Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:00]
Mickey Jo
Did you know Tide has been upgraded to provide an even better clean in cold water.
- [00:05]
Podcast Advertiser/Announcer
Tide is specifically designed to fight any.
- [00:07]
Mickey Jo
Stain you throw at it, even in cold butter. Yep.
- [00:11]
Podcast Advertiser/Announcer
Chocolate ice cream?
- [00:13]
Mickey Jo
Sure thing.
- [00:14]
Podcast Advertiser/Announcer
Barbecue sauce.
- [00:15]
Mickey Jo
Tide's got you covered. You don't need to use warm water. Additionally, Tide pods let you confidently fight.
- [00:22]
Podcast Advertiser/Announcer
Tough stains with new coldzyme technology.
- [00:25]
Mickey Jo
Just remember, if it's got to be clean, it's got to be tied.
- [00:28]
Podcast Advertiser/Announcer
Ondeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team or bridging cash flow, Gaps on Deck's loans up to $250,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star Trustpilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans an amount subject to lender approval.
- [00:59]
Mickey Jo
Acast powers the World's Best Podcasts here's the show that we recommend. Hello, Pablo Toure here, host of the Murrow Award winning and Peabody nominated show Pablo Torre finds out from the Athletic, where we use journalism to investigate mysteries like whether the richest owner in sports helped fund a no show job for his NBA superstar. In other words, Kawhi Leonard got from aspiration a $28 million no show job. Yeah, it's amazing. I'm honestly so jealous. Or how our friend Action Bronson feels about covering his calves. When was the last time you wore pants? I don't. Probably 15 to 20 years. The last time I put pants on I had an accident three times a week. Follow us down the rabbit hole on Pablo Torre finds out. Watch on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcasts. Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com but the concept of Patrick Marber taking this on, combined with the early ideas of the artwork, which were very bold, very stark, I was thinking, are we going in a sort of a Jamie Lloyd the producers kind of a direction here? Is this going to be a more serious interpretation of the material? And what on earth does that look like? I was deeply curious and perhaps even a little bit concerned. I oh my God. Hey, welcome back to my theatre themed YouTube channel. Or hello to you if you're listening to this on podcast platforms. My name is Mickey Jo and I am obsessed with all things theatre. I'm a professional theatre critic here on social media and I'm based in the UK and we have just enjoyed a brand new revival of Mel Brooks the Producers. It originated at the Menier Chocolate Factory before transferring to the Garrick Theatre where it has opened earlier this week and today I'm going to be letting you know all about it. I actually saw the production at both of those venues, so this is going to be a full overview from the perspective of someone who loves the material, who has seen a prior production. I never saw the original, but I saw a previous UK touring version that was much closer to that version than this one is. This is in many ways a departure perhaps for the first time, certainly here in the uk, from the original, iconic, celebrated Broadway production directed and choreographed by Susan Stroman, which if you don't know, was one of the first really huge Broadway hits of the 21st century. It opened in the very early 2000s, of course, a musical stage adaptation of the Mel Brooks film of the same name from decades before. One of a handful, I think, of musical adaptations that may even have eclipsed the recognition of that original film. The Broadway production starred Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick alongside a handful of treasures in the supporting cast, the majority of whom then reprised their performances when that was turned into a movie musical slightly less successfully in the mid 2000s. But after record breaking Tony Awards success and huge industry celebration, it is remembered as one of the great Broadway musical comedies. And it's a show that I also had the good fortune to perform in in an amateur theatre production here in the uk. So it's one reasonably close to my heart. But being a Mel Brooks written show, it is also one which pre the Book of Mormon is known for a certain quantity of shock value. So this is another question when we see a new production, how is this going to be handled? How is this going to go down with audiences in 2025? Lots to consider and today I'm going to be bringing you my verdict. But as always, I'm deeply curious to hear what you thought. If you have seen this production either at the Menier Chocolate Factory or at the Garrick Theatre, let us all know in the comment section down below what you thought of it. And if you enjoy listening to my review and you like to hear more of them, then make sure to