, in NYC but missed it af Old Vic. I wouldn't mind if it didn't come over. It was fine, that's all - (wtf was the Nancy song all about?!) I don't regret seeing it but there are a lot more transfers I'd like to come over first. The audience I saw it with however was fairly muted and unresponsive (strange for Broadway), so perhaps that affected my experience of seeing the show. Playing Nancy is often questioned and seen as quite a random song. All through Act 1 the entire focus is on Phil. It is his story and he uses the people around him for his own enjoyment. He only sees the people of Punxsutawney as small town people and we as the audience also see them that way. They are just players in his life. So when you sit back down after the interval ready for Act 2 you are preparing to pick straight back up with Phil and carry on where you left off. But instead everything stops and they shine the light on Nancy and tell her story and when she is does she slips back into the background. This is setting you up for Phil's journey in Act 2 as he learns to care for for the towns people and find out more about them. There is also the meta level to the song where it could be seen as the actress singing about what it's like to play the character And it's also, maybe more importantly, about the fact that she's trapped in a repetitive pattern that she only partly created herself, which is a recurring theme throughout the show (see also 'Nobody Cares', 'One Day', and 'Night Will Come'). |
|
2,504 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 8, 2017 14:57:39 GMT
Tim Michin says that this is coming back to London on his facebook page ( no other details though)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 20:29:05 GMT
Tim Michin says that this is coming back to London on his facebook page ( no other details though) Not really news given the Broadway closure announcement consisted of the same information. |
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Sept 9, 2017 8:11:08 GMT
Throwing good money after bad
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2017 9:46:25 GMT
Unless Tim puts his own money into it he has little say in a London production if there isnt anyone to put money up. Its likely producers are going to be cautious about future productions now. It had a very slow start at the Old Vic and has now lost whatever momentum of buzz it had last year towards end of the run. And with Hamilton about to open id imagine all other shows will get lost in the hype
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2017 10:50:07 GMT
It can now sell itself as the Olivier award winning musical, along with using all of its excellent reviews here.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 9, 2017 10:56:14 GMT
Every time news about this musical has popped up I have seen people say 'bring it to London!' and 'bring it back to London!'
And I'm not just talking about theatre geeks. I run across comments from people who didn't know about the Old Vic run, who picked up on it when Bill Murray went.
There's an audience for it in London, the same way there's an audience for Matilda in London. That's why it's coming back.
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2017 16:10:48 GMT
It's a well developed show that has been built out twice now. Presumably a lot of set elements and props have been retained. Whilst it's never cheap to mount a musical, it shouldn't be the riskiest show in the world financially to put into a sensible venue if they get the timing and marketing right. Like Outlander says, the one thing they don't want is to have it emerging when something else is sweeping the attention spans of the theatre-going public, a la Evan Hansen or Hamilton.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2017 16:19:10 GMT
Exactly what Andrew and Kathryn said, we're not talking a new production here we're talking a 'revival' of sorts of an already proven commodity. I'm not saying the 'Hog would run for years in London but I think a short term West End run would do decent business on the back of Minchin and the film. Plenty of non-theatre folks I know have heard of it because of Minchin and wanted to see it in London and couldn't. Add to that a decent theatre name (if Karl isn't interested, which presumably he might not be) and I'm pretty sure for limited additional investment they would get a decent run out of it here again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2017 17:36:47 GMT
They need it to run and run though, the initial investment was huge and its no where near making it back. Whilst sets are probably still around, theres casting, rehearsals, rents, marketing etc. A planned limited run wouldnt make financial sense.
Reviews and awards dont always mean much to the ticket buying public (look at Merrily). Its award winning actor will likely not return with it.
