You know the drill. The replacement and tour casts look and perform as much like the original cast as possible. If you need a replacement Beast, you always look to the guys who played Javert. If you need Javert, you look to the guys who played the Beast. If you need a Belle, she needs to look and sound a certain way unless you cast Toni Braxton. If you need a star name, you cast whoever is least likely to be an embarrassment but still be big enough to get butts in seats.
But last week, we were given the exciting news—Faith Prince as Ursula!
It’s not remarkable that Disney cast Faith Prince. They’ve used big Broadway names many times before—Andrea McArdle, Idina Menzel, Norm Lewis, to name a few. What’s remarkable is that they went in the entire opposite direction of the original casting. Sherie Rene Scott is a pop powerhouse, sexy and young, and they should have cast a Kelly Fournier or a Sara Gettelfinger. Instead, we get the very versatile and cute Faith Prince.
Faith Prince is perfect casting, utterly perfect. She can do character roles with great zest, but she’s also proven her ability to handle more subtle roles, earning strong reviews in The King and I and James Joyce’s The Dead. Her Ursula will be entirely different from Sherie Rene Scott’s—I don’t know how it could be anything except different—but it will also be utterly satisfying and genius in her own way.
Faith Prince is genius casting in anything, but as Ursula, it’s unexpected genius. Theatre fans will be willing to go a second time just to see her interpretation of the role, and general audiences will walk away having witnessed a great performance.
Personally, when I heard about the original cast members trickling away, it made The Little Mermaid less of a draw if I make it to NYC this summer. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the less-known performers out there, but it’s extraordinarily nice to over-pay to see someone you love or have wanted to see perform for a long time. Faith Prince as Ursula is exciting.
Way to go, Disney! You turned stunt casting into stunning casting.
the Broadway Mouth
February 25, 2009
Showing posts with label The Little Mermaid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Little Mermaid. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Thursday, June 26, 2008
2007-2008 Season, Part 2: What Makes for a Broadway Hit (Stand Aside Oprah, This is the Real Secret)
I once asked the following question in my BroadwaySpace.com group discussion for Bookwriters and Songwriters:
If you look at some of the big shows that have succeeded in the recent past, you find many non-traditional shows . . . puppets, spelling bees . . . or big film-based hits the average joe could never get rights to . . . Disney shows, Spamalot, Legally Blonde, The Wedding Singer.
Can the traditional book musical without a snappy hook be a hit?
Perhaps a better phrasing would have been “Can the traditional book musical without a snappy hook get produced?,” but the meaning of the question is still the same—What constitutes a produce-able new work these days?
For some thoughts, we turn to the 2007-2008 season.
In the Heights—The big winner is an original book musical—a rarity these days—but it probably got noticed for its hook, a contemporary hip-hop infused pop score accompanying a traditional book.
It’s also important to note that the show also got some pretty good reviews, if I am remembering correctly.
A Catered Affair—Because the source material is so obscure (at least to the under-50 crowd), A Catered Affair could almost be considered a completely original work. The rumor on the street is that the music wasn’t so great. While I would like to experience the OBCR, I would have to say seeing Tom Wopat and Faith Prince chatting on The View sold the show much better than the drippy song the producers selected to showcase their work on the Tonys telecast, which probably only worked to strengthen any hesitation future audiences may have had.
Kudos to the show for a beautiful advertising campaign, though it may have worked better with the older folks in the matinee crowd that the average New York theatergoer.
Cry-Baby—Best Advertising Campaign of the Year Award goes to Cry-Baby which balanced hip with a retro look. Honestly, other than In the Heights, Cry-Baby was probably the new musical showcased on the Tonys I wish I could have seen. If only those reviews hadn’t done it in (or, perhaps, if only the people creating the show hadn’t done it in by earning the reviews).
If we categorize Cry-Baby, it’d definitely be a movie adaptation, though it is curious to think that Cry-Baby never would have happened had it not been for Hairspray.
