A (0:00)

Sam hello all you theater lovers both out and proud and on the DL. And welcome back to Broadway Breakdown, a podcast discussing the history und legacy of American theater's most exclusive address, Broadway. I am your host, Matt Koplik, the least famous and most opinionated of all the Broadway podcast hosts, and we are continuing our review episodes of the new season, the 2024-2025 season, before we eventually dive into our next series of deep dives on the podcast. And we are covering the first musical production of the 20242025 season, the transfer from City Center Encore's production of Once Upon a Mattress. Now, if you want more historical context for the show, I'll probably give a little bit during this episode, but we do have an episode covering Once Upon a Mattress in a Deep Dive with Charles Kirsch, host of the podcast Backstage Babble that was released I want to of 2022. So just about a year and a half at this point, maybe a little over a year and a half. So there's a lot more historical context in that episode and dissection of the original script than we'll be doing here. Just because it's all that information was more on hand for me at the time. So I'm kind of going off of distant knowledge I have of the of the show's origins, but I do have know a good knowledge of the show's original incarnations. I had seen Once Upon a Mattress on Broadway in 1997 with Sarah Jessica Parker, directed by Gerard Gutierrez. It was a notoriously terrible production. I remembered a little bit about it. It was actually a beloved cast album of mine when I was a child. I have since come to, you know, understand that that production wasn't good. That recording isn't terribly special. Sarah Jessica Parker is insanely miscast. But it does have a couple of joys in it and I do have fond memories, at least of the visual style of it. And upon looking back what I know now of the show, I can see that that visual style was also misguided, but it was opulent and that is always fun. Had not seen Once Upon a Mattress on stage since then, outside of like one or two camp productions. There was the ABC broadcast version of it starring Tracey Ullman with Carol Burnett as the Queen, which was a little bit of synergy as Carol Burnett had a, you know, major career launch with the original production. And then I saw this at Encores in February, starring Sutton Foster and Michael Urie, directed by Lierre Debessinet, the artistic director of Encores and Directs one show a season for the company. And Lear really kind of had a tricky first season at Encores. There was the Tap Dance Kid and the Life, both of which really bombed and put her reputation and her stake at Encores in jeopardy. Then, of course, she does into the Woods. She helms that production, more or less. And that was a very big success. It was a huge sellout. Ran for two weeks and had really great reviews where it transferred to the St. James Theater for about 15 to 20 weeks on Broadway. Also received great reviews. A number of Tony nominations, including one for Lear, did not end up winning any of them. And people have their opinions about that. I might get into a little bit of that later, but this is sort of where we're leading up to, because then the following year, you know, into the woods has major Broadway success. It recoups and makes a good chunk of money for Encores because they did not do any sprucing up for the production. They moved exactly what was at City center to the St. James. There were some casting switch arounds because not everyone who does an encore production is necessarily open to doing a longer run on Broadway. And that was. That's always a positive and a negative for any casting that you do. But the show was very successful on Broadway. It. It was pretty sold out for, I want to say, like, the first six to seven weeks of the run. It was once Sara Bareilles left that the grosses started to take a major tip. And people can claim that the show's quality remained the same with all the new casting that they did. There was very much a rotating door of Broadway talent. I can't speak to any of that. I only saw the show at Encores and then the Broadway transfer once with the new company. I did not see any of the replacements. I did not see it on tour, but I know it was successful on tour again, at least financially. And then that fall. That's actually. Sorry. That same season, Encores transferred its gala presentation of Parade, directed Michael Arden to Broadway. Parade, from what I understand, technically made its money back, but only after it received its tax credit from the state of New York. It did not return its full investment from its grosses on Broadway. And I don't imagine that the money it made back. A lot of it went to Encores. Maybe some of it, but not a lot. Into the woods was the bigger money maker for them. The truth is that ever Since Chicago in 1996, Encores has always kind of been on the lookout for what production could maybe transfer next. And every passing Season, their productions got a little more polished and a little more spruced up. And you can read about this in Ben Brantley's reviews for those productions. You can tell when he's extremely annoyed because to him, it feels like Encores is losing sight of its mission statement of giving first class treatment to these epic scores that maybe are attached to troubled books and that we maybe won't see again on this level. Or perhaps maybe we discover that a show is quite wonderful that we had forgotten about and gives us interest in seeing it again, but not necessarily meant to be a workshop for a Broadway revival that was never Encores mission statement. And it slowly started to become the mission statement as time went on. And as Encores found infrequent success with Transfers, they became less overt about trying to find something to transfer. But they did still have nearly fully staged productions as time went on. You would see, let's say, Grand Hotel, which was fully off book, had a set, fully costumed, well choreographed and staged. It was ready to just be plopped up and put at a roundabout theater. There were talks of Follies transferring with Donna Murphy and Victoria Clarke. And I know that they got very close with that. But ultimately schedules couldn't make that work. And also Follies is just a gamble no matter where you go. Carnival with Anne Hathaway was very close to transferring. They couldn't really make that work with Anne Hathaway's schedule. The only three pre Covid that actually happened and none them were literal transfers. They were adaptations of those productions. Broadway adaptations were Wonderful Town with Donna Murphy, Apple Tree, the Apple Tree with Kristin Chenoweth, and Finian's Rainbow with Kate Baldwin. These were productions where everyone went, oh, this show is way better than I remembered. And these stars are so perfectly tailored to the material. And the director, choreographer, helming it has their finger on the pulse. This has to go somewhere. And it took about three to four years for Donna Murphy to make it to Broadway with Wonderful Town after Encores. That was not a direct transfer. They kept the Encores orchestra on stage, that design setting, but there was still very much a set and there were actual costumes and over a haul in casting all around it was, you know, we got the star, we got the show, we got the director, now let's make this Broadway the Apple Tree. Also that took about three to