Kristin Chenoweth IS 'The Apple Tree'

[papeetepatrick]

What a relief! And to think that it's already 6 years since that NYTMagazine article about Stephen Sondheim by Frank Rich in which Sondheim says there are really no Broadway stars anymore, and that Bernadette Peters is probably the closest thing to there being one.

Well, I had seen Ms. Chenowith in a corny but sometimes entertaining radio broadcast you could watch at Town Hall in 2002 where she was with Garrison Keillor and Odetta and some others, and she was perfectly adorable there, but nothing I really kept thinking about other than noting that she could definitely sing way beyond almost any B'way singer I'd ever heard in some ways. Otherwise, saw a TV broadcast in which she sang 'Glitter..' and maybe 5 minutes of a TV production of 'The Music Man' which I thought had those terrible sets one sees in TV productions of musicals, so I got rid of it.

But this is something else, and it's just charm all over the place. Ms. Chenowith is funny, pretty, sophisticated, naive, and sings as well as no more than perhaps 5 other ladies in Broadway history have ever sung in various different ways. She can be cutesey in her acting, but it's only one of many tones she has--no offense to Bernadette Peters fans, but I never felt like this extreme doll-like preciosity ever goes away; it was still as much there in the sound of her voice in 'Sunday in the Park with George' as it had been in 'Dames at Sea' (I never thought she really went beyond that in terms of fully realizing something). But Chenoweth's singing at the Roundabout Theater is simply a revelation, far better than I ever heard it before. This tiny woman, barely over 5 feet, has this huge voice and can do everything Barbara Cook could do when young technique-wise and the voice itself is richer. She is in every way at ease, and I can think that only Barbra Streisand, Ethel Merman, Julie Andrews on stage, and in musical films, only also add to those Shirley Jones and Judy Garland to sound this good in a real musical.

And this is a wonderful show, full of delight and not overdone like so much of contemporary Broadway. I'd also seen Brian d'Arcy James in a Los Angeles production of 'Irving Berlin's White Christmas', and had noticed he sang well, but that was a most lifeless adaptation of a sweet old movie. You are happy for it so that actors can make some money in between decent gigs. d'Arcy James sounds very good here too, but I wouldn't quite say he's a star. Mark Kudisch as the Snake in the Eden story is sometimes flat in his singing, which you wouldn't notice if the others won't so flawless vocally (there's a song in the 3rd story in Chenoweth is supposed to sing flat, and she does it very well, but this is a different thing; Kudisch sings this Bob Dylanish song at the beginning of the 2nd story, and he's just flat sometimes, it's irritating.)

I hadn't been to but a couple of shows in the last couple of decades, having found most of them not interesting enough not to prefer something else. Only real regret is not having seen Keith Carradine in 'Will Rogers Follies' because he sang so wonderfully still in the early 90s. But they really revive this in such a way that you get the feel of an old 'real musical' pre-Webber, yet without having to resort to reminding you that it is an old show that is now a new show. If anything, it proves that this kind of show could still be done, that something has happened to the culture to make it more and more difficult.

I didn't know the Bock/Harnick score before, and it is very much the kind of score that worked well in that period but would not be quite called celestial. There is much very pretty and enjoyable music, so that the composer it reminds me of most is Harold Rome and his shows. The scores for 'I Can Get It for You Wholesale', some of the songs in that musical version of 'GWTW' made for Japan and later done in London, '

'Wish You Were Here,' 'Fanny', 'Pins and Needles', are all good scores, but Rome (nor Bock/Harnick) ever seem to me to quite reach the heights of my heroes like Arlen, Burton Lane, Rodgers,Jule Styne, Bernstein, a few others. But no matter, this a wonderful entertainment and better than any musical production I've seen on Broadway in 30 years.

It's partially because it was a good enough show to revive, but that hadn't been (due to vocal demands which Ms. Chenoweth has no trouble with). It's silly but you somehow don't mind that, because Chenoweth just knows how to run the whole material. She's potentially a much bigger Broadway star than Bernadette Peters. There have been some other good ladies in musicals, like Rebecca Luker, but Ms. Chenoweth is easily the best thing I've seen happen in the musical, stage or screen, since at least the 70s. The voice is sometimes literally thrilling to hear. And while she sometimes does echo a memory of Barbara Harris, she's a much more fantastic singer. Her shortness makes it inevitable that she will sometimes be 'cute,' but it is to her credit that she is not 'just cute' nearly all the time. She's got health, energy, talent going for her--and I think you can tell, from this especially, that's she's got brains too.

[dirac]

What a relief! And to think that it's already 6 years since that NYTMagazine article about Stephen Sondheim by Frank Rich in which Sondheim says there are really no Broadway stars anymore, and that Bernadette Peters is probably the closest thing to there being one.