Passing Strange—Okay, so I still don’t really get this show, but if you were categorizing it, something unique and eye-catching this would be. This show—or is that concert?—definitely stood out from the crowd.
The Little Mermaid—Disney does kind of get its own category. Yes, The Little Mermaid is a movie adaptation complete with “lift him up on your shoulders like a cheerleader” choreography that, I swear, was lifted right from the Chugwater High School musical last year, but it deserves its own categorization because only a Disney show could be as bad as Tarzan was and actually survive.
Young Frankenstein—This is a movie adaptation. How it remains open after showcasing “Deep Love” on the Tonys telecast, I’ll never know, but I truly wish Beth Leveal the best of everything.
Glory Days—Four people, young show creators—now that’s unique! Closing on opening night? Not as unique but certainly different.
Looking over that list, we have two extremely unique, stand-out they’re so different types of shows—Glory Days and Passing Strange. If you look at what catches people’s eyes, what stands out, these two shows would be it . . . but oddly enough, they didn’t.
The movie adaptations didn’t fare much better—The Little Mermaid will run for years, but A Catered Affair, Cry-Baby, and Young Frankenstein have not been big hits. Young Frankenstein will probably turn a profit and tour successfully, but the other two will probably not. We’ll all be fortunate if we can even buy a Cry-Baby OBCR, which it sounds like will not be released.
As for original works—We have the big winner of In the Heights, which is also pretty unique, though it is traditional at heart. If we consider A Catered Affair original, it didn’t fare so well.
Interestingly enough, what matters most about the shows, what it boils down to most, was—get this shocker—the quality of the storytelling. Name recognition saved Young Frankenstein and The Little Mermaid from their reviews, but the show that cost less to produce and could very well end up grossing the most was an original show with, get this, a great story! Just like Hairspray succeeded based on its storytelling, as did Wicked, Urinetown, and pretty much every other hit has. Some of the successful shows were unique and bold—Rent, Avenue Q, Spring Awakening; some successful shows have had name recognition—Hairspray, Beauty and the Beast, The Color Purple; some just had were original—Urinetown, In the Heights, The Drowsy Chaperone. But the key is that they found their audiences because they were great shows. No gimmicks, no stunts, no super-creative marketing campaigns to cover up flaws. They were great shows.
Let’s repeat that.
The key is that they found their audiences because they were great shows.
If I had money to invest in Broadway or was looking for a show to produce, that’s what I’d look for.
If I was looking for a project to adapt into a musical or was starting from the ground up, that’s what I’d be most concerned about.
the Broadway Mouth
June 26, 2008
If you look at some of the big shows that have succeeded in the recent past, you find many non-traditional shows . . . puppets, spelling bees . . . or big film-based hits the average joe could never get rights to . . . Disney shows, Spamalot, Legally Blonde, The Wedding Singer.
Can the traditional book musical without a snappy hook be a hit?
Perhaps a better phrasing would have been “Can the traditional book musical without a snappy hook get produced?,” but the meaning of the question is still the same—What constitutes a produce-able new work these days?
For some thoughts, we turn to the 2007-2008 season.
In the Heights—The big winner is an original book musical—a rarity these days—but it probably got noticed for its hook, a contemporary hip-hop infused pop score accompanying a traditional book.
It’s also important to note that the show also got some pretty good reviews, if I am remembering correctly.
A Catered Affair—Because the source material is so obscure (at least to the under-50 crowd), A Catered Affair could almost be considered a completely original work. The rumor on the street is that the music wasn’t so great. While I would like to experience the OBCR, I would have to say seeing Tom Wopat and Faith Prince chatting on The View sold the show much better than the drippy song the producers selected to showcase their work on the Tonys telecast, which probably only worked to strengthen any hesitation future audiences may have had.
Kudos to the show for a beautiful advertising campaign, though it may have worked better with the older folks in the matinee crowd that the average New York theatergoer.
