Mel Brooks on Blazing Saddles the musical

When I heard that Mel Brooks had written a couple of songs for a musical version of Blazing Saddles my initial reaction was "Mel, this is meshugas. You're 83, do you really need the tsuris?"

Then I thought no, that's wrong. He's 83 and if he wants to write a Blazing Saddles musical, who am I to tell him to stop? He's already got the theme song from the movie.

This time though, I'm not getting my hopes up. While I'm a big fan of Brooks as a filmmaker, I'm lukewarm on Brooks as the creator of Broadway musicals.

Granted, I've never seen The Producers on stage, although I have watched the movie of the musical. But I did see Young Frankenstein on Broadway and I was disappointed. The tongue-in-cheek homage to horror films didn't translate well.

Unlike The Producers, which won 12 Tony Awards and ran for six years, the Tony-less Young Frankenstein got lukewarm reviews and closed in a little over a year.

But that hasn't deterred Brooks.

In an interview with the Canadian Press, he reveals that he's working on the Blazing Saddles musical, although he warns that the project might not pan out.

"I don't know - if I did it, I wouldn't rush to New York with it because the Times would say: 'Oh, oh dear, another movie converted and transmogrified into a musical.' ''

Personally, I'm not convinced a Blazing Saddles musical would work. I don't know whether some of the most well-known scenes in this sendup of Westerns would translate well to the stage. And then there's the film's use of a racial epithet.

The best part of the interview, though, was the comparison Brooks made between film and theatre:

"Film takes an eternity - it takes an eternity! - and there are, like, infinite collaborations, which waters down anything.

"But the stage is: you throw your naked heart on the stage and they respond to it or not, and it's immediate. You send a bad joke out there and you get this big laugh or you grow wings and fly. It's just amazing."

It's alive - until January

It's another depressing day for Broadway. You can add Young Frankenstein to the rapidly expanding list of shows that have posted closing notices. Whatever you think of Young Frankenstein (and I was among those who felt let down), this is the latest in a sad trend.

According to an Associated Press story, producer Robert F.X. Sillerman announced today that the musical, which opened on Nov. 8, 2007, will shutter on Jan. 4, after nearly 500 performances.

In this Playbill article, Sillerman says - no surprise - it's the economy, and that a national tour will begin next September. Of course, Young Frankenstein, alone among Broadway shows, declined to report how much money it was taking in every week and how many seats were being filled. (Which it had every right to do, I might add - it's a tradition, not a requirement, to report weekly grosses.)

After the success of The Producers, which ran for six years on Broadway, Young Frankenstein was one of last season's most highly anticipated shows. And as a big fan of the 1974 Mel Brooks movie, it was at the top of my list. It was also one of the most talked about even before it opened for, among other things, its $450 premium seats. But when I saw it, for a lot less than that, I was a bit disappointed.

For me, Young Frankenstein worked as a movie because it was a satire. Transylvania was a foreboding place. The musical tries to recreate some of that, with the design of Frankenstein's castle and laboratory. But overall, the tone struck me as a little too sunny and bright for a send-up of a horror movie.

Sure, it's a faithful adaptation - all of the funniest lines and scenes are there. Still, something felt off. I wasn't laughing as much as everyone else in the audience. (And I have to admit that everyone else seemed to be eating it up.) The production seemed to get lost in the cavernous Hilton Theatre. And I didn't find Roger Bart very engaging as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein.

But there were some things I enjoyed - Christopher Fitzgerald as Igor (who earned a Tony nomination and played his last performance in the show today) and Andrea Martin as Frau Blucher especially. I liked the "Roll in the Hay" number on the ride to Frankenstein's castle, with Bart, Fitzgerald and Sutton Foster as Inga; and "Puttin on the Ritz," with Shuler Hensley as the monster. And I'll probably give it another chance on tour.

Fitzgerald is an actor I'm looking forward to seeing again. According to an item on the Web site of actor and musician Kevin Cahoon, he'll join Cahoon in the musical Minsky's, set in Prohibition-era New York, which will premiere at the Ahmanson Theatre in Los Angeles beginning Jan. 21.