Well, I had seen Ms. Chenowith in a corny but sometimes entertaining radio broadcast you could watch at Town Hall in 2002 where she was with Garrison Keillor and Odetta and some others, and she was perfectly adorable there, but nothing I really kept thinking about other than noting that she could definitely sing way beyond almost any B'way singer I'd ever heard in some ways. Otherwise, saw a TV broadcast in which she sang 'Glitter..' and maybe 5 minutes of a TV production of 'The Music Man' which I thought had those terrible sets one sees in TV productions of musicals, so I got rid of it.

But this is something else, and it's just charm all over the place. Ms. Chenowith is funny, pretty, sophisticated, naive, and sings as well as no more than perhaps 5 other ladies in Broadway history have ever sung in various different ways. She can be cutesey in her acting, but it's only one of many tones she has--no offense to Bernadette Peters fans, but I never felt like this extreme doll-like preciosity ever goes away; it was still as much there in the sound of her voice in 'Sunday in the Park with George' as it had been in 'Dames at Sea' (I never thought she really went beyond that in terms of fully realizing something). But Chenoweth's singing at the Roundabout Theater is simply a revelation, far better than I ever heard it before. This tiny woman, barely over 5 feet, has this huge voice and can do everything Barbara Cook could do when young technique-wise and the voice itself is richer. She is in every way at ease, and I can think that only Barbra Streisand, Ethel Merman, Julie Andrews on stage, and in musical films, only also add to those Shirley Jones and Judy Garland to sound this good in a real musical.

Chenoweth’s voice is enormous. You can’t believe that such a big sound is coming from such a small person. I can only imagine what the effect is in live performance (although you’ve described it quite vividly).

I don’t know that Sondheim was wrong, exactly. There is a sense in which Broadway stars in an older sense no longer exist – that is, when performers like Mary Martin or the Lunts, to take a couple of random examples, were nationally and internationally famous without benefit of an equally successful career in any other medium. Broadway alone just won’t do it for you any more.

(Back then, too, some movie studio would have already have put Chenoweth under contract and launched her in films, and if she did well there would have been a series of musicals designed to showcase everything she could do, and....but those days are no more. Instead she plays second fiddle in ‘Bewitched.’)

Thank you for the report, papeetepatrick. Would be interested to hear from others who’ve seen it, too.

[papeetepatrick]

I don’t know that Sondheim was wrong, exactly. There is a sense in which Broadway stars in an older sense no longer exist – that is, when performers like Mary Martin or the Lunts, to take a couple of random examples, were nationally and internationally famous without benefit of an equally successful career in any other medium. Broadway alone just won’t do it for you any more.

(Back then, too, some movie studio would have already have put Chenoweth under contract and launched her in films, and if she did well there would have been a series of musicals designed to showcase everything she could do, and....but those days are no more. Instead she plays second fiddle in ‘Bewitched.’)

Thank you for the report, papeetepatrick. Would be interested to hear from others who’ve seen it, too.

Yes and no. Even more for cabaret, the cabaret stars are known to no one outside the metropolitan areas anymore, and the majority of them are in late middle-age or older.

But Chenoweth does inhabit a stage in precisely the same way the old stars did. That is where the relief is. And she does it a lot more than Peters ever did. And she is actually always in demand to open a new Broadway show itself--that's what says it to me. Who else is really doing that? Of course, that opening of one show after the other doesn't mean exactly the same thing as it did in the old days, but it has, incredibly, ended up with the same result. I think we can look forward to seeing her in 3 or 4 more shows in the next few years.

Her height may be part of what keeps her back from film. Her tiny stature is not something that would work as well in film, I think. But the way I see it, even though there are fewer old style Hollywood stars as well, it's not nearly so destitute as the Broadway Star. Even if it is only her height that keeps her off major film and TV work, I'll be satisfied. She fills a desperately empty vacuum, and I'd be happy to see her just keep opening new shows, she doesn't need to wasted in those less-rarefied precincts which have dozens that can do the same things; and she might find the money difficult to resist, etc. So that Hollywood may not be what it used to be either, but it's not starving the way the Broadway musical is. I even went there today expecting to find her more or less the same sort of TV transplanted cutie that passes for stage performance these days in musicals. If it's just that voice that made the difference, I'm satisfied. It was the same sensation I got when I saw Anne Reinking do 'Chicago' in 1978, and I've seen nothing of the sort again until today. In serious drama, non-musical things, yes. In musicals, no. By comparison, Mandy Patinkin and Peters were whiny in 'Sunday in the Park', to my mind.

[carbro]

I don't think we can discount the star-value of Lupone and McDonald, although McDonald seems more interested in concerts these days, understandably.

But Chenoweth is -- undoubtedly -- THE talent (on Broadway) of her generation. I, too, saw Appletree about ten days ago (thanks to an out-of-town visitor ), and in these days of inflated ticket prices, found her the redeeming element. The material was mildly entertaining, the music trite and unmemorable, but her presence had me leaving and not feeling shortchanged. Her personality fills the theater. I doubt she needed miking. But she got it, anyway.