subscribe to my theatre themed YouTube channel or go follow me on podcast platforms. In the meantime, let's talk about the Producers. So let's talk about the show and this version of it. It tells the story of a unsuccessful Broadway producer named Max Bialystok, who was once revered as the King of Broadway and who has come to be associated with a string of really disastrous flops. We meet him after the failure that is opening night of his latest musical, Funny Boy, a musical adaptation of Hamlet, which hilariously, by the standard of the time, I guess, was meant to represent a terrible idea for a musical and now would probably sell Mr. Bialystok. You were ahead of your time with that one. But he is desperate for a way to once more be successful and celebrated and above all else, rich. So it is with fantastic, serendipitous timing that fate brings him an unwitting co conspirator in the form of an accountant named Leopold Bloom, who harbours a secret desire to be a Broadway producer, having seen one of Bialystok's shows years before, which gave him that drive and that passion, one that he has kept very much below the surface because he is deeply neurotic. He carries around with him a little blue blanket that he clings to whenever he is having a moment of anxiety or panic, which happens frequently. But after realizing aloud, when balancing the books for Max's most recent flop production, Funny Boy, that it would be theoretically possible to embezzle a large quantity of funds by over investing in a that was always planned to be a failure, Max has a sort of a light bulb moment and hears the sound of money immediately trying to recruit Leo to a scheme in which the two of them would raise $2 million and put on deliberately the worst show that they could possibly think of that would close in one night before fleeing together to Rio to enjoy their wealth. And this is the plot of the Producers, the comedy of which is them then trying deliberately to find the worst play ever written and have it be directed by the worst director in town, with the worst actors that they could think of. And they are trying to. A deliberate theatrical disaster which they find in the form of a script by a former World War II fascist sympathiser named Franz Liebkind, who is now taking care of pigeons on a rooftop in New York somewhere and denying any involvement with the Nazi party. He has penned a love letter to the Fuhrer titled Springtime for a Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgaden. And it's a concept so extraordinarily offensive you have to remember that the show is set much closer to World War II, as was the release of the original film, that it seems absolutely doomed to fail. And surely enlisting more cartoonish and bizarre and foolish characters and creatives and actors alongside couldn't possibly ruin that, right? And with a Decent amount more mania just thrown in there alongside including with one supporting character named Ule Inge Hansen Benson, Jarlan Tollen, Svaden Swanson. I'm pretty sure I've missed a name in there. A Swedish aspiring actress who appears in their office wanting to audition for the show. The whole thing becomes this explosive and outrageous comedy that has always had the capacity to make audiences laugh. Now here is where it gets interesting because it's one of those shows I think, where the writing from Mel Brooks is so great and there's so many jokes inside of jokes and in little passing moments. It was one of the earliest shows, I think to really nod to the Broadway musical comedy and musical theater as a form in a very self referential way and make these inside industry jokes pre something rotten, pre Spamalot. And the material works so well that there's not an awful lot you need to do as a director to modify it or interpret it historically. All that needs to be done to make the producers work is to hypersaturate these characters, to realize these performances, to turn up the volume on everybody and to try and consecrate the kind of pace that you need. Spoiler alert. It's fast and often with shows like this, I think if you do try and reinterpret it, if you try and re examine it from a different perspective, the material is such that it's going to actually make that very difficult and you might lose more than you gain. Which is why when they announced this revival for the Many a Chocolate Factory, which has always done terrific work in the world of musical theatre revivals in the past, I was deeply curious, especially when it was revealed that Patrick Marber was going to be directing. Now if you're not familiar with his work, he is historically a director of plays like Leopoldstadt and he's a very celebrated director and writer of often hard hitting and thought provoking serious work. He's dabbled in the world of comedy certainly, but this I believe is conspicuously his very first musical. And I suppose there's a little bit of