Cry-Baby—Best Advertising Campaign of the Year Award goes to Cry-Baby which balanced hip with a retro look. Honestly, other than In the Heights, Cry-Baby was probably the new musical showcased on the Tonys I wish I could have seen. If only those reviews hadn’t done it in (or, perhaps, if only the people creating the show hadn’t done it in by earning the reviews).
If we categorize Cry-Baby, it’d definitely be a movie adaptation, though it is curious to think that Cry-Baby never would have happened had it not been for Hairspray.
Passing Strange—Okay, so I still don’t really get this show, but if you were categorizing it, something unique and eye-catching this would be. This show—or is that concert?—definitely stood out from the crowd.
The Little Mermaid—Disney does kind of get its own category. Yes, The Little Mermaid is a movie adaptation complete with “lift him up on your shoulders like a cheerleader” choreography that, I swear, was lifted right from the Chugwater High School musical last year, but it deserves its own categorization because only a Disney show could be as bad as Tarzan was and actually survive.
Young Frankenstein—This is a movie adaptation. How it remains open after showcasing “Deep Love” on the Tonys telecast, I’ll never know, but I truly wish Beth Leveal the best of everything.
Glory Days—Four people, young show creators—now that’s unique! Closing on opening night? Not as unique but certainly different.
Looking over that list, we have two extremely unique, stand-out they’re so different types of shows—Glory Days and Passing Strange. If you look at what catches people’s eyes, what stands out, these two shows would be it . . . but oddly enough, they didn’t.
The movie adaptations didn’t fare much better—The Little Mermaid will run for years, but A Catered Affair, Cry-Baby, and Young Frankenstein have not been big hits. Young Frankenstein will probably turn a profit and tour successfully, but the other two will probably not. We’ll all be fortunate if we can even buy a Cry-Baby OBCR, which it sounds like will not be released.
As for original works—We have the big winner of In the Heights, which is also pretty unique, though it is traditional at heart. If we consider A Catered Affair original, it didn’t fare so well.
Interestingly enough, what matters most about the shows, what it boils down to most, was—get this shocker—the quality of the storytelling. Name recognition saved Young Frankenstein and The Little Mermaid from their reviews, but the show that cost less to produce and could very well end up grossing the most was an original show with, get this, a great story! Just like Hairspray succeeded based on its storytelling, as did Wicked, Urinetown, and pretty much every other hit has. Some of the successful shows were unique and bold—Rent, Avenue Q, Spring Awakening; some successful shows have had name recognition—Hairspray, Beauty and the Beast, The Color Purple; some just had were original—Urinetown, In the Heights, The Drowsy Chaperone. But the key is that they found their audiences because they were great shows. No gimmicks, no stunts, no super-creative marketing campaigns to cover up flaws. They were great shows.
Let’s repeat that.
The key is that they found their audiences because they were great shows.
If I had money to invest in Broadway or was looking for a show to produce, that’s what I’d look for.
If I was looking for a project to adapt into a musical or was starting from the ground up, that’s what I’d be most concerned about.
the Broadway Mouth
June 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Musings on ElleTV and The Little Mermaid Gossip Machine
Legally Blonde on MTV
Whenever you endeavor to do something new or different, it’s a major risk. Safety rarely brings about change or innovation. It was a risk to open a show with an old bat churning butter instead of leggy chorus girls stepping away. Thank God for Oklahoma!, right? It was a risk to cast film star Angela Lansbury in a major singing and dancing role, but she won the Tony (and everyone’s hearts) in Mame. It was a risk for Andrew Lloyd Webber to put a bunch of poems to music, but Cats has entertained how many?
That’s not to say that risk is always met with success. In My Life was a risk, which ended famously with a thud of disbelief. First time producer Rosie O’Donnell sinking her own money into the sinking Taboo was a big-time risk. The list could continue endlessly.