Hey, she can even fill the North Meadow of Central Park! I was there for the Phil's concert with guest stars Joshua Bell and Kristin Chenoweth celebrating Leonard Bernstein. Quite a night! It ended up as a PBS Great Performances special -- deservedly.

[sidwich]

This tiny woman, barely over 5 feet, has this huge voice and can do everything Barbara Cook could do when young technique-wise and the voice itself is richer.

Kristin's not even 5' tall. She's 4'11 (or as she puts it "5'2 in high heels"). I would disagree that her voice is richer than Barbara Cook's, though, although I find her voice more versatile than Cook's. It would be interesting if she were to attempt Bock and Harnick's "She Loves Me" to see how she would compare on "Ice Cream." It would probably be fabulous but different than Cook's wonderful rendition.

And to think that it's already 6 years since that NYTMagazine article about Stephen Sondheim by Frank Rich in which Sondheim says there are really no Broadway stars anymore, and that Bernadette Peters is probably the closest thing to there being one.

I don't disagree with Sondheim. There are so few productions these days that very few people ever have the opportunity to develop into a "star." Melissa Errico was an overnight sensation a number of years ago in "One Touch of Venus," and then languished with few opportunities and poor choices, and now seems to mainly content herself with being a wife and mother (not that there's anything wrong with that). Heather Headley was hailed as a new star after "Aida" and chose to concentrate on a recording career.

I agree that Kristin Chenoweth is extremely talented (arguably more talented than either of Errico or Headley), but she's also been fortunate in the opportunities that have been available to her, and the choices she's made, not unlike Bernadette Peters a generation ago. I don't think there's any other young talent I've seen in more different productions in the last 10 years.

Her height may be part of what keeps her back from film. Her tiny stature is not something that would work as well in film, I think. But the way I see it, even though there are fewer old style Hollywood stars as well, it's not nearly so destitute as the Broadway Star. Even if it is only her height that keeps her off major film and TV work, I'll be satisfied.

It's not Chenoweth's height that keeps her from being a film or TV star, and actually, I don't think she would have become a film or TV star 65 years ago when musicals were at their height. Like a lot of the great musical theatre stars, she doesn't translate well to screen (and actually, she doesn't doesn't come across well in recordings either), and her sitcom "Kristin" was a bomb, lasting about 6 episodes a few years ago. The force of her personality is too great, her persona is too eccentric. What makes her thoroughly charming onstage becomes tremendously grating onscreen and in recording.

If you look back, a lot of great film and TV stars come from stage, but most true Broadway legends didn't do well in Hollywood. Ethel Merman, Ray Bolger, Mary Martin, Marilyn Miller, etc. all made an attempt at Hollywood, and ran back to the stage which was their home.

Weather willing, I should be seeing Chenoweth next weekend in "The Apple Tree," and I'm looking forward to it.

[bart]

Is it the lack of stars? Or the dearth of new material?

I just came across this quote:

Something spectacular, that's all you need. You have to make sure that the audience say as they go out: "What beautiful costumes! What beautiful scenery! But what stupid authors!" When you hear that, you've got a success on your hands!

Or, at least that's what the Goncourt brothers reported about the Paris stage in their Journal back in 1866. Sounds like Les Miz/ Miss Saigon/ and other efforts of recent decades. The great Broadway stars of the past learned and grew from participating in the creation of important NEW works, not just revivals.

[papeetepatrick]

Is it the lack of stars? Or the dearth of new material?

It could be said to be both, but there's no dearth of new material just because we might decide it's inferior material. Chenoweth could be in some of these trashy products and do something with them, but it's also true that 'Wicked' an original show, put her even more fully on the map. I didn't see it, but Nicole Kidman seeing her in it was the reason she got to play her friend in 'Bewitched.' Also, all the 'Apple Tree' is no masterpiece, it is charming and much of the music is very pretty and you enjoy it while still in the theater. It was nominated for lots of Tonys in 1967, and won some. It's not the usual revival, by any means, and there is a wonderfully refreshing lack of concentration on spectacle. Chenoweth's costumes are hilarious and perfect. These are the guys, by the way, that wrote 'Fiddler on the Roof', so that they are veteran theater guys even if you know the show is mostly a trifle, with the occasional touching moment.

Like a lot of the great musical theatre stars, she doesn't translate well to screen (and actually, she doesn't doesn't come across well in recordings either), and her sitcom "Kristin" was a bomb, lasting about 6 episodes a few years ago. The force of her personality is too great, her persona is too eccentric. What makes her thoroughly charming onstage becomes tremendously grating onscreen and in recording.

This is what I'm also aware of, some of it's strange: She didn't even come across all that well for me in the live concert I saw, nor did the PBS broadcast that Carbro saw in Central Park make a deep impression on me except for vocal technique (sidwich and I have to disagree on the texture of the Chenoweth and Cook voices, although I adore Cook in 'oh Happy We'), and if I am a fan of someone I would usually watch them in anything, which I did not in that TV version of 'The music Man.' (We talked about the Music Man in another thread, I realize now that I think it's a good show, but boring.)