interesting kinship between his relationship to the world of musical theatre and Mel Brooks own when adapting this for the stage around 25 years ago. But the concept of Patrick Marber taking this on, combined with the early ideas of the artwork, which were very bold, very stark. I was thinking are we going in a sort of a Jamie Lloyd the Producers kind of a direction here? Is this going to be a more serious interpretation of the material and what on earth does that look like? I was deeply curious and perhaps Even a little bit concerned. But as it turns out, I needn't have been. And I will tell you that I enjoyed this production far more at the Garrick than I did at at the Menier. What it has revealed is that these characters and there are slightly different ways to access them and to realize them and to characterize them that differ slightly from the iconic original performances of Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick have the capacity to entertain audiences and delight us regardless of how the show is realized. And there is just a little bit of room, not a huge amount, but a little bit of room within the show to find a slightly different interpretation. One with, I would say, maybe like 5% more depth, moments of added sincerity, and a couple of little changes here and there. So we're not reinventing the wheel when it comes to the producers here, but we've definitely changed a tire or two, if that makes sense. The whole thing still reaches the same top speed. It still drives finally down the road, but it's looking a little bit different, a big part of which is due to the design. Those are costumes by Paul Farnsworth and a set design by Scott Pask, which is fairly minimal and sits, for what it's worth, far better on the Garrick stage than it did at the Menier. The Menier is this intriguing theatrical space that offers a tremendous amount of width and not a lot of depth. And what this production has gained in depth has done wonders for it and allowed it to escape that slightly claustrophobic feeling that it was getting there. And for what it's worth, I think, made the whole thing feel freer and faster and funnier. You can get up more of a top speed racing across a bigger stage than you can on a small one. But the inherent identity of the intimate space that is the Mini Ear Chocolate Factory remains a feature of this production. You have couple of set pieces that move in and out from the side to create Max's office or altar to give us different locations. There is a single standing door that is brought on at the back, but for much of the thing, we are looking at this sort of scaffolding backdrop. It's akin to the marquee that sits atop of Broadway theaters up on the roof. I don't know exactly what you actually call that to begin with. It has the illuminated letters M and B hung at either corner for Max Bialystok. It is climbed on by some characters. We see pigeons appear, peering through and behind it. And there is a reveal at one moment of the orchestra. There are cloths that come down. Certainly when we go into the Springtime for Hitler performance, we are realizing a Broadway stage, but it's not lavish and complicated and expansive in the way that the original production was. This is largely and deliberately a very stripped back version of the Producers, and with that the tone and the direction have changed just a little bit as well. The comedy sits in the same place. It has to. There is such a specificity with the world of Mel Brooks and the timing of that and the characterization of that that you really can't adjust it all that much without losing a key ingredient of what it is and why it works. But we do get a sense of a Max and a Leo that are still cartoonish but have just a shred more humanity. It's that little 5% more depth that I was telling you about, which I think is as good a segue as any to talk about these performances and these new characterizations. Ondeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team or bridging cash flow gaps, Ondeck's loans up to $250,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star Trustpilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota, all loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
- [13:22]
Podcast Advertiser/Announcer
You just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday? How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy. Just use Indeed. Stop struggling to get your job posts seen on other job sites with Indeed sponsored jobs. Your post jumps to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster. According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs posted directly on indeed have 45% more applications than non sponsored jobs. Don't wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit. To get your jobs more visibility@ Indeed.com Arts, just go to Indeed.com Arts right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need.
