Lennon Musical ???

I certainly don't mean to be questioning anyone's Beatle credentials or taste, and I apologize if anything I said veered in that direction! My point is simply that this show clearly does not work AS A BROADWAY MUSICAL. I haven't seen it, but based on what I've read and what I know about musical theatre--my handle isn't there just for show, I've been studying and reviewing musical theatre intensively for a decade now!--Lennon simply does not belong on the Broadway stage. The thing is, I might want to see Lennon if A) they didn't call it a musical per se, but a "bio-musical concert" or something like that; B) it was presented in smaller fashion, with no time wasted on choreography or fancy lighting, etc.; and C) they didn't open it on Broadway. I've seen small-scale bio-musicals in Denver about people like John Denver that worked very well in a small, intimate setting with one guy, as John D., playing the guitar and the rest of the five-person cast chiming in once in a while. They presented his life more or less in chronological order, using slides projected on several screens behind the performers, and didn't gloss over any of the controversies or events in his life. That, I think, would work very nicely for John Lennon if you were focusing on his life with Yoko, as so many of his songs were autobiographical. Would it work for the Beatles era? Probably not--the Beatles were too outsized, and their music as a whole too non-theatrical/impersonal.

Everybody stop apologizing, we all have different opinions. I'm not the last word when it comes to Beatles stuff, and neither is anyone else. But I don't understand how anbody could feel so passionate about something they've never seen.

I'm generally not a fan of Ringo's solo stuff, I didn't buy his new album, and I don't think I've even heard one track from it. But most reviews I've read said it's great, it's Ringo doing what he does best, blah blah blah. So which way should I go? Either way, I couldn't possibly know unless I actually listened to it.

I love interesting debates.

Here's my hat, coming into the circle: Ahem... let's not forget a bigger figure than John Lennon did quite well adapted on the Broadway stage: Jesus Christ.

It's not the subject it's the writing.

The producers (of Jesus Christ Superstar) were afraid to take a chance on such a daring production. Despite opposition from certain religious groups, this production became a huge boxoffice hit and ran for 720 performances.

It's not subject it's the actual writing and production. Time will tell.

I look forward to Jerry's review.

Here is one more review, from Backstage.com, also negative.

http://www.backstage.com/backstage/s..._id=1001014661

East

Broadway August 15, 2005

Lennon

Reviewed By Leonard Jacobs


"Lennon"


Presented by Allan McKeown, Edgar Lansbury, Clear Channel Entertainment, and Jeffrey A. Sine, casting by Janet Foster, CSA, at the Broadhurst Theatre, 235 W. 44th St., NYC. Opened Aug. 14 for an open run.

For producers, the allure of "songbook musicals" is straightforward: Audiences know the score before entering the theatre. The dramaturgical rationale is murkier, mostly driven by the idea that the songs might have uses -- pushing narratives ahead, commenting on topics -- if properly placed and performed. "Lennon" is thus tricky, for it does neither. It isn't a revue, for there is a narrative, one selectively tracing the late Beatle's life. It isn't a book musical, certainly, at all.

"Lennon" is, I think, a Worship Musical about musical worship -- an engaging if fleeting biography for those who loved his music and who, beyond their emotional investment, come to the show knowing his story, along with the trajectory of the era in which he lived.

Which leaves those of us then unborn or unaware of Lennon's life where? The problem with "Lennon" -- Don Scardino's thin book and cynical direction -- is that it takes the audience's foreknowledge for granted. If his concept -- nine actors (Will Chase, Chuck Cooper, Julie Danao-Salkin, Mandy Gonzalez, Marcy Harriell, Chad Kimball, Terrence Mann, Julia Murney, Michael Potts) each play Lennon -- is more solid than it seems, the crime is how superficially we experience Lennon himself. "Lennon" fails because it bores.

And it's not for lack of trying on the actors' behalf. Their roof-raising voices are uniformly spectacular, despite the usual melisma miasma that substitutes for stage singing nowadays. Their tight ensemble work offers lessons: Mann's marvelous mannerisms, Gonzalez's subtle portrayal of Yoko Ono, who figures too much in the show's narrative for its own good. Chase's physical likeness to Lennon is sweet; his Liverpool lilt mixes the irony and sarcasm that made Lennon Lennon.

Finally, why is Scardino's direction cynical? He doesn't trust his audience; he's insecure about his material. Just as hurling beach balls to the audience at the "Good Vibrations" finale felt desperate, "Lennon" 's cast hurls Act I daisies -- peace on earth, man. Starting Act II with the actors in the aisles -- flimsy "Stop the War!" agitprop -- assumes audiences naturally equate Vietnam with Iraq. Wrong: It's with John Arnone's scenic and projection design that Scardino -- and Ono -- could not only help us imagine Lennon's life, but also contemporize his relevance to our time. "Beautiful Boy," "Woman," and the like are beautiful, profound, moving songs, but a nostalgia trip is nothing more than a wish-you-were-here postcard. For the rest of us, that's just spinning our wheels.