However, for whatever reason, she is fantastically at home in a theater and she could be the person who would open up new shows and there would be no dearth of people wanting to write shows especially for her, and cannot already be. I'm sure they are working toward it like mad. Sidwich is right about the 'eccentric persona', and while Barbra Streisand could have opened show after show and enriched Broadway immeasurably, she didn't want to do that with the Hollywood fame she wanted and got--but with an artistic percentage that is surely small compared to what she could have done as a stage star, but...she hated it, so that's that. I hope all of the disadvantages sidwich points out will mean that we have a real star for at least another 10 years--one like in the old days. Even one alone could transform the desert Broadway is. Peters does not have that kind of charisma, and Sondheim was pointing her out as the 'one star' to some degree because they'd worked together a lot.

So, yes, there is a dearth of stars too. because there are starring roles in shows all over Broadway, and there are a lot of things open, but there are not any stars with this old kind of dynamism that seems uniquely suited for an old Broadway theater that are still young enough to do it all the time, unless McDonald figures out how to--but you still don't hear about her when you're not paying attention to B'way the way you do Chenoweth. Even if Chenoweth doesn't translate to the other media well, she can use them to advertise for her Broadway career. If she doesn't transform Broadway, whether with new or old shows, I don't think it matters much considering what a wasteland the place has become, nobody is going to. Anything new by Sondheim is not going to be anything all that new.

If you see 'Spring Awakening', sidwich, please report. That's the other thing I may go to this season, I doubt I'll see the Redgrave/Didion or the revival of 'Company.'

[carbro]

Having seen both recently, given a choice between an evening with Barbara Cook and one with Kristin Chenoweth, I would unhesitatingly choose Cook. I prefer her depth -- of both tone and spirit.

[papeetepatrick]

Having seen both recently, given a choice between an evening with Barbara Cook and one with Kristin Chenoweth, I would unhesitatingly choose Cook. I prefer her depth -- of both tone and spirit.

With all due respect, I was only speaking of Barbara Cook in her youth, when she did 'Candide' and 'Glitter', not her autumnal performances, many about long-lost love affairs, at the Carlyle and elsewhere. I can't quite see how anything about Cook after that period could be compared with Chenoweth--with 2 generations separating them. You can say you prefer any of two people, but how could a young girl have that kind of depth of interpretation? Isn't that somewhat like comparing Suzanne Farrell when she was at her early 80's peak with Alicia Alonso (still dancing then and also much later), who was in her 50s, not really able to still dance any more but happy in her 'stage persona'? In any case, of course Chenoweth is not going to be able to sing with certain kinds of dark feeling that Cook is capable of, but neither can Cook sing 'Glitter and Be Gay' any more, and that never required depth of the sort she has today.

I think sidwich and I were talking about Broadway singers, which Chenoweth is and Cook once was, but she's by now one of the great cabaret stars (one of the precious few.)

[carbro]

I certainly don't expect Chenoweth to be able to pour the life experience into her work that Cook does, and I did not mean to suggest that the two are interchangeable. Just stating a preference.

[dirac]

papeetepatrick writes: Also, all the 'Apple Tree' is no masterpiece, it is charming and much of the music is very pretty and you enjoy it while still in the theater.

I enjoy it at home, too. Okay, so it’s not The Magic Flute.

Even if Chenoweth doesn't translate to the other media well, she can use them to advertise for her Broadway career.

It’s too bad that the old style variety show is gone from television. I don’t say that Chenoweth is Carol Burnett, but she might have fared better in that than in the sitcom format (didn’t see it, but I’m perfectly willing to take sidwich’s word on the matter. I have never seen Chenoweth live. On those occasions when I’ve seen her on television she was not shown to her best advantage but I didn’t find her annoying or grating.)

[papeetepatrick]

I certainly don't expect Chenoweth to be able to pour the life experience into her work that Cook does, and I did not mean to suggest that the two are interchangeable. Just stating a preference.

I like refining these things as far as they can go, and I, too, would rather spend 'an evening' with Barbara Cook if it was a matter of strictly solo work, whether cabaret, concert or what-have-you. After seeing how different she is in a show, and how accurate I think sidwich's remarks about how she is not even effective on recordings (and my own experience in seeing her in concert), I really don't care to see Chenoweth in any other venue. I think my overdone sense of excitement is all about that there is a powerful enough Broadway show voice and personality to open some real new shows, with real books and real songs, and inspire creative people to showcase her--quite unlike, say, Glenn Close opening up 'Sunset Boulevard'. What dirac says about the past and other things leading to this kind of showcasing are sound, but all people in theater know how big she is there, and real shows--you know, more than one every 8 years--would be quite acceptable to me. And I'm a pessimist--so I'm even surprised to think that she's actually got the big extroverted chops to open up shows.

Karen Akers couldn't open up a single show on Broadway (despite having been in a few), but I'd rather spend time with her at the Algonquin than Chenoweth too.