Broadcasting Legally Blonde on MTV is undoubtedly a gigantic risk. People like me, eager to see all the great shows, would gladly catch the broadcast on MTV then go to New York to see other shows. Of course, nothing ever replaces live theatre, but when you’re spending $60-120 and there are so many tantalizing shows on the boards, you have to spend wisely to see as much as you can.
That said, this could be the start of a major wave. The vision is there. When teens and tweens fall in love with things, they fall hard and fast. This could totally boost the Broadway box office as kids come to see Laura Bell Bundy live. Look at the High School Musical phenomenon—kids have watched the move dozens of times, bought two editions of the CD, have seen the concert, bought the concert DVD, are now running to see it on stage, and are now eating up the sequel in record numbers. This airing isn’t even a shot-in-the-dark. People like me—and those of us who post on the message boards and gobble up Playbill.com—aren’t the ones for whom this airing is intended.
The truth is that Legally Blonde will otherwise surely struggle during the winter months when vacationers aren’t coming to the city in droves. Like The Wedding Singer, it might otherwise face an end-of-the-year farewell. This MTV airing is hardly a sure bet, but it’s a calculated risk and a piece of visionary thinking.
Even if it costs the Broadway show, it will definitely set up for a popular tour and probably many successful high school productions once the show is ready for licensing. Plus, the Original Broadway Cast recording could have sales going through the roof, or at least a few feet off the floor. With such broad national attention, a successful airing is going to do something for that CD.
Two people are going to benefit the most. First of all, theatre folk. Not only will we get a free Broadway show and a lifelong remembrance of it, but the airing will do something to ignite interest in theatre among young people. We all have our own first life-changing encounter with Broadway story. For how many kids will this present a different version of the same experience? It’s MTV, and it’s sure to be a mega-hit with teen girls, at least, likely more. After all, boys dig High School Musical just as much as girls, and Legally Blonde is a beloved movie.
Secondly, it’s also possible that it’ll give a big boost to Laura Bell Bundy’s career. Again, you never do know, but this will give her attention in Hollywood, and if the airing is really successful, she’ll become popular with the teen crowd. When that happens, a beautiful, intelligent, and talented woman like Laura Bell Bundy could become very famous.
So, I’m excited for Legally Blonde on MTV, even though I don’t even have cable. I think it’ll be fascinating to see what happens and how this could affect shows in the future. I applaud the producers of Legally Blonde for thinking outside-the-box and being willing to try something new.
The Little Mermaid buzz
As word hits New York and pictures begin to surface of Ariel and friends, I think it’s important to remember a few things.
One of the recurring ideas among contemporary Broadway actors interviewed by Rick McKay for his Broadway: The Golden Age documentary and sequels (as previewed on the bonus features of the original film’s DVD) is how the stage version of Beauty and the Beast really, in the words of Tovah Feldshuh, “changed the value system [on Broadway] pretty drastically.” Now, this is not my own commentary, but I think it’s important to hear what she’s saying. To some degree, I have to agree with Feldshuh when she says, “It’s so interesting to see an actor do this in a leotard [motioning like a teapot], let us say, or in something where you can perceive that there’s a person in there rather than having the teapot being so all-encompassing that you don’t even know Beth Fowler’s in there, that it could be Beth Fowler or it could be Mrs. Clinton.”
Part of the magic of the theatre is the audience’s use of imagination. This is one thing I always taught my students. I also think this is one reason why The Lion King has been so successful. It’s not literal. The first time I saw Our Town, I still remember how magical it was because of Wilder’s creative use of the audience’s imagination. That’s magic, maybe even more so than Norma Desmond’s mansion.
It’s important to remember that Disney Theatricals head Thomas Schumacher wasn’t involved in the production of Beauty and the Beast. The productions that he has helped create are not literal interpretations of films. Obviously, The Lion King is a great example of that. Aida, while not based on a film, was not realistically Egyptian either. In my opinion, the creative team produced a concept that was far more theatrical and visually appealing. Even Tarzan, which needed help, took large and daring deliberate steps away from the film. I haven’t seen Mary Poppins yet, but from my understanding, it too attempts to create a uniquely theatrical experience and takes vast steps away from the movie.