four years to make it to Broadway, and that was Kristin Chenoweth at Roundabout, same director. And they did not do the orchestra on stage style like they did at Encores. They very much rethought it design wise. They put in a whole bunch of new stuff for choreography and for costumes. Again, it was a Broadway adaptation of what they had at Encores, Finian's Rainbow. They put the orchestra on stage, but that was more to fill up what was a very large stage at the St. James. And there were some small casting changes for Finian's Rainbow. I think that was a pretty quick turnover. Maybe like a year. I think just a year. And they definitely spruced up the set. It wasn't a very attractive set, but they spruced it up. And that is where Encores used to be with into the Woods. That was very much a Chicago style. Let's not redesign it, let's not restage it. Although I think Chicago, they did spruce up some of the staging. Let's just plop it down onto Broadway. It worked at City Center. People loved it. Here we go. And they were able to do that with into the woods because into the woods is a very strong and very beloved show. And they had a lot of heat around it. They moved it pretty quickly from Encores to Broadway. So they were able to fill the theater for a while and maintain that energy of it doesn't matter that there aren't a lot of trees. It doesn't matter that we don't have any automation on stage. We're happy to be here. This feels like an event. As some of you may know. I never really got that vibe myself. I've always been a little like, I don't understand why we're all freaking out here. I could understand freaking out about that. Into the woods. If you had never enjoyed the show before and then seeing it unvarnished as is, without some crazy ass gimmick or vision put upon it, and just watching people do the show, straightforward, that were mostly well cast, going, oh, this material is actually really, really strong. What a surprise. I can understand that. But for those of us who always loved into the woods, outside of just like enjoying seeing it done well, I didn't understand people telling me all the time, like, oh, my God, what a revelation this production was. I'm like, revelation of what? We knew the show was good. There's nothing about intention or characters that is a surprise to me. There are line deliveries that are different and that's fun and a lot of them work, but nothing is like, oh my God, I never thought to approach the witch this way or Jack this way. I'm like, I've seen them all done this way before. It works. But I've seen it done and that's not a dig so much as I'm just like, curious as to the hype and the buzz around it. But ever since then I have heard, I can't say this officially, supposedly, allegedly, it has been encores. Mission Post Covid to have at least one production a year transfer to Broadway. So into the woods from the first season, Parade was the gala presentation. From the second, Now Once Upon a Mattress from the third, people were trying to get light in the piazza to transfer. There was talk of Jelly's Last Jam, but that didn't really make financial sense because it didn't really sell. There were talks from Mauryeston's people to do a recording, a full blown recording of Titanic, because the transfer was not financially feasible. I do know the recording at the moment has fallen through, that might happen again. But he really wanted that cast preserved. And so there's always like just something, something to bring money and something to bring attention to encores. And the problem with that is now we go into every encore season and instead of going, oh, I can't wait to enjoy this fleeting production of a show that may not totally work, but will have some great music sung well, and best case scenario, I discover a new cult classic of mine. Worst case scenario, this one was a failure, but there's always the next one. And it's always fun to see a Broadway actor you like in something and if it's not working, watch them try to make it work. Now it's become, well, is this the one that's going to transfer? Which show is going to transfer? And when I tell you that, that seeps into the productions themselves. I have enough people who have in my life who have been involved with all three of last year's encore shows who can tell you that the vibe on the first day of rehearsal was always like, well, is this going to transfer? And however the director sets it, makes it, it changes the vibe of the room. So like with Titanic, Ann Kaufman very much was not staging Titanic to be a transfer production. She was like, let us make this as simple and clean as possible. It's a big show, we've got 10 days to put it up. Let's just really put the music forward. This is a very simple, very effective staging. And some people in the company were. Actually a lot of people in the company were very upset by that because they were like, well, now this won't transfer. It was never meant to. It shouldn't be on your mind. But that is where we have gone as a theater going society with encores. And personally, I hate it. But sometimes something is really special and you want it to live on. And sometimes something that maybe was perfectly nice in Encores moves or not even Encores Off Broadway, something happens with a show when it transfers where with time and some extra money and some extra rehearsal, it actually blossoms and becomes really, really special. And so you always approach every show you see open mind, at arm's length. And I brought up Parade earlier in terms of the connection with woods with the Tony Awards. Parade is the one that ended up winning the Tony that year, in my opinion, rightfully so. But I don't think that Parade winning was what Encores wanted. I don't know if that is better for their narrative than Woods. So as I said, they're always looking for the next thing to transfer. Which brings us to Once Upon a Mattress, As I said, Sawed at Encore, is directed by Lear, starring Sutton, Michael Urie, Harriet Harris, Nikki Renee Daniels, Cheyenne Jackson, J. Harrison G. And a few other people. I can't remember this moment, and people really enjoyed it. Then I took a friend to the Broadway production because, as I said, your homeboy is now getting press tickets. And my friend who had seen it, my companion, he really loved it. At Encores, I thought it was fine. At Encores, I thought it was perfectly pleasant. Mattress has never been a musical for me that has been this undiscovered gem. It is done far too often across the country, in schools, in regional theaters, community theaters, summer stock. As I said, we had the 97 revival. There was a production with the Transport Group starring Jackie Hoffman only a few years ago. Once Upon a Mattress is never far from our minds. And Shy is a very popular song in the musical theater canon. So this is not, you know, the Golden Apple. This is a musical that a lot of people know and we've all enjoyed it. I don't think anyone's ever said that it's their favorite. I don't think anyone's ever said, you know, what show is actually really incredible and has a secretly strong book and an amazing score. Once Upon a Mattress, the show, for those of you who don't know, started as a blip at a as at an adult summer camp where Mary Rogers and her future collaborators were all working. Marshall Bearer, Jay Thompson, I think Dean Fuller as well. They were all staff members at this camp and one of their jobs was to create