- [14:24]
Mickey Jo
So let us begin with Andy Nyman as Max Bialystok. Andy, who of course was recently seen playing Horace Van der Gelder in the London Palladium revival of hello Dolly, who was fantastic in the Many a Chocolate Factory originated production of Fiddler on the Roof as Tevye. He is a Jewish actor playing the Jewish character of Max Bialystok and bringing a little element of authenticity there. It's not a mockery or a caricature, that kind of character, but it's still something of a send up of sleazy Broadway producers. And Andy Nyman is such sensationally great casting for Max because he has an innate understanding of the Mel Brooks of it all and that humor. He's nothing like Nathan Lane, which I think is important. And I think when you do reimagine a production, it's nice to be able to free the material from constantly trying to emulate it and finding the handful of great actors that do exist and continue to work who always give sort of Nathan Lane adjacent performances. It's nice to be to push the boat out in an entirely new direction. But he combines that knowledge of the tone and that understanding of the material and his brilliant comic instincts and insights with this little sparkle in the eye quality that indicates just a shred of heartbreak. There's this slightly bittersweet quality. We've seen it in the tremendous pathos found in many of his previous performances. And it makes Max a human being. A very tortured and maniacal and occasionally cruel human being. But I think it's through that honesty and that danger, if you like, that we find a lot of comedy in this version of the show. He's also, interestingly enough, slightly more relaxed in the pace of his delivery. He's not as intense and frenzied all of the time. Coupled with a Leo Bloom who, while still uptight and nervous, communicates that through a much more fast paced quality. In the original you had Nathan Lane at top speed and Matthew Broderick only driven to that point when he got really agitated, but otherwise place with a slightly slower vocal delivery. And when we have Leo arrive in this production, it's very fast. He is played by the wonderful Mark Antlin and it's nice to have that immediate contrast of the two of them. It suggests to us that Max, even though down on his luck and miserable, is still living the life that he enjoys, while Leo is very much trapped in a prison of his own frustrations and fears. That's also communicated very well through the distinct misery that Mark Antlin brings to his characterization. There is a line at the start of the second actor, after he has something of a romantic duet with the character of Oola called that Face. When Max then returns in the aftermath of this and says, what's wrong? You look happy. Indicating that this is unusual. And Mark does a fantastic job of not looking happy whatsoever in the moments leading up to that. So it's very sweet when he finally does. And he is a Leo throughout the show who gets very emancipated by it all. And when we see him at the very end, he's had a real transformation. And again, it contrasts very nicely with the absolute giddy quality that Andy Nyman finds in Max. The two of them both perform the musical material very well. Mark, interestingly enough, is a Leo who is a very skilled dancer. And so he has a lot of moments, moments added into the show that I haven't seen in previous productions, where Leo gets to really dance. The scene with Ula, when they're performing, that face then becomes this sort of Fred and Ginger fantasia, very La La Land, invoking a whole handful of different classic musical theater references. There's a moment of the King and I in there that is echoed in the orchestration. There's all the brilliant choreography of Lauren Lataro. And it's quite a nice way of saluting the theater lover living inside of Leo Bloom, who has been desperate to burst out of him all these years. Years. Which brings us to Oola herself, played wonderfully and charmingly by Joanna Woodward, recently seen in the Time Traveller's Wife. I've enjoyed her multiple times on stage. I think she's fantastic. I didn't know until recently that she had a background in cabaret and burlesque. And that's a quality that really emerges in her Oola. Because Oola, as she arrives, is often depicted as very talented, but she is first and foremost a comedy character. And in the way that she moves in this fantastic arrival number that she performs when you've got it flaunted and she's putting all of her talents on display, literally and figuratively. There is such a knowing, winking, slightly satirical quality to her performance, particularly in the moments when she says, now, Ulla, dance. And she