[sidwich]

As long as we're all sharing our favorite cabaret performers, mine is Andrea Marcovicci.

However, for whatever reason, she is fantastically at home in a theater and she could be the person who would open up new shows and there would be no dearth of people wanting to write shows especially for her, and cannot already be.

You know, I don't think there are going to be any shows written as a star-specific vehicle in the way they were 60 years ago. At the time, shows would turn a profit in a season, close, and a new show would open the next season. A cast could very well stay intact for its entire run, or at least most of its run. Because of the intense capitalization costs of a modern production, shows need to run years and years in order to turn a profit, and I don't think it's nearly the same.

Chenoweth is a wonderful performer, but she is not enough of a name to open a production by herself. Unfortunately, usually the only people who can really "open" a production at this point are people who make their names elsewhere and then return to the stage, e.g. Bebe Neuwirth who never was an above-the-titles star until she was "Lilith" on "Cheers." The tourist dollar is far too important, and they've never heard of Kristin Chenoweth before. Actually, the only recent shows I can think of that have been written for someone were "Jeckyll and Hyde" and "Scarlet Pimpernel" and frankly those were because Linda Eder was married to Frank Wildhorn at the time.

Chenoweth gets cast in new work (I think her next season's project in "Young Frankenstein"), but I don't know how many pieces are going to be written for her.

Peters does not have that kind of charisma, and Sondheim was pointing her out as the 'one star' to some degree because they'd worked together a lot.

Well, I think that's one opinion. A lot of people who are not Stephen Sondheim would agree that Bernadette Peters is the last true Broadway star, and I do think she is one of the few who can "open" a new show. And interestingly, she is one of the who has been able to do exactly what you describe, parlay her appearances in other media into attention on her stage endeavors.

while Barbra Streisand could have opened show after show and enriched Broadway immeasurably, she didn't want to do that with the Hollywood fame she wanted and got--but with an artistic percentage that is surely small compared to what she could have done as a stage star, but...she hated it, so that's that.

Streisand really isn't suited to live performance. She can do it, but between her stage fright and difficulties in pulling off 8 good shows a week, she's much better off in recordings and film.

If you see 'Spring Awakening', sidwich, please report. That's the other thing I may go to this season, I doubt I'll see the Redgrave/Didion or the revival of 'Company.'

Unfortunately, this trip is going to be short, and because of "The Apple Tree"'s short run, I'm going to see that. I'm hoping for a longer trip in the spring, work permitting, so I can catch up on my NYC theatre, ballet and restaurants, and that trip would include "Spring Awakening."

[papeetepatrick]

Chenoweth is a wonderful performer, but she is not enough of a name to open a production by herself. Unfortunately, usually the only people who can really "open" a production at this point are people who make their names elsewhere and then return to the stage, e.g. Bebe Neuwirth who never was an above-the-titles star until she was "Lilith" on "Cheers." The tourist dollar is far too important, and they've never heard of Kristin Chenoweth before.

I don't think that's accurate, but we'll see. I know almost nobody from the provinces who doesn't know her from the many episodes of 'West Wing' , the PBS broadcast, and the TV 'Music Man.' And everybody in New York knows who she is; that audience doesn't usually have shows written about it any more, but it definitely exists, just as New Yorkers form the base of the New York City Ballet. The tourist buses already know her from 'Wicked' and many people saw 'Bewitched'. Her fame has been building at a regular pace. A sex chat room I occasionally frequent was full of people (often quite hick too) who knew her from business trips to New York that included 'Wicked.' Anyway, what? she opened 'The Apple Tree', who would have cared about it otherwise? She's also got an instrument incredibly flexible in what it can do, and composers will write for it, if she has to do some smallish things in between, that's not serious. She's going to be in demand. She's going to do another 'Encores' production in May, and the 'Young Frankenstein' will come later. She already did 'On a Clear Day' for Encores, and that could certainly be done on Broadway if 'Company' can ever make it there, with no stars at all. She's got several movies in the works, and the most promising one will be a biopic of Dusty Springfield.

Tourist bus people certainly never heard of Stephen Sondheim.

[Well, I think that's one opinion. A lot of people who are not Stephen Sondheim would agree that Bernadette Peters is the last true Broadway star

Yes, they might, but she's old news. She's one of the few successful performers I've ever seen who was mannered from the very beginning, and who I have found irritating in everything I have seen after 'Dames at Sea.' I recognize that others find her to be an important star, whereas to me she has no star quality at all, and her success always astonished me. But that's not the point for me: Older stars opening shows is not what interests me, even if they can, it's the same thing as all the old legends confessing through song their careers and lives at the big cabarets which survive only because of money from sixty-somethings and older.