shows every couple of weeks for the. For the attendees. And one of them they did was a musical version of Princess and the Pea. And they had written the song Shy for a Different show that they didn't. That wasn't even in this original production. In fact, I think in the original production, the actress playing Winifred was more of a slapstick comedian dancer than she was a singer. So Winifred didn't even sing. So only a few songs that we now know in Mattress were in that original production. But they had all of these plot lines and all these characters because they needed to incorporate as many employees as possible and showcase their talents as much as possible. And when the show got picked up for a Broadway transfer, they only had a couple of months to beef up the show, to pad it out, to add more songs. That's when they added Shy. Carol Burnett became their leading lady, and they tailored the role to her. They had Jack Guilford, I think, was the original king, and he was a really brilliant pantomime comedian. So they made the king a mute and they really played up his gifts. Every role was tailored to the actor who originated it, which is why all these characters have very dynamic personalities and why everyone's got a song and yada, yada, yada, yada. And the show opened to, like, slightly positive reviews. Braves for Carol, actually very strong reviews for Mary Rogers. Ended, was successful and made some money. Was incredibly successful in summer stock and on tours and in regional theaters. Continues to be today. And most importantly, got a lot of play on tv, where Carol Burnett did two separate TV adaptations. And this production updates the script a bit. Amy Sherman Palladino, who some of you will know as the creator of Gilmore girls and Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, did sort of a second pass at the script, which isn't odd. Encores has often had writers come in and do an adaptation of the libretto. Usually it's to pare it down because again, with Encores, you don't have a lot of time to put the show up. It's essentially stage door for Broadway. You get slightly less than two weeks to learn it, to rehearse it, to stage it, and then get it up on its feet. It's very fast, and so there's a lower expectation. Usually when you see an Encores production. Oh, the choreography is sort of basic. Eh, that's fine. You don't really expect it to. You don't expect it to be. The costumes are sort of. Are basic. They don't have much of a budget. The set is basic. They don't have much of a budget. And also, you know, they have to have the orchestra on stage and all these other things. You need to have open playing spaces. So for Mattress at Encores it was. The set was the castle because it's the story of the princess and the pea. And it was all gray and black and white color scheme, which I remember finding very odd. It was, you know, very bold painted strokes. The idea is that nothing is nuanced or detailed. It is an impression of a castle and you have a couple of flags hanging and banners hanging, but nothing opulent. Not that it necessarily needs to be, but it wasn't colorful. And I remember at Encores finding that strange. And on Broadway I was like, oh, I guess what it does is it makes the costumes pop more because the costumes are colorful and the costumes aren't impressive by any means. They're the same costumes that were at Encores. In fact, the entire physical production is pretty much exactly as it was at Encore's. I think they've added about $20 worth of scenery to add to it, a couple of extra flags, a couple of things to slide on and off. But it is 95% the visual that we had at City Center. Same thing goes for the costumes. The orchestra is on stage. It is pared down by a couple of pieces, which is a shame. It is the same sized cast. And what Amy Sherman Palladino ended up doing with her adaptation is ultimately her biggest changes are she took the characters of the minstrel and the Jester and she combined them into one. So it's now just the Jester, which cuts the song, the minstrel, the Jester and I. And I know a lot of people who were disappointed with that change at Encores. That never really bothered me. Act one is overlong already, and it's still overlong with this production. So anything that has to be cut, I'm not mad about. I think it's more the. The score is better than the book always has been, and it's still better than this current book. So cutting songs is frustrating when it's like, well, I like the music. I don't need a whole seven minute scene of nothing but bits. But some people do want that. What Amy Schumer Palladino has also done is added a lot more modern jokes to the show and also kind of taking out a lot of the sex that was in Once Upon a Mattress. The ruling in Once Upon a Mattress is that Prince Dauntless wants to find a bride and his mother, Queen Agravaine, won't let him marry until they find a genuine princess. And so they have all these tests for princesses across the land, which then leads us to Princess Winnifred, who is found by the nobleman Sir Harry and Ser Harry goes out to find Winifred because his lady love, Lady Larkin, turns out to be pregnant. And in order for them to have to get married, they need to get Dauntless a wife, because the queen has decreed originally. Throughout the land, no one may wed till Dauntless shares his marriage bed. Amy Sherman Palladino has changed that to. To the altar, Dauntless is led, which is fine, it's just not. It doesn't scan as well. And also, like, I don't know why we're so afraid of, like, even insinuating sex. The new adaptation still incorporates some of it, but they cut other parts. And I'm like, why even cut it? I don't understand. I don't know why we're playing things so safe and smoothed over, but alas, alack. And so with Winifred, obviously, she is the opposite of a genuine princess of what we assume one to be. She is bawdy, she is gross. She comes from a swampy kingdom. So when we first meet her, she has swam the moat, she's covered in leeches, she's covered in mud, and she's just very not, quote unquote, ladylike. She has no feminine attributes, but she does end up passing the test of the pea in the mattress. Although there are other elements at play, everyone in the kingdom wants her to win, so people are all not playing fair so she can win. And this ends up with her and Dauntless marrying Larkin and Harry will be okay. Queen Agravaine ends up becoming mute due to a spell which allows her mute husband to then talk again. So things like the queen losing her voice and the king getting his back again. We are told in the first act that there was a spell cast that left the king mute ever since Dauntlet was a baby. And the spell was cast and said it could only be broken when the mouse devours the hawk. This is all from the original script, which they kept. And Winifred says, well, what can't you get? A really big mouse and a tiny hawk. And they go, we tried that, but the mouse ran away and the hawk bit Daddy. And it's a funny line. It's cute, it's sweet. And that always gets a laugh. It got a laugh at encores. It got a laugh on Thursday when I saw it. Also, by the way, I'm recording this the Sunday after I saw it, the day before the show opened. So I am not sure what the reviews for this production are going to be. I'm going to assume positive not because that's how I felt, but that's just because I feel like that's where we're at right now. This show got very