does this tiny little low energy moment of movement that turns into a repeated section that she does a couple of times, very much in response to the way that the dance break there is orchestrated by the way. It very much feels like a natural interpretation of what exists within the music, but it's a very funny CH from her. And again, she manages to make Oola feel like this terrific comedy character who is also a genuine human being. There's a real sweetness to the way that she deliberately pursues Leo at the start of the second act with this romantic intention. Joanna Zula struck me very much as feeling like a meeting between Marilyn Monroe and Lucille Ball, which I think is a Great sort of alchemy for that character. Now, those three characters are not the only ones who bring Springtime for Hitler to the stage. There is also its writer, Franz Liebken, played by Harry Morrison, with just terrific commitment and a wonderfully silly accent and characterization and a beautiful foolishness and a silliness by the end of the thing as well. His is the kind of a playful performance on stage that creates an awful lot of comedy in its wake. But the whole thing really steps up a notch after his introductory scene when Leo and Max go to the home of renowned theatrical director Roger Debris, who Max tells Leo is the worst director in town. He is played by the wonderful Trevor Ashley, who is an Australian drag performer who British audiences were lucky enough to enjoy in his solo show recently, as well as in Priscilla the Party. And Trevor gives this scene stealing performance in a very scene stealing role as Roger Debris with the kind of a natural comedic confidence that you would associate with a terrific drag host. He's doing the equivalent of keepy uppies, basically with the comedy of the show. There are a couple of moments when the ball is passed to him proverbially and we just sit with him for a few moments doing takes or doing visual jokes. And such an expressive face and such a wonderful voice. He's so naturally funny that we're just gaffooring at everything that he says or does. Also a sports reference from me. What's happening? But Trevor is extraordinarily well cast in this role and offers one of the really great moments of the show towards the end. If you don't want to know what happens heading into the second act of the Producers, then you make want to skip ahead a little bit here. But when Franz Liebkind, who is originally planned to portray Hitler in Springtime for Hitler, accidentally breaks his leg on opening night, Roger is the only person who is then able to assume the role and becomes sort of accidentally instrumental in its brilliant success and glorious reception. Because he portrays Hitler with this naturally camp quality that he can't seem to escape because he is, as we have learned, overwhelmingly gay. And what ensues use in the show within a show is this portrayal of Hitler that nods to Ethel Merman, but more so to Judy Garland. That is an overt reference in the costuming and in the wig choice that has been done for this production. And so it does really become a drag performance. And it's within the context of that particular spotlight that Trevor really shines. It's a glorious moment to watch. But whenever he is on stage, he is joined almost always by Raj Ghatak, who is playing the indispensable Carmen Gya, who is Roger's common law assistant. And this is a role truly made iconic in spite of fairly limited material by the original actor in this role, Roger Bart, certainly when he reprised the performance on screen, there are a great many oddities and eccentricities that aren't written into the show that are so recognizable and so familiar that he did as Carmen that I think it's actually one of the more inescapable performances to get out from underneath. And it's hard to find new choices without looking just sort of completely certifiable, which is not really where this production lives. I think if Raj were to twist the whole thing up to 11, it would be a little bit out of step with the other performances happening around him. And to a certain extent, I think Karmangia has to give comic deference to Roger Debris as well. And don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed Raj's performance very much. The two of them make for a terrific double act on stage. But if you make the choice not to do all of the Roger Bartisms like they yes, yes, etc. Then you are, I think, going to find you have a little bit less to do with the character. Finally, then, let's talk about some of the more specific choices made by this production, with potentially some spoilers to follow and whether I thought they were blunders or.