I have a feeling that Thomas Schumacher has a more theatrical heart than his Beauty and the Beast forbearers, which will influence The Little Mermaid. That’s a good thing.
The best determination, it is important to remember, will always be the final product. Personally, I’d take a more literal Beauty and the Beast to the more imagination-based Tarzan any day, but that is based solely on the overall experience. The Little Mermaid, above all, will fail or succeed based on its storytelling. Having an imaginative design will really be secondary. Remember Follies?
Now, that is not to say that abstract costuming is the best idea, or that the show doesn’t need work—be it major or minor. I have no clue. But I think avoiding literal interpretation is at least a far more interesting take than simply taking the movie and projecting that onto the stage. If Disney were to simply present an image-by-image replica, then why not do it at Disney World?
I also take issue with Michael Riedel’s recent column on Disney’s relying on new people to help create their shows. I think that’s a mark of inventiveness. It was that same thinking that moved Thomas Schumacher and Peter Schneider to call upon Julie Taymor to take on The Lion King. So it didn’t work as well with Bob Crowley as director of Tarzan, but I think the Disney people should be applauded for experimenting. Sometimes the experimenting works, and sometimes it doesn’t; however, it is better than always taking the easy path. Opera costume designer Tatiana Noginova and director Francesca Zambello are intensely creative people with a history of very interesting ideas. What a good idea to hand-deliver their talents to Broadway. Maybe it’ll work like The Lion King, and maybe it won’t, like Tarzan. But no one is going to know until they try.
As history has shown us—Oklahoma!, Mame, and Cats, for a sampling of examples—is that taking risks can lead to something spectacular. Taking the safe route rarely does.
the Broadway Mouth
September 12, 2007
Whenever you endeavor to do something new or different, it’s a major risk. Safety rarely brings about change or innovation. It was a risk to open a show with an old bat churning butter instead of leggy chorus girls stepping away. Thank God for Oklahoma!, right? It was a risk to cast film star Angela Lansbury in a major singing and dancing role, but she won the Tony (and everyone’s hearts) in Mame. It was a risk for Andrew Lloyd Webber to put a bunch of poems to music, but Cats has entertained how many?
That’s not to say that risk is always met with success. In My Life was a risk, which ended famously with a thud of disbelief. First time producer Rosie O’Donnell sinking her own money into the sinking Taboo was a big-time risk. The list could continue endlessly.
Broadcasting Legally Blonde on MTV is undoubtedly a gigantic risk. People like me, eager to see all the great shows, would gladly catch the broadcast on MTV then go to New York to see other shows. Of course, nothing ever replaces live theatre, but when you’re spending $60-120 and there are so many tantalizing shows on the boards, you have to spend wisely to see as much as you can.
That said, this could be the start of a major wave. The vision is there. When teens and tweens fall in love with things, they fall hard and fast. This could totally boost the Broadway box office as kids come to see Laura Bell Bundy live. Look at the High School Musical phenomenon—kids have watched the move dozens of times, bought two editions of the CD, have seen the concert, bought the concert DVD, are now running to see it on stage, and are now eating up the sequel in record numbers. This airing isn’t even a shot-in-the-dark. People like me—and those of us who post on the message boards and gobble up Playbill.com—aren’t the ones for whom this airing is intended.
The truth is that Legally Blonde will otherwise surely struggle during the winter months when vacationers aren’t coming to the city in droves. Like The Wedding Singer, it might otherwise face an end-of-the-year farewell. This MTV airing is hardly a sure bet, but it’s a calculated risk and a piece of visionary thinking.
Even if it costs the Broadway show, it will definitely set up for a popular tour and probably many successful high school productions once the show is ready for licensing. Plus, the Original Broadway Cast recording could have sales going through the roof, or at least a few feet off the floor. With such broad national attention, a successful airing is going to do something for that CD.