good reviews at Encores and we'll talk about that in a second. So brings me back to the line. Amy Sherman Paladino takes that and then doubles down in Act 2, when Dauntless finally stands up to his mother. The mouse has devoured the hawk. She can't speak. And they go, oh, the queen cannot speak. And the king stands up and goes, I, I gets a big round of applause. It's a great moment. And then he has another line that's in the original script and he says, and I've got a lot to say. Which always gets a laugh as well, because gender politics, no matter how archaic they are in Once Upon a Mattress gets laughs because borscht belt vaudeville esque comedy is the beating heart of the humor of Once Upon a Mattress. But Palladino takes that the I can speak and I've got a lot to say. And everyone laughs and she goes, starting with a diatribe on golf, which gets a chuckle. I think it's sort of dumb. It's something that like, you know, Maisel would say and get a chuckle by the nightclub. Another thing is a recurring joke about Sir Harry here, played by Will Chase, about the spurs they put on his armor. He's very in love with his spurs and they make that his whole thing in addition to the fact that he's dumb. But it, for me, the whole spurs joke, if you see it, tell me if you disagree. But it's such diminishing returns. It's cute enough the first time he talks about it because he and Larkin are talking about how another princess has failed. He's come back from this mission, he's in love with his spurs and Lorkin's like, harry, pay attention. Remember that the day you got those spurs and you jousted and it was all great and you were a hero and you and I went and had a picnic on the hill and the sun went down. Well, I'm pregnant. And for me, that is the punchline, right? It's a great punchline. It always kills. But then they keep talking about the spurs and then every time people are like, who's Sir Harry? Oh, right, the guy with the spurs. It just, it starts with some solid laughter and just gets weaker and weaker and weaker as the night goes on. And it's one of those things where I'm like, it's just not funny enough to keep hammering at It. But that's sort of what Amy Sherman Palladino does. She loves bits and making the bits continue and continue. And sometimes it works. You'll see it happen all the time on Gilmore Girls. And there are some recurring jokes in the New Mattress Libretto that work, but for me, that is not one of them. My companion felt that it wasn't the recurring line that wasn't funny. He felt it was Will Chase who wasn't funny. Which. Okay, so, long story short, my companion saw it in Encores, really loved it. Saw it on Broadway, kind of hated it. I saw it at Encores and I was like, that was fine. I see it on Broadway. And I go, that was fine. Minus kind of meh for me, terribly meh. I would even say a couple of things have changed for the better, some things for the worse. One of the downgrades, unfortunately, is we do not have Harriet Harris as Queen Agravaine, which she played at Encores. Harriet Harris was the absolute annihilator of comedy in that show. She just killed everything. And by that I mean she nailed everything. She got laughs on every line she had. She just deadpanned her way to heaven and walked away with the show easily, even though she isn't a singer. Now we have Anna Gasteyer as Queen Agravaine, who is also an amazing comedian and a phenomenal singer. And she is not successful here, and I'll get to why in a second. Because it is applicable to all of the new cast members. We have Anna as Queen Agravaine, Will Chase as Ser Harry. We have Daniel Breaker as the Jester. We have Brooks Ashmanskas as the Wizard. Those are our new cast members. We have our returning cast members. Michael Urie as Dauntless. Sutton Foster as Winifred. Nikki Renee Daniels as Larkin. I'm forgetting the name of the actor who plays the King. He was the old man in into the woods, but he's back as the King. And everyone who's returning from Encores is doing solid work. Now that Harriet Harris is no longer the Queen, I would argue Michael Urie is the MVP of the show. Sutton has improved vocally. She's much stronger than she was at Encores. It helps that she doesn't have Covid this time and she's not rehearsing Sweeney Todd during the day, so she can be a little more vocally powerful here. Nikki Renee Daniels has taken the time to really kind of just let loose more as Larkin and find comedy, because Larkin already is kind of a dud of a role. She sings pretty. She's always sort of in a tizzy and doesn't really get jokes. And honestly, Paladin Dino doesn't give her a lot of new jokes to begin with. There's jokes about, like, Greenpoint, Brooklyn, because, like, oh, you fellows are always on top of or on the pulse of things. Where are you from? Greenpoint. There is a really solid joke about long division that Michael Urie says in Act 1 that I really love. And there's another change they made for encores that I appreciate was Agravaine at one point makes a small speech about how, as a woman, she doesn't get much power and she's sort of hard pressed to relinquish her power to her son when he marries. And also because the contest to see who is a genuine princess is really the only thing she can politically do. She's going to give it her all as a woman. And I said to my mom, when we saw it, I was like, it's not that what she's saying is something I politically disagree with. Of course I'm all for the autonomy of all women. It's just that this is a show with fart jokes and Sutton Foster throwing leeches out into the audience. Ma', am, this is a Wendy's. This is not a platform for you to then go. And by the way, suffs like, different show, different vibes. They have now cut that speech, which I appreciate. But as we talk about the new cast members, Anna, Brooks, Daniel, Will. You know, my companion found Will to be very unfunny. I didn't find Will unfunny so much as I felt that he suffered the same way Anna suffered the same way that Daniel and Brooks suffered, which was that I didn't think any of them were given any kind of direction. What learned does well is she's good at casting and then letting her cast fly free. And that's all I'm really gonna delve into on that. From everything I know about her work on Oliver and Into the woods backstage stories as well from people I know on those productions. She's not really one to be like, here's your intention, or, that's not working. Let's try something else. Or, this isn't looking right, or this is messy. It is fly free. And if something's really bad, you know, we'll work it out. And so Anna, as Queen Agravaine is sort of left out to her own devices, and she's still figuring out what to do. So she's playing imperious and a killjoy, which is not necessarily a bad take on Queen Agravaine, but you also have to think about the tempo of the comedy and how you relate to everyone else around you. The best performances in Once Upon a Mattress, with the kind of comedy it is, you have to be big, you have to be specific, and you have to be tight. The only person in this production right now for me who is doing all three is Michael Urie as Dauntless. He is big, he is specific, he is tight. Sutton Foster is big and she is specific. I wouldn't say her performance has gotten tight yet. Nikki Renee Daniels. I would say she is specific, she is tight. I wouldn't say she's big. Part of that is just. Larkin is very difficult to do that. But if you