| Member Name: |
Alm |
| Contact User: |
You must be logged in to contact BWW members.
|
|
Most Recent Message Board Posts:
View Off Topic Posts
FOLLIES: Thoughts...
Aug 18
2011, 05:32:02 PM
Galveston2 wrote Have you read William Goldman's book, "The Season"? There's a great chapter there on "muscle" and how the person most in charge and most responsible may be a star (if it's Mary Martin), a producer (if it's David Merrick), or a director (if it's Harold Prince), etc. All depending on box office clout, standing with the critics, or manipulative behavior.
I have read it (love William), but thank you for recommending it.
Galveston2 wrote:
|
Shows that don't age well
Aug 18
2011, 07:40:00 AM
Gaveston2 wrote: I think its [Oklahoma's] appeal has more to do with how we feel about American unity than with nostalgia for small towns.
That's an interesting idea.
|
FOLLIES: Thoughts...
Aug 18
2011, 07:36:14 AM
Gaveston2 wrote: Point of order, ALM: the writers of a Broadway musical OWN the material; they can't technically be fired.
True, of course. Thank you.
In my defense, I'll say only that it isn't unusual to hear people talking about a member of a creative team being "fired" (say, John LaTouche in Candide or, more recently, Julie Taymor in Spider-Man), even though that isn't quite what happens.
And that "fired" sounds more f
|
FOLLIES: Thoughts...
Aug 17
2011, 11:25:10 PM
Well, I'd argue that the fault can't lie entirely with James Goldman. It was Harold Prince's show; if he really thought Goldman's book was undermining the show, he could have fired him. And if Sondheim really thought Goldman's book was undermining the show, he could have begged Prince to fire him; and there's no indication that he ever did. (On the contrary, he's gone on record standing up for the book.) (Michael Bennett, of course, did hate the book.)
I'm not saying that James Goldma
|
Shows that don't age well
Aug 17
2011, 11:12:56 PM
Skip2 wrote: Of Thee I Sing
Seconded.
And it hurts me to say this, but another show that hasn't aged very well is Oklahoma.
It can still be entertaining, but the power it used to have - the power to make grown men tear up in the theater - is gone; partly because we're not fighting World War II anymore; partly because since the 60s we've become much more suspicious of art that celebrates established traditions in general, or small tow
|
FOLLIES: Thoughts...
Aug 17
2011, 11:04:07 PM
Re: henrikegerman
Thanks for your reply.
I agree that a show that merely manages not to bore you isn't a good show. But that's not quite what I was talking about.
Put it this way: I submit that Follies is a great show; that it doesn't merely avoid being boring; that it's exciting, often funny, and ultimately very powerful. And I agree that all the great moments are in the songs. But I also submit that the songs wouldn't have the same impact if they were simply a
|
BWW Poll: Do You Agree with Sondheim about PORGY & BESS?
Aug 14
2011, 05:03:50 AM
A Director wrote: "I wonder if Ms Parks took time to read the libretto? Based on her comments about "I got plenty of nothin'," I doubt it.
In the libretto, Porgy enters and begins singing. After he sings, "Got my gal, got my Lawd, go my song," it reads:
Women: Porgy change since dat woman come to live with he.
Serena: How he change.
The Others: He ain' cross with chillen no more, an' ain' you hear how he an" Bess all de time singin' in their
|
FOLLIES: Thoughts...
Aug 14
2011, 04:15:22 AM
henrikegerman: "I've always said songs, 10, book 3 for Follies...
I've always found Goldman's book to be shallow and predictable, with the characters coming to full life, only in song. Of course that's not unusual in musical theater, but the disparity between what the Follies characters reveal about themselves, their relationships and conflicts between their scenes and their songs is jarring."
What do you mean by "disparity", if you don't
|
BWW Poll: Do You Agree with Sondheim about PORGY & BESS?
Aug 14
2011, 03:21:48 AM
RainbowJude wrote: The thing is, I've been following the news about this adaptation of PORGY AND BESS since the start and the early articles I read were very clear in articulating that this is an adaptation of the show that is geared specifically towards shifting the genre from opera to musical theatre. So it has always been crystal clear to me that this is not about '"fixing" a hoary old chestnut'.
Somewhere along the line, this has gotten confused with rhetoric about this adaptation being an improvement...
...and I think that the comments of the people involved in these recent press articles need to be read in the light of their original intentions, as articulated in the earlier articles about this new production.
By all means, let's read their comments in light of their original stated intentions. But I'm not convinced that that shows some of their comments to be any less contemptuous. (And embarrassing, because Diane Paulus, Suzan-Lori Parks and Audra McDonald condescending to Gershwin is like Norman Rockwell condescending to Michelangelo.)
Paulus didn't say "audiences today require the heroine to be written in a way that takes account of the requirements of musicals as opposed to operas." She said audiences today require the heroine to be "an understandable and fully rounded character," implying that Bess isn't. McDonald didn't say "Bess often comes off as a character inappropriate to musical theater." She said Bess was "often more of a plot device than a full-blooded character."