Two people are going to benefit the most. First of all, theatre folk. Not only will we get a free Broadway show and a lifelong remembrance of it, but the airing will do something to ignite interest in theatre among young people. We all have our own first life-changing encounter with Broadway story. For how many kids will this present a different version of the same experience? It’s MTV, and it’s sure to be a mega-hit with teen girls, at least, likely more. After all, boys dig High School Musical just as much as girls, and Legally Blonde is a beloved movie.
Secondly, it’s also possible that it’ll give a big boost to Laura Bell Bundy’s career. Again, you never do know, but this will give her attention in Hollywood, and if the airing is really successful, she’ll become popular with the teen crowd. When that happens, a beautiful, intelligent, and talented woman like Laura Bell Bundy could become very famous.
So, I’m excited for Legally Blonde on MTV, even though I don’t even have cable. I think it’ll be fascinating to see what happens and how this could affect shows in the future. I applaud the producers of Legally Blonde for thinking outside-the-box and being willing to try something new.
The Little Mermaid buzz
As word hits New York and pictures begin to surface of Ariel and friends, I think it’s important to remember a few things.
One of the recurring ideas among contemporary Broadway actors interviewed by Rick McKay for his Broadway: The Golden Age documentary and sequels (as previewed on the bonus features of the original film’s DVD) is how the stage version of Beauty and the Beast really, in the words of Tovah Feldshuh, “changed the value system [on Broadway] pretty drastically.” Now, this is not my own commentary, but I think it’s important to hear what she’s saying. To some degree, I have to agree with Feldshuh when she says, “It’s so interesting to see an actor do this in a leotard [motioning like a teapot], let us say, or in something where you can perceive that there’s a person in there rather than having the teapot being so all-encompassing that you don’t even know Beth Fowler’s in there, that it could be Beth Fowler or it could be Mrs. Clinton.”
Part of the magic of the theatre is the audience’s use of imagination. This is one thing I always taught my students. I also think this is one reason why The Lion King has been so successful. It’s not literal. The first time I saw Our Town, I still remember how magical it was because of Wilder’s creative use of the audience’s imagination. That’s magic, maybe even more so than Norma Desmond’s mansion.
It’s important to remember that Disney Theatricals head Thomas Schumacher wasn’t involved in the production of Beauty and the Beast. The productions that he has helped create are not literal interpretations of films. Obviously, The Lion King is a great example of that. Aida, while not based on a film, was not realistically Egyptian either. In my opinion, the creative team produced a concept that was far more theatrical and visually appealing. Even Tarzan, which needed help, took large and daring deliberate steps away from the film. I haven’t seen Mary Poppins yet, but from my understanding, it too attempts to create a uniquely theatrical experience and takes vast steps away from the movie.
I have a feeling that Thomas Schumacher has a more theatrical heart than his Beauty and the Beast forbearers, which will influence The Little Mermaid. That’s a good thing.
The best determination, it is important to remember, will always be the final product. Personally, I’d take a more literal Beauty and the Beast to the more imagination-based Tarzan any day, but that is based solely on the overall experience. The Little Mermaid, above all, will fail or succeed based on its storytelling. Having an imaginative design will really be secondary. Remember Follies?
Now, that is not to say that abstract costuming is the best idea, or that the show doesn’t need work—be it major or minor. I have no clue. But I think avoiding literal interpretation is at least a far more interesting take than simply taking the movie and projecting that onto the stage. If Disney were to simply present an image-by-image replica, then why not do it at Disney World?