watch, you see her finding moments of bigness. She's figuring it out again, because I don't personally believe that Lear is guiding her through any of this. She's having to go on her own accord. But then we have Anna, we've got Will, we've got Daniel, and we've got Brooks. Anna is going back big and she's going tight, but she's not really going specific. You know, she's moving incredibly fast through her lines. She's going very high pitched. She's not drawl, she's not deadpan, she's not dry. And Harriet Harris as the Queen, even Carol Burnett in the TV version, I think the best Queen Agravains are the ones who take their time. Obviously not Gayle Rankin doing mine. Hair and Cabaret take their time, but take their time to say their words. Enunciate, because their words are important. Why wouldn't they be? They're the Queen. Everyone she treats with casual disdain. The way Harriet Harris sort of approached the comedy and how she approaches comedy a lot with her shows is, why is everyone so stupid and crazy? Why am I the only sane one? Even though her character is just as crazy and dumb as everyone else? You know, you can't be smarter than your character. Everything has to be done in earnest, even if it's silly. And what makes her comedy work so well is the idea of not only is she playing all of her characters crazy earnestly, but she's also going, why is everyone so beneath me? This is just so exhausting. And. And it allows her side glances and her. And her double takes to just really land with aplomb. And Anna is just sort of playing the killjoy. And it's disappointing because I think she can find that disdain if she gave herself the time. She's also in my Opinion vocally way overqualified for the role. And so for her one number sensitivity, they give her this big Elphaba, like, finish, which is just very incorrect for the tone of the role, the tone of the show. But of course it gets applause because she hits a high note with gusto. She is a talented singer and we're hearing a talented singer do what they're talented at. And thus we applaud like the Pavlovian dogs we are. But you watch her in her scenes and she's not nailing the comedy and she can. But that is why I don't blame Will in the same way my companion kind of was blaming Will because he's like, well, Cheyenne Jackson just really got it. I'm like, well, Cheyenne Jackson has been dining out for years on playing, you know, hot dum dums. He's really good at that. He knows what to do. He did it in the Performers. He did it in All Shook Up. He used to do it on 30 Rock when they gave him a chance to even speak. That is something he knows how to sell. Will has not often played those roles. In fact, he tends to play more intense roles even when he does comedy. In Kiss Me Kate or Mystery of Edwin Drood, two productions that I thought he was semi successful in. Vocally not right. But he's also not vocally right for Once Upon a Mattress. He is a rock tenor playing a traditional baritone, so the songs don't fit his voice. But he is committing the same way. He committed to those shows with a lot of energy, a lot of gusto. He's going big and he's going tight, but he's not going specific. And because he's not going specific, it comes off like he is commenting on the stupidity of Ser Harry. I don't think that's what he's intending to do, but that is sort of what's happening. Someone like Daniel Breaker as the Jester, who is both the narrator of the piece and helping manipulate the contest for Winifred in the moment, because he tells us the story sort of like, I was there. Daniel Breaker is, I would say, tight. I wouldn't say he's going big and he's not going specifically. You know, he sings it well, but he's not really. He's sort of attempting to do what Harriet Harris did, which is the, like, why is everyone so insane? But he's coming at it from the like, I'm genuinely normal. Can't we all tell how normal I am? The problem is that the jester in the show is. Yes. Anding to everyone around him in all the scenes. So the way that Daniel's approaching the comedy doesn't jive with the actual material. And also, you can only be genuinely normal around crazy people in a comedy for so long before you just become the straight man that no one wants to have around. While things are ramping up, while all the fun is happening, you can't be the one being like, this is actually kind of weird. You gotta go along with it. And it's especially difficult when you see him opposite Brooks Ashmanskas as the wizard who is the right hand man to the Queen, because Brooks is very good at leaning into the insanity of what's happening. What Brooks does, his, like, what Brooks's shtick is. I would say if you've seen Brooks on stage in either the Prom or Something Rotten or Martin Shorn, Fame Becomes Me or Bullets Over Broadway. I feel like Brooks is really locked in. Trademark as a comedic actor is every now and then the character I'm playing is super gay. Like turns around, does a voguing walk with like one hand to his side, sort of at a limp wrist. And he's very good at applying it in the exact right moments. But again, he's given no direction here, so he is just doing it when he can. There's also no physical direction to any of this. That is not to say that there's no physical comedy. Sutton has a whole bit with grapes and Michael Urie does a whole thing about how his character has trouble confidently going upstairs. But there are so many details that are just ignored because I would argue it is the cast that is doing the work and not being shaped by the director that makes a lot of comedy lost. Either it doesn't land as well or it only lands for parts of the audience due to sightlines. For example, while Anna Gasteyer's queen is figuring out exactly what test she's going to give Winifred on sensitivity and she's singing the song Sensitivity. For the most part, she's just standing there doing her bit until the end when Brooks paints her toenails to give him something to do. Now, I do not recall this happening at encores. Maybe it did, I can't remember. But even if it did, Brooks is wearing a tall, pointy wizard hat while he is doing this pedicure for Anna Gasteyer. And so her face is covered for the last verse and a half of her song. That is a rookie mistake to be making as a director because the actors don't know what the Sight lines are, the director has to see that and go, no, no, no, no. Anna's being blocked right now. So if you need to have a bit, if we want to show the audience that you are beholden to her, let's try for a man. And she can use her hand to flick you away and then you go to the other side, like, things like that. Ultimately, it is focusing on Anna and anything Brooks does has to be in service to her. So by not thinking through details like that, some of you might be saying, I don't know what you're talking about. I had a grand old time at Once Upon a Mattress. You are being far too negative and nitpicky. I say, no, no. God is in the details. And especially for a comedy like this, it has to be tight. It has to be specific. In addition to big, when Michael Urie finally gets the payoff to the long running joke of his character not knowing how to confidently go upstairs, that payoff happens all the way stage right, house left, upstage by the orchestra. So actually, there's a solid third of the audience that can't see what he's doing. That, again, is a rookie mistake. That has to happen center stage. If you're going to do it