- [23:32]
Podcast Advertiser/Announcer
Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips or manage payroll. OnDeck's small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $200,000 exactly when your business needs it. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and full control over repayment, you can tackle unexpected expected expenses without missing a beat. Apply today@ondeck.com and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic bank on Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
- [24:04]
Mickey Jo
Brilliance. Now I've really warmed the overall production. I wasn't entirely sold on the stripped back aesthetic or the slightly more minimal approach to the producers when compared with the original, but like I said, it sits far better on the Garrick stage than I thought it did at the Menier. And I particularly appreciate the choreography. I think I like the tap dancing swastika arms that we have going on in Springtime for Hitler. Not a new visual reference for that performance, but always, you know, fun to see how that's going to be realized. I think the opening Number. The couple of opening numbers, both Opening Night and then King of Broadway Way, played really well in this production at the Garrick and gave it that sense of ignition. With a comedy, we have to start laughing if we're going to keep on laughing. And for the most part, as we work our way through the rest of the show, it becomes a question of do we do the original gag or do we take it away and do we add in jokes? And there are a couple of moments, specifically a visual comedy, that have been added in that have been newly brought to this production. There is a statue in the home of Roger Debris as they are singing Keep It Gay, Keep It Gay, Keep It Gay and bringing on all of these flamboyant characters. And the statue is essentially Michelangelo's David, also without a fig leaf. And presumably because they don't make fig leaves big enough to give you an idea of the visual joke that's happening here. And I think this may have been a fixture of the original production. But not to have the statue portrayed by an actual member of the ensemble who is hilarious, who endures into the scene that follows Keep It Gay and finds himself standing in Max and Leo's office and then is isn't quite sure what to do with himself. That's a very funny little touch. Another big difference in visual comedy is the way that they create the pigeons here in the Franz Liebkind scene, they are puppeteered by performers sort of wearing all black morph suits. So you can see them, you understand where the comedy is coming from. But they're not puppeteered in a little box, which also means that there's more that we can do with the pigeons. And there's a great amount of pigeon comedy happening just sort of sprinkled throughout the show. And it's with this kind of a lightness of touch that new funny ideas have been added into the show. But for the most part, it is just uplifting the existing material and allowing it to really sing. There are a couple of things that have been excised because they are specific cultural references. There's a black Irish joke at the end that I think is never going to play well in the uk. It just doesn't really make sense here. I don't know that it makes all that much sense in New York anymore. They still do the line that would lead into the punchline. They just don't say the punchline. And so you have to hope that the comedy of Max having attempted an Irish accent before being whisked off stage, has the audience still laughing through that line so they don't notice that it just kind of hangs there. There's also a lyric change in the song, where did we Go? Right where they now sing dancers who are drastic rather than an outdated offensive term in the audition sequence at the start of the second act. There are a couple of changes here. They don't do the gag around Jacques Leopardieu. Jacques Leopard due Jack Lepidus. They just go straight to the name. I'm not sure why that one is. I don't think that it felt like an offensive gag before. And for what it's worth, if they are going to be getting rid of offensive jokes, there is one in the Producers that I have never particularly enjoyed and it is the Shirley Markowitz character at the end of Keep It Gay after they've brought in all of these different, admittedly gay stereotypes that I'm not offended by whatsoever. To play the set designer, the costume designer, the choreographer. Choreographer. I will say I'd forgotten about this. Jermaine woods is empowered with this brilliant choice. When he comes in, as I think it's Scott, the choreographer, and he normally does this big dance section and Jermaine comes in and says, hi there and does this deliberately low effort version of her. He's like. And does this to suggest doing a pirouette without doing one and just sort of staring out knowingly into the auditorium. Great choice, fantastic choice. But then we have Shirley come in and everything about the writing of this moment and the orchestration as it, like, grinds to all halt entering as this really obnoxiously rude lesbian stereotype. And I think you don't need to cut that joke in 2025, but there are better ways to realize it because I think you could have her come in as a human being, not getting why we're doing a full production number, just being like, keep it gay, keep it gay, keep it gay. Rather than doing this ridiculously low, like, keep it gay. It's just. It's. I just think it's gross. I don't like the direction that it's punching in. And I know this is a show where we're making jokes about Nazis and to talk about that for just a moment because, you know, it's obviously satire and that