Parks said she wanted to "flesh out the two main characters so they are not cardboard cut-out characters", implying that currently they are cardboard cutouts. McDonald said "the opera has the makings of a great love story too that I think we’re bringing to life", implying that so far the love story hasn't been brought to life.
They aren't saying that they think certain aspects of Porgy and Bess work in an opera setting, but not a musical theater setting. They're calling the characters shallow and the love story dead.
More examples:
- " 'Because,' [Audra McDonald] explained one afternoon at the ART, where rehearsals moved in mid-July, 'how do we get it into a place where we can really just be with these characters and understand these characters and not be blocked by this wall of …' She broke off and shifted her voice low, doing a brief, gibberish impression of minstrel-show speech.
'You know, just that sort of Sambo-type racist talk,' she continued. 'I want them to be real people in the way that Lorraine Hansberry was able to lift the shade and [let] everybody peer into a real American family with ‘Raisin in the Sun.’'" (http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-07/ae/29861886_1_dorothy-heyward-porgy-and-bess-catfish-row/2)
- "Since then, [Parks] said, she’s learned that Porgy’s song 'I Got Plenty o’ Nuttin’' 'has stuck in the craw of many a folk, because people have interpreted it as the happy darky song: There he is, out of nowhere, for no reason, singin’ about how he ain’t got nothin’ and how that makes him happy.'
"Parks, who said she doesn’t care whether elements of shows are politically correct or incorrect, was instead bothered that the scene didn’t work dramatically: Porgy comes out of his room into the courtyard and bursts into song, but why?
"'So I say, you know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna add some dialogue,' Parks recalled.
"'He says, ‘Good mornin’, everybody!’ And they say, ‘Good mornin’, Porgy!’ And one of the guys says, ‘Aw, but you’re lookin’ better than good, Porgy.’ And one of the other guys says, ‘Oh, look at that smile on his face.’ Another guy: ‘What you been up to, Porgy?’ And Porgy says, ‘Nothin’.’ And they say, ‘Nothin’? Huh huh huh huh. Nothin’, yeah.’ And Porgy goes,' and here Parks sang the line, '‘I got plenty of nothin’.'
“'What does ‘nothing’ mean now?’’ she asked. “He’s just been in the room with Bess. ‘Nothin’ ’ suddenly means ‘somethin’.’ He’s gettin’ some. So suddenly he’s singing, ‘I Got Plenty of Nothin’.’ Now of course very quickly it becomes a song about how happy I am to be alive.
“'Of course he’s happy to be alive! He’s got a girlfriend! Yea! And everybody’s like, ‘Yea, Porgy’s gettin’ some! Porgy’s happy.’ I mean, it’s not crude and tacky. But it’s more about, ‘Yea, Porgy’s in love!’ He’s like, ‘I got the sun and the moon and the stars, I got my gal, I got my Lord, I’ve got my song.’'" (http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-07/ae/29861886_1_dorothy-heyward-porgy-and-bess-catfish-row/4)
- [Paulus's] point was to fix a conclusion that she found dramatically unfulfilling: Not only was there no scene at the end between Porgy and Bess, but there was also no demand in the original libretto that Porgy confront the fact that he’s committed murder for Bess’s love. (http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-07/ae/29861886_1_dorothy-heyward-porgy-and-bess-catfish-row/7)
They're saying the dialog is racist, that a scene doesn't "work dramatically", and that the conclusion is "dramatically unfulfilling."
Whether they're right or not about any of what they're saying is another discussion. But they don't seem to just be concerned with the challenges of turning the opera into a musical.
|
'Summertime' is too high?
Aug 14
2011, 02:24:43 AM
[delurks]
This actually might not necessarily be a bad idea. The reason Dierde Murray gives (or at least the way she articulates it) is too stupid for words; but it might not be a bad idea.
The problem with staging almost any pre-1960s musical (or, in this case, opera-turned-musical) today is that, for economic reasons, it simply isn't possible to hire a big enough orchestra. Even if they really, desperately wanted to be as true as possible to original arrangements, they'd have to downsize the orchestration. Which would make a difference. When Gershwin orchestrated "Summertime", he was counting on having enough strings to create a really lush sound. If you take a part like that and try to play it with too few instruments, it just makes the whole song sound like it's trying to be something it can't.
They can't do the original arrangement properly, so there's something to be said for writing an arrangement that they actually can do.
And even if they could do the original arrangement properly, it still might be interesting to hear a new arrangement. Just because the original version of something is great doesn't mean good things can't come out of doing it differently.
I'm not saying their version will be any good. But it's possible.
One other thing: In the right hands, an accordion can sound wonderful in a dark lullaby. The Beatles proved that with "Cry Baby Cry".
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi3hBsZB6Fo)
|
You must log in to view off-topic posts.
|
|
.jpg)