But I have to wonder whether we'll see Mel Brooks again on Broadway.

Truth in advertising

I was a little surprised when I went to buy the original Broadway cast CD of "Young Frankenstein" today. There's a sticker on the cover that has a quote from The New York Times: "Truly exhilarating."

Funny, I didn't remember Ben Brantley being quite so enthusiastic about the new Mel Brooks musical currently playing at Broadway's Hilton Theatre. In fact, I think he came pretty close to panning it.

When I got home, I looked up the review, and here's what Brantley actually wrote: "There is one truly exhilarating number, though you have to sit through most of the show before it arrives." (The number Brantley is referring to is "Puttin' on the Ritz.")

The second quote on the sticker, "A Monster hit," isn't attributed at all. It doesn't seem to appear anywhere in Brantley's review. But if you didn't know any better, you could easily assume that it did come from the Times.

So, is this what it's come to Mel? Are you so desperate to make a buck that you've resorted to a very selective use of reviews to sell CDs? The $450 tickets for orchestra seats on Friday and Saturday nights aren't enough?

There's a lot I really loved about "Young Frankenstein," including Christopher Fitzgerald's madcap take on Igor, the "Roll in the Hay" number with Fitzgerald, Roger Bart and Sutton Foster on the way to Frankenstein's castle. And I'm hoping the CD will bring back some of my favorite moments from the show. But I have to admit my enthusiasm is waning.

Mel, I've laughed at your movies for years. Now, I just have a sour taste in my mouth. I'm guessing that you haven't seen the sticker. In any case, I'm not angry. I'm just very, very disappointed.

Young Frankenstein

Gratuitous Violins rating: **1/2 out of ****

I've always been a Mel Brooks fan and "Young Frankenstein" has always been my favorite Mel Brooks movie. So to say that I've been eagerly anticipating its debut as a Broadway musical would be an understatement.

Judging from the reaction earlier this week at the Hilton Theatre, I wasn't alone. Even before any actors appear on stage, before the orchestra plays a single note, there's a big round of applause. Clearly, I'm among fans. The audience is pumped to hear their favorite dialogue, see their favorite scenes from the movie.

Well, after all the controversy over $450 premium tickets, over the refusal to release box office tallies, does Mel Brooks deliver? Yes and no. Judging by the amount of laughter and applause I heard, people probably went home happy. This is a very faithful adaptation of the movie in content, if not always in spirit. And I shared much, but not all, of their enthusiasm.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed "Young Frankenstein" and I'm glad I saw it. There were many things about it that I loved, and I did laugh, just not as much as I expected. While all the memorable lines and scenes from the movie are in the musical, to my ears they sometimes fell flat. (Even though, I have to admit, they elicited plenty of applause from everyone else in the audience). This is the first musical I've been to where just the appearance of a set on stage got applause, because people knew what was coming next.

Being a fan of the movie is kind of a double-edged sword. I can't help but compare the actors to their counterparts in the movie.

Take Roger Bart's performance as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein. While I think he got better as the show progressed, in the early scenes he just didn't seem to create a very memorable character.

In the movie, when Gene Wilder says "my name is pronounced Frohn-kun-steen," you can sense from the tone of his voice the barely suppressed rage. It's a great moment, and I was really looking forward to Roger Bart's take on it. But when he says the same line, I simply didn't feel any of the same emotion. I thought to myself, "Is that it?"

I felt the same way in the scene where Frederick and his fiancee, Elizabeth, played by Megan Mullalley, are saying goodbye to each other. In the scene from the movie, between Wilder and Madeline Kahn, there's a subtle shift in Kahn's tone of voice between her rather breathless expressions of love and her admonition that Frederick not touch her too closely, lest he mess up her hair or fingernails. With Mullalley, the scene just didn't seem nearly as funny.

Part of the problem is that the Hilton Theatre is a cavernous venue by Broadway standards, and I think the show gets a little lost. I sat three-quarters of the way back, in the left orchestra. When I saw "Curtains" in April at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre, I sat in the third row, in the center orchestra, and I enjoyed it more than "Young Frankenstein." A large part of it was simply that I could see the actors's faces much better. I think that you simply see a different show up close.