upstage, it's got to happen center stage. Things like bits between Sutton and Michael as Winifred and Dauntless sort of get to know each other. It's all good stuff. It's just not tight enough. As I said, Sutton is specific. She is big, but she's not being tight. And that affects Yuri's bits sometimes with her because you see their chemistry together. They have good chemistry. It's much more like brother, sister or girl and gay best friend. Which is fine because Dauntless and Winifred have a pretty sexless romance. They're just sort of two goofballs who like each other, but they have a lot of stuff that just sort of. It's good, it's just not compact. And mattress needs to be compact. Act one is 80 minutes long. That is insane. Granted, act two is, you know, 40 minutes long, but it's 45 minutes. But like a show that is just Princess shows up, sits on a mattress with a pee in it, gets to marry the Prince. No, act one should be 80 minutes for that. For that kind of a show. It should be, honestly, an hour 45 with no intermission or an hour 40, no intermission. But alas, something else is the choreography. Now, Lauren Letero, I've spoken on this podcast with Tommy and with Heart of Rock and roll. I don't think she is an untalented choreographer. And this is definitely the most unencumbered her dancers have been. She doesn't give them insane things to do that come at the sacrifice of singing or the comedy. I wouldn't say the choreography itself is terribly funny. It's really difficult to do funny choreography. I was actually asking a friend about this the other day if he could think of any. And the only ones I could think of within the last 25 years of examples of comedic funny choreography were Susan Stroman's work on the Producers like Guntak Hop Klopp and Springtime for Hitler. I would say Michael Baress's choreography for title the show things like Die Vampire, Die or the opening number two Nobodies in New York. I would say Casey Nicholaw's work on Book of Mormon, especially Joseph Smith, American Moses and his work on Drowsy Chaperone. Other than that, I'm kind of coming up short. My friend wanted to say Casey for something run. I didn't find that to be funny choreography. It was solid choreography, but not funny. If you guys can think of times where there was funny choreography in the last 25 years, like dances that actually made you laugh out loud, I would love to hear it. I don't think it's happening in Mattress and I think that's a shame because there's a chance to have it. The choreography is probably the only thing physically in terms of staging that's been spruced up a little bit. Mostly with the number shy. There was a bit more staging going on in that than there was the first time around. Not much, but some. Otherwise, this is pretty much a copy paste job from City Center. Now, if my friend liked it so much at Encores, if my companion really loved it at Encores and hated it on Broadway, is it really just down to the actors? The new actors could the fact that he did not like Will Chase, that he also found Ana to be disappointing, he really did not care for Daniel Breakker at all. Was that enough to really just change his mind? If Sutton has improved a bit since Encores, if Michael Urie remains wonderful, if Nikki Renee Daniels has improved, isn't that enough? If the material hasn't changed all that much and the physical production hasn't changed all that much, shouldn't he still love it? And shouldn't I mostly have my mind be the same since it wasn't Encores? Yes and no. Now some people who loved it at Encores and are seeing it on Broadway are saying, oh, it's so delightful. It's gotten even better. They've gotten more confident. It's a little more spruced up physically. It's not more spruced up physically. Outside of, again, As I said, $20 worth of sets from Party City, it is 95% the show that was at Encores. As I said, the expectation of what you see at City center when you're doing an encore show is different. You know, they don't have a lot of time. That is part of the fun of it. It makes you forgive sometimes lack of staging, it makes you forgive. Not the most insane choreography. It makes you forgive. Not fully formed performances or lack of set or costumes. There's not a lot of money and there's not a lot of time. It should be a fun expedition for all of us. It's an archival discovery. The moment you take something to Broadway, there is time. There is money. You're charging three times more than you were before. There is now an expectation. And so if you are going to keep everything you had the first time because you want to keep it cheap, there has to be a specific purpose. If the set is going to look a certain kind of way, there's got to be a reason for it. It's got to be unthemed. There's got to be a vision. If we have all this open space, we better fucking use it. You know, have people enter and exit from all different points of the stage. Have there be levels, have there be actual physical comedy and motion throughout scenes. The number of times two or three characters simply just stood center stage and spoke to each other in Once Upon a Mattress was baffling to me. You could argue. Well, that's kind of reminiscent of Borscht Belt comedy, isn't it? Of vaudeville, of the heyday in which Once Upon a Mattress was written, when a flat would drop in and two actors would act in front of it so the scene could happen behind it. Yes and no. Because this production isn't really heralding to that atmosphere, to that vibe of what Once Upon a Mattress once was. It's just trying to be fun. And I've got nothing against fun. I've spoken so highly of Heart of Rock and Roll and, you know, of oh, Mary. And I think that there is fun to be had at Mattress. I will also say I was surrounded by little girls who were all pretty bored. The people who were having the best time were the Sutton stands in the mezzanine. And if you love Sutton and you want to see her succeed, by all Means go see it. But I would say for a show where she is the lead, she is not the mvp. It is Michael Urie. And again, that is because he is focused and specific about his character. He's making bold choices, but they are all making sense to who is to the character he has created. And they are tight. He never goes off the rails. He's always keeping the train on track. Sun doesn't necessarily go off the rails, but sometimes it does feel like she's still trying things in the moment, just seeing what's working. And that is where the tightness needs to come in. It needs to be a focused train. They can shave off 10 minutes on Act 1 just by sucking out some of that air, you know, from everyone. And it's frustrating to me because I wanted this to be better. I thought that with the extra time, it would be tighter, it would be a little bolder, it would be a little splashier. I don't need a $10 million set, but I need a set that's got intention, you know, I need a set that's got taste. If you were going to be four black and white columns, place them in a way that gives sight lines, that gives me the illusion of a palace. If we're going, like, okay, we're going for a semi cartoon palace, and we aren't doing colorful because we want the costumes to pop, make that the thing don't then also have, like, small pieces of scenery coming on with color in it that aren't even bold colors. Also, they added these flags for the palace that had weird imagery on it. My companion and I were talking about this. We weren't, like, quite