If you're right that Chenoweth can't do it, then you're right. I think she's got the right mixture of Midwest all-Americanism and slick New York professionalism (she's not corny) to have a chance to be the only one who could organically do something radically new. People like Bebe Neuwirth are still rehashes of the old retro and warmed-over stuff. Are you sure the revival of 'Chicago' was not successful largely because of Ann Reinking doing it again? or at least as much? Kids from all over the country go to 'Annie Camp' so they can be Broadway Babies. Chenowith's ability to be more at home in a piece of musical theater in a real Broadway house instead of having to be just-folks midwestern at a cornball Garrison Keillor gathering at Town Hall may or may not mean something. It's mostly to do with commerce, but as with the rest of capitalism, it is not just money. I hope she is the exception that proves the rule, that's all, because she's a better musician in terms of versatility than all of the ones I've named in the above posts, and who wants yet another example of Baudrillard's 'end of history', i.e., in this case the announcement would read 'the last great Broadway star was Bernadette Peters just before nihilism and Orwellianism set in, finding Broadway senile and moribund, among other things... 'although that doesn't mean I think any of them can't do some things better than she can. I'd probably rather hear Barbara Harris sing 'Hurry It's Lovely Up Here', but Chenoweth would be able to do some of the other songs as well or better. There are, of course, many things she couldn't do that Streisand did, but probably almost anything that Julie Andrews did. Nobody could do what Ethel Merman did, she was so original, one was enough.

I'm not saying she's superwoman, I just hope she is. If not, then forget Broadway, it's going to be more of the same old opaque sets passing as musical theater. 'Phantom of the Opera' has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is what is most likely--antique shops with Muzak. Yes, I agree, only some sort of miracle would work. By comparison, ballet seems almost flush with abundant future.

[dirac]

Yes, they might, but she's old news. She's one of the few successful performers I've ever seen who was mannered from the very beginning, and who I have found irritating in everything I have seen after 'Dames at Sea.' I recognize that others find her to be an important star, whereas to me she has no star quality at all, and her success always astonished me.

I never saw Peters live but elsewhere she has always struck me exactly the same way. (If I had, I don't think it would have made a big difference.) It could be me, though.

Thanks to both of you for the stimulating discussion. Others join in, please.

[richard53dog]

[

Well, I think that's one opinion. A lot of people who are not Stephen Sondheim would agree that Bernadette Peters is the last true Broadway star

Yes, they might, but she's old news. She's one of the few successful performers I've ever seen who was mannered from the very beginning, and who I have found irritating in everything I have seen after 'Dames at Sea.' I recognize that others find her to be an important star, whereas to me she has no star quality at all, and her success always astonished me.

I would say that's my take exactly. I could never understand her appeal and it was ALWAYS the same

tricks trotted out in lieu of actually building a performance. And it's amazing it worked so long.

[sidwich]

Anyway, what? she opened 'The Apple Tree', who would have cared about it otherwise? She's also got an instrument incredibly flexible in what it can do, and composers will write for it, if she has to do some smallish things in between, that's not serious. She's going to be in demand. She's going to do another 'Encores' production in May, and the 'Young Frankenstein' will come later. She already did 'On a Clear Day' for Encores, and that could certainly be done on Broadway if 'Company' can ever make it there, with no stars at all.

First of all, there is no possible way that "On a Clear Day..." could ever be revived in a regular commercial run theatre, its glorious score nowithstanding (which is actually what made it perfect for "Encores!"). The book was written at the height of Alan Jay Lerner's drug dependency, and the interesting themes degenerate pretty quickly into a total quagmire (actually, I should say books because there are so many of them floating around because it's been rewritten so many times in an attempt for the story to resolve in a satisfactory matter at the end). I was sitting at the end of the concert, going "Huh?"

Second, I don't know that I would say that Chenoweth "opened" "The Apple Tree." The production certainly could never have been done without her (or the "Encores!" concert), but it's being produced as a limited-run production by the Roundabout, partly on the basis of its substantial subscriber base.

Third, I think it's very different to talk about someone "opening" a show on the strength of their name and starring in a revival which has a built-in recognizability factor with a wider public. If opening a revival were the same, you could argue that Rebecca Luker (who starred in the revivals of "Show Boat," "The Sound of Music" and "The Music Man" and is currently starring in "Mary Poppins") has that "opening" name factor which she clearly doesn't. And it's a great deal of the reason why there are so many revivals (vs. new work) being produced today.

I agree that Chenoweth is in demand, very much in demand in fact considering "The Apple Tree" was shoe-horned into her schedule prior to rehearsals for "Young Frankenstein." She's already the biggest Broadway star of her generation, and I think she's going to be one of the first-offered actresses for many of the major productions opening in or coming to New York for a long, long time. But as far as whether she's going to be the muse of a new generation of writers and save Broadway.... I don't think so. The economics of Broadway don't support it, in the way that the Broadway of the 20s could support a string of Marilyn Miller vehicles or the Broadway of the 60s could support Gwen Verdon vehicles. And so far, she hasn't really attached to and championed any of the up-and-coming writers in the way Audra MacDonald has or Bernadette Peters a generation ago.