The parts that worked best for me in "Young Frankenstein" were the ones where the actors seemed to just get a little zany, a little over the top, more madcap, where they used more physical humor that worked no matter where you were sitting in the audience. I laughed during the scene in the cottage where the blind hermit scalds the monster with hot soup. It's such a memorable scene from the movie that I think the audience would have been disappointed if it had been left out.

I loved the way Sutton Foster as laboratory assistant Inga rolls around in the haywagon and yodels en route to Frankenstein's castle. Andrea Martin is wonderfully creepy as Frau Blucher, who inspires terror in horses everywhere, and Shuler Hensley makes a very appealing monster.

For me, a highlight was Christopher Fitzgerald's hysterical turn as Igor. (Or Eye-gore). Of all the actors in "Young Frankenstein," he does the best job of taking a character from the film and making it his own. I reveled in Fitzgerald's performance from the moment he pranced across the stage in his black cape and ever-changing hump. I didn't even miss Marty Feldman's bulging eyes. He is absolutely wonderful.

Frankly, while the songs were funny, I didn't find them very memorable. Some of them, like "Transylvania Mania," didn't seem to move the story along. (I guess Mel just needed a big show-stopper to end the first act). But I loved the way director/choreographer Susan Stroman turned "Puttin on the Ritz" into a big song and dance number.

"Young Frankenstein" worked as a movie because it was a satire, a sendup of the horror movie genre. Transylvania in the movie was a dark and foreboding place. The musical tries to recreate some of that, with the look of Frankenstein's castle and laboratory, and I loved those sets and the sound and lighting. But overall, I wish "Young Frankenstein" the musical had been a little less cheerful, a little more tongue in cheek. Somehow, this Transylvania is a little too sunny and bright.

Mel hearts Broadway

Friday's USA Today featured a fall arts preview. While reports on the season's upcoming movies, television shows and music were available online, theater got the cover of the Life section and a half-page inside. More specifically, the new Mel Brooks musical "Young Frankenstein" got the cover and the half-page inside. (With a small box listing other highlights of the Broadway season).

"Young Frankenstein" is my favorite Mel Brooks movie, and I've been looking forward to the musical version. Steve On Broadway already took in the tuner during its Seattle tryout and gave it an enthusiastic review.

Brooks, with his characteristic understatement, calls the cast, which includes Roger Bart and Megan Mullally, "the best ever assembled for a Broadway show." But he's silent on a controversy that's been raging over ticket prices, which will reach $450 for some center orchestra seats.

Coproducer Robert F.X. Sillerman defends them, saying [The select seats] "make up a fraction of the total ticket allotment, and so far, the demand for them is robust. We also offer $25 front-row seats, and the rest of the house is priced comparably to other Broadway musicals. Our tiered pricing is part of Broadway's ongoing effort to deal directly with customers across the economic spectrum by providing precisely the service and location they need at the price they can afford."

And the article makes no mention of another controversial move - the decision to depart from the customary practice of reporting weekly box-office totals. But Sillerman told The New York Times, “This is a private transaction. Consequently, I don’t know if there’s any — I’m quite sure there’s not any — bona fide business reason to do it other than bragging rights.”

The article, with more quotes from Brooks, as well as Roger Bart and director/choreographer Susan Stroman, is well worth a read.

I've got my ticket to Broadway's Hilton Theatre, where "Young Frankenstein" starts previews on Oct. 11 and opens Nov. 8. Although I can assure you I didn't pay anywhere near $450. Only time will tell whether Mel Brooks will have a hit on his hands to rival "The Producers." I'll weigh in with a review in November.

For his part, Brooks raises the interesting prospect that his next Broadway show might be based on an original idea rather than on one of his movies. And despite his notable success in film and television, he says his heart belongs to Broadway.

"This is much better than making movies, much more fulfilling. Things that happen under a proscenium arch are alive, they're immediate. When you hear that orchestra starting somewhere in the pit, filling the theater with music, you get goose bumps. A movie is great, but never thrilling like that."