is happening with the rise of fascism in 2025. Like I said, this was originally as a story written in much closer proximity to the Second World War, written by a Jewish comedian writing about a Jewish Broadway producer putting Hitler on stage in order to cause dismay among the heavily Jewish New York theater industry. And I think we're so far removed from it now that there's not really any kind of a question as to whether or not this is offensive. I don't think it reads that way whatsoever. It's so clearly a satire and a parody and a send up, the likes of which have been done now so many more times. I think audiences either already know what the producers is and are anticipating that, or understand because of how ridiculous Springtime for Hitler is in this version of the show, that this is not meant to be met with any kind of sincerity whatsoever. And also I think that's pretty preempted by Harry's performance as Franz earlier on. I will say, on Springtime for Hitler, it is maybe a joke on a joke in this production. And a reality of the material is for Roger to be able to go full Judy Garland, it has to be written that way. So there's always this slight little bit of plot dissonance where Franz is like, how dare you make fun of Hitler when the material in his show always seems written to do that. Because Hitler is singing like, I was just a paper hanger. No one more obscurer got a letter from the Reichstag, told me I was Fuhrer. Which hilarious line, by the way. And so it seems like Roger was doing the show the only way it could possibly have been done. But what I think may just push us a little bit beyond the realms of that is to have Roger dressed as Hitler, as Caesar being wheeled on in a golden chariot. And it means we don't quite get that initial moment of what the audience is supposed to be horrified by before Roger makes it camp. Because now it's just campy from the very beginning and it's campy throughout. So this feels like a Springtime for Hitler that the theoretical audience within the world of the producers would have been laughing at from the very beginning. In comedy, I guess you'd call it a hat on a hat. This feels like a hat on a World War II helmet. And the only other things I mourn for are just silly little details that I'm always going to miss from the original production. But. But I respect the choice that Patrick Marber has made here to allow this one to have its own unique identity. There's a couple of like slightly added in lines and punch lines that they mentioned pitching to Mel Brooks who approved them. So that's exciting that there are some entirely new jokes, very minimal additions. But I do miss two comic moments. One of them is in the courtroom scene when the chorus of little old ladies who Max has seduced in order to finance his more recent Broadway projects, begin to offer backing vocals that become so cacophonous he turns to them and repeats an earlier line to say, don't help me. And they still sing backing vocals, but it never really comes to a head here. But otherwise, I really enjoyed this production. I loved getting to go and see it at the Garrick, and I hope it continues to entertain and delight and maybe even shock audiences a little bit. I think in the face of the dire political circumstances in which we find ourselves in the world right now. Now something Making jokes about their obvious lunacy is not the worst thing to be seeing on stage. And while we're always going to have a tremendous amount of reverence for great Broadway and West End hits that happened in the past, it's really encouraging to be able to blow a little bit of dust off of them and be able to find new ways to put them back on stage so that audiences of today and of the future can continue to enjoy them in new ways. And if you have been one of those audiences and you have seen this production at the Meniere Chocolate Factory or at the Garrick Theatre, let us all know what you thought in the comments section down below. In the meantime, those have been my thoughts about this new production of the Producers. Go and check it out if you're a fan of the show or if you've never seen it before. Thank you so much for listening to my review. I hope that you enjoyed. If you did, make sure to subscribe to my theatre themed YouTube channel or go follow me on podcast platforms. I hope, as always, that everyone is staying safe and that you have have a stagey day for 10 more seconds. I'm Mickey Jo Theatre. Oh my God. Hey, thanks for watching Have a Stagey Day. Subscribe Sometimes an identity threat is a ring of professional hackers, and sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details. I need a coffee. And you need Lifelock because your info is an endless place. Places it only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. Or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year at lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply. Acast Powers the World's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend. The Real Housewives is a guilty pleasure for most, but if you're looking to not feel guilty about that pleasure, tune in to Everything Iconic with me, Danny Pellegrino, where I break down all the messy moments and behind the scenes antics of Bravo's popular franchise. On Everything Iconic, I also interview celebrity guests like Kelly Ripa, Keke Palmer, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and more about their guilty pleasures, their past work, and so much more. So if you're pop culture obsessed and find yourself watching way too much reality TV like me, tune in to Everything Iconic with Dani Pel. Wherever you listen to podcasts, ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.