sure why, but there was a taxi cab on one, a pretzel on another, a rat, a pigeon, a hot dog. And, like, obviously it was to sort of reference New York, but we didn't know why. I don't know why. I mean, there's a lot of anachronistic things going on in this production, which I don't. I truly don't care about. It is all for the sake of fun. So Winifred drinking out of a beer helmet for I'm in love with a girl named Fred. Totally fine. It's cute. I don't. I don't give two shits. The joke about long division. You made the last princess do long division, and it hasn't even been invented yet. Great joke. I don't care. But I don't understand what the drape's flags were meant to represent. The whole thing is just very simple and Kind of basic. It's not the worst thing I've seen. I did not hate it like my companion did. He really was going to town on it. I just found it to be terribly meh and it's disappointing. I was hoping for more. I've said before, I love Sutton Foster. She's very important to me. She was the real first Broadway star that came to be in my lifetime and still really is when you think about it. Because her career really is defined by theater, no matter how much TV she's done. And I love younger, but theater is the thing for her. And it's not the worst time you'll have. But I do not, I genuinely do not find this thing to be the musical comedy heaven that some have claimed from the first two or three previews. I also want you all to take caution when people take to the Internet to write their reports on something, especially with theater and use words like that. We talked about this before, I think with when Encores did Titanic and people said, ah, glorious, heavenly musical theater nirvana, you know, absolutely delicious and delectable and just transcendent. These words that lose their meaning because people want you to believe that they just saw the thing. And I am sure that the, that the euphoria they felt was genuine. But as time goes on and we think about those production less and less. How many of you, when I was talking today, actually kind of forgot for a second that Titanic was at Encores this season? How many of you forgot about lighting the piazza last season? When I tell you that these shows get major push from people when they first see them, to the extent that you think that this is like gonna be one for the history books and then they go away and you will be baffled at how quickly they are no longer part of the narrative. That into the woods revival is still very much part of the narrative parade. Part of the narrative. Most of the encore shows this season and last season, that did not transfer, not part of the narrative. And I am going to be honest here, I think once Mattress closes, when it closes in November, November, December, and then goes to LA for its month long run, it might do decently well with the Tony nominations. There's so much more season to wait for but a year from now, I'm telling you, I do not think it'll be part of the narrative. They might make this new version licensed for new productions, but I have to imagine that it'll be in relation to the script that is already still licensed and has been licensed all over, if only because it a has an Extra character, the original version, and an extra song, and is also probably shorter. Despite all that, I also want to say one thing about Soft Shoes. I think that's what it's called. It's the song that the minstrel sings in Act 2. Oh, Daddy's very soft shoes. Because there's a whole backstory about how the minstrel, he is this guest of the palace, and he knew the wizard way back when. They were sort of like on the medieval vaudeville circuit together, or at least the minstrel's father was. And his father is something we never talk about. It's like mentioned once or twice in Act 2, Act 1, and just sort of like, yeah, my dad knew you. That's it. Nothing. Nothing else about his dad. It's not like a character trait of his that he didn't know his dad or would love to know his dad or anything like that. And then in Act 2, when he's trying to trick the wizard into helping him find out about the test, the wizard's like, yeah, sure, let's go get some wine. I'll be right back. When I come back, we'll get some wine and I'll talk to you about your dad. I'll tell you stories about your dad. And he's like, oh, I would love that. And he goes off stage. And then the minstrel sings Daddy's Very Soft Shoes, and he remembers his dad dancing. And then the ensemble comes on and they all dance together. First of all, it's not the cleanest of choreography, but also, my companion was asking me. He was like, so soft shoe dance, that's not tap dancing, right? I was like, no. He goes, why did it look like tap dancing without taps on? I was like, because that's kind of how they choreographed it. Soft shoe is a really hard thing to come across in a large theater. It's about, again, the soft shoe sound. And it's very intimate. It's. It's not a big, brassy Gene Kelly tap dance. And so it was hard to make that work for this production. And I don't envy Lauren Letero to be like, how do I make soft shoe work in a 900 seat theater with an immense sound system? But it ultimately isn't soft shoe. So that was another note I had looking at the Discord Channel, which, by the way, guys, if you haven't joined yet, I highly recommend it. We're at almost 100 members on the Discord Channel. A lot of wonderful talks happening about the theater season. The new news about the greatest showman coming to Stage people asking ticket advice, people promoting things that they're working on. But also, I asked everyone in the Discord if there was anything they wanted me to discuss in this episode. And I've already discussed a bit of them. The script changes between the licensed version and this version. Someone wanted to know how Sutton portrays a goofy character she hasn't played in a while, minus her doing that with Mrs. Lovett. I mean, Sutton is a goofy gal. That has always been her Persona outside of theater. This is goofy in sort of a manic way, which was also still the case at Encores, which I think adds to the not necessarily tightness of her performance. But, I mean, she goes for it. She's physically going for it all the time. You cannot say that she's marking. You cannot say she's not, you know, there earning her paycheck. She is. She is just all over that stage, running around, splitting, kicking, jumping, leaping, stuffing her face with grapes. I think a better comedic director would harness her performance and then define her performance. Because as it is, I find her, Winifred, to be a sensible 7.5, 8 out of 10. She could be a 10 out of 10. And I think part of the disappointment I had at Encores, and still a little bit here is for years, a lot of us were saying that Sutton would have been an amazing Winifred if she would just do a revival. And now she's finally playing Winifred, and it's not quite as amazing as I would like it to be. I think also part of it is that vocally, while she is stronger here, she's not really singing as hard as I would like. Songs like Shy and Happily Ever after are not there to be mined for nuance. They are there to rip. And, you know, Shy is the part of the joke of Shy is the loudness with which she sings, the gusto with which she sings. And that is not what Sutton does. They have all these bits on stage in the number to sort of make up for the fact that vocally, she is not kicking