Also, for those who are interested, here's a page with the weekend box office from Broadway. Notice how Lennon is one of the underdogs. This does not bode well on an opening weekend. Also, the theatre where it is running is a very small one - if they are only selling out 50% by capacity in such a small theatre, that doesn't bode well either.

http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=516557

Here is a look at who was on top and who was not for the week ending August 14:


FRONTRUNNERS (By Gross)
1. Wicked ($1,314,515)
2. The Lion King ($1,215,631)
3. Spamalot ($1,021,106)
4. Mamma Mia! ($969,301)
5. The Phantom of the Opera ($829,956)

UNDERDOGS (By Gross)
5. Lennon ($318,098)*
4. Primo ($291,594)
3. The Constant Wife ($285,894)
2. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? ($171,676)**
1. Jackie Mason: Freshly Squeezed ($88,558)

FRONTRUNNERS (By Capacity)
1. The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee (103.47%)
2. Spamalot (101.73%)
3. The Lion King (101.11%)
4. The Phantom of the Opera (100.30%)
5. Wicked (100%)

UNDERDOGS (By Capacity)
5. All Shook Up (60.42%)
4. Fiddler on the Roof (58.99%)
3. Lennon (50.34%)*
2. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (46.09%)**
1. Jackie Mason: Freshly Squeezed (44.50%)



*Number based on seven previews and one regular performance.
**Number based on seven regular performances.


Data provided by The League of American Theatres and Producers.

Originally Posted by GeorgieGirl

I love interesting debates.

Here's my hat, coming into the circle: Ahem... let's not forget a bigger figure than John Lennon did quite well adapted on the Broadway stage: Jesus Christ.

It's not the subject it's the writing.

Jesus Christ Superstar differs from Lennon in three crucial aspects: 1) The music and lyrics were crafted for the stage, not taken from existing songs that were never designed to tell a coherent story; 2) the story of Jesus was re-imagined to show Jesus as a rock star, whereas Lennon purports to be an accurate biographical representation of John. Bio-musicals are not, as a general rule, successful; the best examples (Gypsy) are 90% fiction; and 3) Jesus' life has relatively few details, which makes his life much easier to turn into a coherent story than John's life, which is far more complex and harder to boil down to something depictable on stage.

As for the subject vs. the writing, that's true to a point, but many subjects should not be attempted by any but experienced pros--and pros usually know better than to tackle nigh-impossible subjects. Also, handing the story of John Lennon/the Beatles to an inexperienced director, not to mention a producer who has no experience with musicals worth considering, is not likely to result in a quality Broadway product.

The producers (of Jesus Christ Superstar) were afraid to take a chance on such a daring production. Despite opposition from certain religious groups, this production became a huge boxoffice hit and ran for 720 performances.

I'm not sure what your point is. There isn't "opposition" to the concept of a Lennon musical; what we oppose is a poorly conceived and badly executed musical. Nor can this project, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered "daring." Jukebox musicals are the very antithesis of daring. They rely on the nostalgia value of tried-and-true pop songs to bring in audiences, instead of cultivating new theatrical musical talent. Will this musical defy expectations and become a genuine hit? Unlikely, given the feeble boxoffice that's been reported so far.

As for the subject vs. the writing, that's true to a point, but many subjects should not be attempted by any but experienced pros--and pros usually know better than to tackle nigh-impossible subjects.

and then...

I'm not sure what your point is. There isn't "opposition" to the concept of a Lennon musical; what we oppose is a poorly conceived and badly executed musical.

Please do not confuse the confused.

I would prefer to see Ringo Starr the musical any day

Showtunes, I have to argue with you on your point that Jesus's life had very few details. His life has tons of details. We know his friends, his enemies, what He did, where He lived, where He was born, where He died, things he said.... I could really go on and on. Of course it is a different kind of detailing than those that exist for John, but John's life falls in a span that occurred at the latest 65 years ago, whereas Jesus's lies in a span that occurred over 2,000 years ago. Other than that, I completely agree on your assessment as to why "Jesus Christ" Superstar" and the Lennon musical are polar opposites.

Anyways. My thoughts on the musical are skeptical. It seems like a silly concept to me, anyways, and I honestly think John would've thought it very cheesy were he still around today. I have issues with all of the Lennon products repeatedly being spewn at the world today. I don't need no baby sheets or onesies with John's drawings on it, and I certainly don't want to go to a musical to hear a bunch staged versions of John's songs. I wish Yoko would stick to his pure music, and stop tainting John's legend by turning him into a Wal Mart.

Now you may commence with the attacks on me due to my Anti-Yoko comments.

Originally Posted by erinluv182

I have issues with all of the Lennon products repeatedly being spewn at the world today. I don't need no baby sheets or onesies with John's drawings on it, and I certainly don't want to go to a musical to hear a bunch staged versions of John's songs. I wish Yoko would stick to his pure music, and stop tainting John's legend by turning him into a Wal Mart.

I quite agree. Not only that, but they charge a fortune for them, too. If I think John Lennon Converse are adorably kitschy and I need to have a pair, I shouldn't have to shell out a mint to do so. But that's not the point.

I think maybe this musical would turn out sounding a bit more appealing if Yoko wasn't the only big consultant on John. I'm sure loads of people would have agreed to help on a show about John's life, and perhaps with multiple perspectives, it wouldn't have turned out as bad as most of these reviews are making it out to be. Regardless, though, if I could afford to go to Broadway and see it, I would, just for the experience.

Yoko was married to him. He loved her. She loved him.

LucyLennon4Me has kindly provided this link for an article about the show.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertai...rts/4150222.stm