Good luck to it if it comes back bit its not a show id personally risk money in
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2017 18:57:08 GMT
They need it to run and run though, the initial investment was huge and its no where near making it back. Whilst sets are probably still around, theres casting, rehearsals, rents, marketing etc. A planned limited run wouldnt make financial sense. Reviews and awards dont always mean much to the ticket buying public (look at Merrily). Its award winning actor will likely not return with it. Good luck to it if it comes back bit its not a show id personally risk money in Minchin seems to be under the impression that when it hits London the intention is a long run. He's also hinted at there being underlying issues with the Broadway production resulting in its early closure. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2017 19:19:46 GMT
To be honest, I don't see Hamilton being a huge problem in the next year because it's sold out anyway.
|
|
2,705 posts
|
Post by viserys on Sept 10, 2017 5:26:39 GMT
To be honest, I don't see Hamilton being a huge problem in the next year because it's sold out anyway. I think different audiences will embrace different things. Hamilton will be selling out for a while (not least thanks to US-American tourists) but I doubt it will be anywhere near the hype in the USA, simply due to the subject. Groundhog Day opened amid the biggest surge of show openings in a while, so a few shows undeservedly lost out simply because even on Broadway there's a limited audience for all the new shows and last season it was Dear Evan Hansen and Come From Away that stole the thunder. But the market in London is different and Tim Minchin is a much better-known name. Everyone I know loves the cast recording. I was sceptic when GHD opened at the Old Vic because it felt like "yet another lame movie adaptation" and missed it due to bad travel planning. But the cast recording won me over completely and now I can't wait to see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2017 6:27:39 GMT
Groundhog Day was one of the best musicals in London last year so I would welcome it bak in a heartbeat over some shows currently running!
|
|
32 posts
|
Post by oldstager on Sept 10, 2017 11:55:34 GMT
Groundhog Day was one of the best musicals in London last year so I would welcome it bak in a heartbeat over some shows currently running! THE best musical last year for me. It sounds as if the Broadway production not only had more initial technical problems than the Old Vic one but seemed to lack some of the impact too. I don't think its relative failure in NYC should influence a British audience too much and clever marketing and casting (LOVED Andy Karl but there are other contenders - both British and American - who would draw bigger crowds) could help it take up from where it left off in London last year. Above all the venue is CRUCIAL - just think how much more successful both artistically and commercially AN AMERICAN IN PARIS would be if only it was playing at the Savoy. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 10:10:29 GMT
Oh God I'm desperate to see this again!
|
|
641 posts
|
Post by christya on Sept 12, 2017 21:46:49 GMT
I saw this on Broadway a few months ago and I'd have gone back the next day to see it again if I could. Easily one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had at the theatre for a long time - I saw Hamilton a couple of days later and while I enjoyed that, it didn't come close. Groundhog Day was just so much fun - something as simple as the miniature van getting snow dumped on it by a giant groundhog had everyone cheering. If it opened again in London I'd be back quite a few times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 4:12:40 GMT
According to Baz this week they still plan on bringing it back but first they want to work on it (new songs, work on book and choreography) and admit it was arrogant to try out in london when its a small town America story and they should have tried out in boston or Chicago (not sure that would have made that much difference)
They seem to have so badly produced this. Why when the show was starting to be successful in london would you make changes before bringing it back again
|
|
630 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Oct 13, 2017 11:05:42 GMT
According to Baz this week they still plan on bringing it back but first they want to work on it If they cut Playing Nancy I'm going to take a groundhog hostage until it's reinstated |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Oct 13, 2017 13:39:18 GMT
Hmmmmmmmm I'm really not sure about this. We (London) absolutely bloody LOVED this on the whole. I've seen the Broadway version (thanks, internet) and bar a couple of things here and there, it's very much the same show. And it's pretty perfect as it is. Not without flaws, what is, but that's part of the bleedin' show itself!! OK it didn't go very well on Broadway, but that's due to a multitude of various different reasons behind the scenes - at least I thought that's what was hinted at? Not sure why they'd bring back a show with substantial changes for an audience that really loved it for what it was. Changes to the book, OK I'm sure I could deal with that (even though I thought it was one of the factors that turned it from a good musical to a GREAT musical) but "new songs by Tim Minchin" in the BroadwayWorld article really worries me.
But still; please bring it back!!!
|
|