that song's ass. She is singing it fine. The songs she kicks ass on are actually Happily Ever after and Swamps of Home. Not in a way where you're like, oh, my God, like, incredible singing, but she is singing a lot more passionately and louder and with more vivacity than she is in Shy, which is a shame, because that's the intro song. People also wanted to know if there were any changes from Encores. No, there really weren't. They asked about the newer casting, which I mentioned. There is also if the show looks minimalist compared to how it's normally performed. Yes, it looks minimalist. It looks cheap is what it looks like. They have. They bring in this black. It's not even a scrim. It's like half of a scrim because it only covers the bottom of the stage. And they lift it up to reveal Brooks holding a cauldron. And my companion was furious with that. He was like, that didn't need to happen. It's like, either Brooks doesn't need the cauldron or they don't need to bring it down. It's fine. Just like, why are we doing this? Because you see all it. It just looked very unfinished with that moment. Someone also asked, like, you know, this is a show, they said, that is worthy of a full scale revival on Broadway. Again. Oh, sorry. Someone asked, is this really a show that is worthy of a full scale revival? Because they're not sure. As awesome as the casting might be, is it worth it? And I'm like, I don't think this is really a full scale revival. It's got a 16 piece orchestra, which is sizable. It's two more than funny Girl, but. And it's. And it's got some solid casting in it. If you see it. I don't think you would consider this full scale. It feels half scale for sure. And then someone asked about a dream casting I would have for a mattress. I don't really have one. I would have loved someone like Bonnie Milligan. She's a go to for me. But Jennifer Simard, back in the day, we don't have a lot of really awesome female comedians in musical theater right now under the age of 35. And if we do, it's hard to necessarily guess. You have to kind of go deeper cuts. People like Friend of the Pod, Natalie Walker. Not many of you know her as a performer. She's about to write. She is writing. She's about to make her Broadway debut as a composer lyricist. This season with Death becomes her. But Julia Madison is a phenomenally gifted singing comedian. If any of you saw her in Godspell, she understudied a bunch of roles in that. I went to Emerson with her where she just like kicked ass. And there's actually. I don't know if it's still up there, but Jennifer Tepper produced a semi staged concert of Rachel Lilly Rosenblum and Don't yout Ever Forget it, which was a notorious flop on Broadway in the 70s starring Ellen Green. It closed in previews. They did a concert of it at 54 below. And Julia Madison played a character in it. Bonnie Milligan played the lead. Julia Madison played like a Judy Garland esque diva. And you can watch her performance of it, which she's got like this short brown wig on. And Natalie is actually one of her backup singers. And just the weirdness with which she performs, but also how specific she is, is so incredible and so unique. You don't see a lot of people doing that anymore, especially women. A they're not given the opportunity. But also our programs, our BFA programs aren't indulging young women with that or young. Any young performers to just get fucking freaky. So those would be women that I would think about. Bonnie, Natalie. Julia. Natalie, I feel like is more of a Queen Agravain, but she's a little too young for it right now. So I would say if we can speed through Natalie's age and then put Julia on as Winifred, that would be a fun cast for me. But that's really it. Yeah. I mean, I think Mattress, as it originally was, was a B show with a great cast. Is the B show. It's a fun time. It's not an exciting time. I think this new script doesn't help. It doesn't hurt, other than making it a bit longer, but it doesn't necessarily punch anything up. The cast is half strong, half finding its way. I'm sure they will continue to find their way. I can't say that this production is really anything special. I didn't find it that special at Encores. I thought it was one of the mid productions. It did what Encores does well, which is put up a flawed but worthwhile show in a short amount of time, did just enough physically that you didn't feel shortchanged, that you got the gist of what was happening on stage and in the script, but not so much that you're like, ooh, this feels overstaged and under rehearsed. It was like just the right amount. And then for Broadway, the whole thing just felt under for me anyway and for my companion. And I'm sure there are other people who feel that way. And if you didn't, if you loved it, I don't mean to yuck your yum, but that is where we're at. And as I said, this is being recorded the day before they open. And I am pretty sure they're gonna get strong reviews because everyone who loved it at Encores is seeing it again and they'll just be like, just as good as it was at Encores. In fact, it's better, it's tighter, it's bolder, it's bigger. I'm telling you, it's not any of those things. It is exactly as it was at Encore's, give or take a couple of new actors. Give or take $20 worth of set and cutting that one speech for Agravaine. But here we are. And that's it for now, guys. Thank you for listening. I think next week will be an official week off for the podcast. There are no other shows starting previews soon that doesn't start until September. So I think that's when we'll kind of get back into this. I might have a quick episode at the end of the month with an announcement about the play because the announcement might require some help from you guys just to get the word out, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, this has been Broadway Breakdown. If you like the podcast, please give us a nice 5 star rating or review. It always helps with the algorithm. It helps boost the algorithm. It helps people find us. I got a new rating, but not necessarily a new review, which is totally fine. If you're too nervous to do a review, you don't have to. A nice 5 star rating will help. You can join the Discord, the link of which is in the bio in the information page for this episode. Please join if you want. As I said, we're almost at 100. I think we're at 92 right now. Everyone is so much fun. Everyone is so cool. It's a really great vibe. And you can ask questions about the podcast after you've listened to it. You can discuss with everyone about the podcast after you've listened to it. And. And as I start preparing for new episodes, I'm going to be reaching out more and more on Discord to the people there about things they want covered, things, you know, any insight they might have that I can use on the episode. It's a great way to get in touch with me and to make your voice heard. So I highly recommend it for this episode. I say we close out with you know what, because she was a Broadway idea for Winifred. I'm gonna say Bonnie Milligan. We're gonna close out with Bonnie Milligan and call it a week. That is it. Thank you so much, guys. Have a great rest of your August. We will talk soon. Oh, and follow me on Instagram if you want. Natkoplik, usual spelling. And that's it for now. Take it away, Bonnie. Bye. Gotta hustle hard. You gotta. You can make your shitty life better when opportunity, not responsibility, take the fall by the.