I also take issue with Michael Riedel’s recent column on Disney’s relying on new people to help create their shows. I think that’s a mark of inventiveness. It was that same thinking that moved Thomas Schumacher and Peter Schneider to call upon Julie Taymor to take on The Lion King. So it didn’t work as well with Bob Crowley as director of Tarzan, but I think the Disney people should be applauded for experimenting. Sometimes the experimenting works, and sometimes it doesn’t; however, it is better than always taking the easy path. Opera costume designer Tatiana Noginova and director Francesca Zambello are intensely creative people with a history of very interesting ideas. What a good idea to hand-deliver their talents to Broadway. Maybe it’ll work like The Lion King, and maybe it won’t, like Tarzan. But no one is going to know until they try.
As history has shown us—Oklahoma!, Mame, and Cats, for a sampling of examples—is that taking risks can lead to something spectacular. Taking the safe route rarely does.
the Broadway Mouth
September 12, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Amazing Broadway Performer: Sherie René Scott
When you don’t live in New York, you consider yourself blessed beyond measure for getting to see a Broadway star of Sherie René Scott’s caliber once. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am to have been able to see her twice.
I first saw her in Aida. I had never heard of her before, except for her appearance on the Aida concept album. I figured that Heather Headley and Adam Pascal would blow her out of the water. Oh, but then she sang, “This is the story of a love that flourished in a time of hate,” and I learned Sherie René Scott is no third wheel to anyone.
Scott gives those stick-to-your-ribs types of performances, so when you’re listening to a CD, you can remember what she did and how she did it. I adored her layered Amneris with her rock ‘n roll inflections, and whenever I page through my souvenir program, I remember her simple feminine qualities which sheltered a deeper, stronger person trying to break out. And when she came out in the black dress to belt out the ending to “My Strongest Suit,” I was exhilarated beyond words.
How great it was that she had returned to Dirty Rotten Scoundrels by the time I made it to the show in its final month. I don’t want to give away too much of the show, but I totally fell in love with her character and, like every other person in the theatre, was cheering for her by the end of the show. Listening to her say with such great excitement, “These fries are French!” on the OBCR is one of the highlights for me.
I know she’ll make a delightful Ursula in The Little Mermaid, and I can’t wait to hear what she does with “Poor Unfortunate Souls,” and I hope to be able to see her in the part as well. If I miss another Sherie René Scott role, I’ll surely be a poor unfortunate soul myself.
After seeing her in Aida, I was compelled to buy her Men I’ve Had CD. I would love to hear a more theatrical solo album, but she sounds great. And the picture on the back of the case is worth the price alone.
Getting to Know You Interview: http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=512596&pn=1
the Broadway Mouth
July 23, 2007
I first saw her in Aida. I had never heard of her before, except for her appearance on the Aida concept album. I figured that Heather Headley and Adam Pascal would blow her out of the water. Oh, but then she sang, “This is the story of a love that flourished in a time of hate,” and I learned Sherie René Scott is no third wheel to anyone.
Scott gives those stick-to-your-ribs types of performances, so when you’re listening to a CD, you can remember what she did and how she did it. I adored her layered Amneris with her rock ‘n roll inflections, and whenever I page through my souvenir program, I remember her simple feminine qualities which sheltered a deeper, stronger person trying to break out. And when she came out in the black dress to belt out the ending to “My Strongest Suit,” I was exhilarated beyond words.
How great it was that she had returned to Dirty Rotten Scoundrels by the time I made it to the show in its final month. I don’t want to give away too much of the show, but I totally fell in love with her character and, like every other person in the theatre, was cheering for her by the end of the show. Listening to her say with such great excitement, “These fries are French!” on the OBCR is one of the highlights for me.
I know she’ll make a delightful Ursula in The Little Mermaid, and I can’t wait to hear what she does with “Poor Unfortunate Souls,” and I hope to be able to see her in the part as well. If I miss another Sherie René Scott role, I’ll surely be a poor unfortunate soul myself.
After seeing her in Aida, I was compelled to buy her Men I’ve Had CD. I would love to hear a more theatrical solo album, but she sounds great. And the picture on the back of the case is worth the price alone.
Getting to Know You Interview: http://www.broadway.com/gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=512596&pn=1
the Broadway Mouth
July 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