I think part of the thing is that she is very "old-style Broadway star" in a lot of aspects. She has an amazing presence and personality onstage, but I don't know that that performance style is very well suited to some of the work of the younger generation of writers that would presumably be the ones most likely to write for her. I really can't imagine her singing Jason Robert Brown for example. I think that's part of why she is so successful in revivals and "Encores!" loves her so much and casts her so often.

I'd probably rather hear Barbara Harris sing 'Hurry It's Lovely Up Here', but Chenoweth would be able to do some of the other songs as well or better.

Actually, I prefer Chenoweth's performance of "Hurry, It's Lovely Up Here," but I had the advantage of seeing her perform it rather than knowing it solely through recording like Harris'.

If not, then forget Broadway, it's going to be more of the same old opaque sets passing as musical theater. 'Phantom of the Opera' has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is what is most likely--antique shops with Muzak. Yes, I agree, only some sort of miracle would work.

Oh, I disagree. I'm actually much more hopeful for the future of musical theatre and Broadway than I have been in a long, long time. There are more and more young, talented writers like Adam Guettel, Jason Robert Brown, Ricky Ian Gordon, etc. writing for musical theatre than I can remember for some time, and they're producing some very interesting and exciting work.

[papeetepatrick]

First of all, there is no possible way that "On a Clear Day..." could ever be revived in a regular commercial run theatre, its glorious score nowithstanding (which is actually what made it perfect for "Encores!"). The book was written at the height of Alan Jay Lerner's drug dependency, and the interesting themes degenerate pretty quickly into a total quagmire (actually, I should say books because there are so many of them floating around because it's been rewritten so many times in an attempt for the story to resolve in a satisfactory matter at the end).

That's not at all convincing, considering that far lesser-known (to current generations) musicals like 'Wonderful Town' are revived. And even the score to 'On the Town' is known to fewer people than at least the title song to 'On a Clear Day.' It does not matter about the book's problems, and drug or alcohol dependency is never an issue in creative matters (except for performers who try to dance drunk), considering that well-written books with no substance and scores of no merit whatever are routinely produced, praised and moneyed. It's a matter of whether there could be a commercially viable way to do it. This is where the matter of the Broadway Star would come in. That will either happen or it will not. The book of 'On a Clear Day' was well-known to be faulty from the beginning, and that didn't stop them from making a dreadful film of it.

As for the rest, I've discussed them all I see necessary for now (except to say that reviving The Apple Tree is not to revive a recognizable property in any way; only real enthusiasts know a thing about it, it cannot be compared in that way to The Music Man, etc., so that even a limited run at Roundabout is a more individual act of stardom than anybody doing The Sound of Music ever could be), it's a matter of waiting and seeing if I see anything that makes sense to me. And for me, this will be if there are still composers who can write for a voice that you hardly ever find on Broadway in any decade, especially in this one. Yes, 'old-style Broadway star.' I have a strong feeling there will be some who may come out of the woodwork yet, it's not like they've been over-saturated with 'old-style Broadway stars' in the last 30 years. If there can be a musical comedy star like Chenoweth, which amounts literally to a biological sport at this point, then there is no reason to think composers with a feeling for a more intimate and personal kind of Broadway show cannot also emerge. My guess is that they have been wanting to, and will jump at the opportunity if they can find it. There will always be room for over-produced Theme Parks in the old theaters--at least until they are not big enough, and enough space in Times Square has not been blocking enough views, that, alas, they have to tear down the Winter Garden, the Booth and the Music Box too.

[sidwich]

That's not at all convincing, considering that far lesser-known (to current generations) musicals like 'Wonderful Town' are revived. And even the score to 'On the Town' is known to fewer people than at least the title song to 'On a Clear Day.' It does not matter about the book's problems, and drug or alcohol dependency is never an issue in creative matters (except for performers who try to dance drunk), considering that well-written books with no substance and scores of no merit whatever are routinely produced, praised and moneyed. It's a matter of whether there could be a commercially viable way to do it. This is where the matter of the Broadway Star would come in. That will either happen or it will not. The book of 'On a Clear Day' was well-known to be faulty from the beginning, and that didn't stop them from making a dreadful film of it.

Well, I think there are two issues in that paragraph: 1) is "On a Clear Day" revivable from a dramatic perspective?, and 2) is "On a Clear Day" revivable from a commercial perspective.

1. I don't think "On a Clear Day" is revivable from a dramatic perspective, and I think that that's a generally held belief in the musical theatre community. There are too many problems with the book. My statement about Lerner's dependency was not a statement that Lerner's chemical dependency = book problems, but that that was part of the reason that Lerner was unable to produce a coherent book. Even for the Encores! staff has problems with the book because there were so many different versions of it because the creative team at the time kept trying to rewrite it during its run to make it work.

Actually, I'll amend my statement. It might be possible If there was a substantial rewrite by someone like Ken Ludwig. But it would probably be on the order of becoming a different musical as "Funny Face" became "My One and Only" or "Girl Crazy" became "Crazy for You." But that might require changes to the score as well, and Lane and Lerner didn't write that much together and there would probably be problems with the estates, and well... I think there's a reason people haven't tried it.

"Wonderful Town" may not be that well-known to modern audiences, but it was quite critically lauded in its day. The book is pretty good (at least it makes sense), as is the score even if it lacks "hits." It probably wouldn't have been revived on Broadway without Donna Murphy's performance at Encores! bringing attention to it, but there's no dramatic reason not to do it as there is with "On a Clear Day..."

2. Strictly, commercially-speaking, I think "On a Clear Day" is as revivable as any other semi-success/semi-flop of the period, certainly as much as "Bells are Ringing" which had an unsuccessful Broadway revival a few years ago. It has some name recognition and a recognizable title song. It's not the question of the commerciability of its name. It's always been the dramatic issues with "On a Clear Day" which are widely recognized, and why it is never revived. (And believe me, the Encores! concert was the first time I had seen it, and I've seen more than one revival of "Leave it to Jane.")

If there can be a musical comedy star like Chenoweth, which amounts literally to a biological sport at this point, then there is no reason to think composers with a feeling for a more intimate and personal kind of Broadway show cannot also emerge.

"Composers with a feeling for a more intimate and personal kind of Broadway show" are emerging, a number of them in fact. I just don't know of any who are writing for Chenoweth, and honestly, Chenoweth doesn't seem to gravitate to them. She seems to do best with big splashy commercial pieces by older composers ("Steel Pier," "Wicked" and "Young Frankenstein") and revivals.

[richard53dog]

Well, I think there are two issues in that paragraph: 1) is "On a Clear Day" revivable from a dramatic perspective?,

1. I don't think "On a Clear Day" is revivable from a dramatic perspective, and I think that that's a generally held belief in the musical theatre community. There are too many problems with the book. My statement about Lerner's dependency was not a statement that Lerner's chemical dependency = book problems, but that that was part of the reason that Lerner was unable to produce a coherent book. Even for the Encores! staff has problems with the book because there were so many different versions of it because the creative team at the time kept trying to rewrite it during its run to make it work.

I was really struck with just how messy the book(s) is/are for Clear Day. When I saw the Encores production

I couldn't get over how confused the fantasy sequences are. They just didn't work.

Chenoweth was just dandy in the show(the opening was magical) but with book problems that bad, I just don't think the show is viable. Audiences today want everything spelled out for them and I can't believe the show would have legs.

Wonderful Town was never revived since it opening until the Encores and then Broadway revival. But the show is sound, if unknown It has a strong dramatic structure in My Sister Eileen

[carbro]

Wonderful Town was never revived since it opening until the Encores and then Broadway revival. But the show is sound, if unknown It has a strong dramatic structure in My Sister Eileen.

You make it sound like it was a long time ago, Richard! It was just a few years -- my last stint on Jury Duty.

I know it sometimes seems like Broadway is a giant ballet company, recycling the same works year after year after year from a limited rep, the occasional new work providing novelty. But really, it isn't. Yet.

[richard53dog]

Wonderful Town was never revived since it opening until the Encores and then Broadway revival. But the show is sound, if unknown It has a strong dramatic structure in My Sister Eileen.

You make it sound like it was a long time ago, Richard! It was just a few years -- my last stint on Jury Duty.

Once again my writing is muddled. What I meant to point out that Wonderful Town opened in 1953 and was pretty successful but had to wait 50 years for a full scale revival (The 2003 revival on Broadway which followed the Encores production)

And I'm guessing that the 2003 revival was what we both saw.

[Petra]

Many thanks for this discussion. I'm learning so much.

[carbro]

And I'm guessing that the 2003 revival was what we both saw. :blush:

Not I. Unfortunately. But one of my jury pool mates casually mentioned to another how much he enjoyed it, to which the latter replied, "My dad wrote it." She was Bernstein's daughter, Jamie.

[dirac]

And so far, she hasn't really attached to and championed any of the up-and-coming writers in the way Audra MacDonald has or Bernadette Peters a generation ago.

........I think part of the thing is that she is very "old-style Broadway star" in a lot of aspects. She has an amazing presence and personality onstage, but I don't know that that performance style is very well suited to some of the work of the younger generation of writers that would presumably be the ones most likely to write for her. I really can't imagine her singing Jason Robert Brown for example. I think that's part of why she is so successful in revivals and "Encores!" loves her so much and casts her so often.

Oh, I disagree. I'm actually much more hopeful for the future of musical theatre and Broadway than I have been in a long, long time. There are more and more young, talented writers like Adam Guettel, Jason Robert Brown, Ricky Ian Gordon, etc. writing for musical theatre than I can remember for some time, and they're producing some very interesting and exciting work.

I appreciate and respect what Guettel was trying to do in “The Light in the Piazza,” for example, but if these are the writers that are going to carry Broadway in the future there are pitfalls ahead, and if it proves to be the case that Chenoweth can’t work with them it may not be entirely her problem.