ALLEGRO at Classic Stage Company- Page 2

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 8:29am

In all those if not thousands of shows you've seen.

[newintown]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 8:52am

"I have never seen a production, outside of Mr. Doyle's, where the actors are also the orchestra. Where the actors play the score. Can someone give me other examples?"

Pump Boys and Dinettes
Oil City Symphony
Cowgirls
Song of Singapore
Smoke On The Mountain

So many more. And I've seen productions across the country of various shows in which the actors were the orchestra/band (where the show wasn't originally written to be performed as such), including The Threepenny Opera, Silbersee, and many lesser known straight plays like Ghetto, which were dressed up with music from the cast.

There's absolutely nothing new, different, ground-breaking, or unusually revelatory about this approach, and Doyle didn't invent it or transform it.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 9:02am

I suppose next you'll say you've seen unicorns, too.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 12:34pm

I'd just love to know it came about. Was it Doyle's idea? CSC's? It's already a rather bizarre story and whatnot, so it seems to overcomplicate it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 1:42pm

Nobody's saying it's common, we're just saying it's not exclusive to Doyle's work. Or, for that matter, to his big-name work that's been done in the U.S. He did it before Sweeney, too. It was hardly his trademark and he's directed most of his work without it, but he had done it before here and there. There's an excellent interview that spans much of the history of his career, however it wasn't in print; it was a panel he did, moderated by Jack Cummings III, with Mano Felciano and Mary-Mitchell Campbell. Lincoln Center's Performing Arts Library has it on film.

In 2013, John joined CSC in an official capacity as an Associate Director. This was announced right around when Passion was running, I believe, and the announcement said the position would allow him to both develop his own projects for CSC and to lead CSC's Musical Theatre Initiative. It also said he would have a role in season planning. So I suspect this was a collaborative decision. The performance I'm going to has a talkback after, and it'll be with John and Mary-Mitchell; I'd be surprised if they didn't talk about how the project came about, and would be happy to report back. It's not until 11/29, though.

Updated On: 11/7/14 at 01:42 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 1:44pm

One of the major upsides of such a technique, and indeed the reason why Sweeney was staged this was, is that it drastically reduces costs, allowing shows that would otherwise be too costly to produce to get done.

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 2:04pm

There is a huge difference between Oil City, and Pump Boys,and ONCE and what John Doyle does. It didn't occur to me that anyone would even go in that direction. Those shows were written for the actors to play instruments as part of their characters. They weren't playing a score that was not intended for them to play. It's such an obvious difference.

[newintown]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 2:09pm

Well, you should have been more specific with your question, then.

But you've been provided with other examples as well (i.e. Threepenny Opera, Ghetto, etc.).

I've also seen productions of Tintypes and I'd Rather Be Right, among others, during which actors took up musical instruments to join the band at times.

There was also Sam Mendes' rather well-known revival of a musical called Cabaret (you may have heard of it), in which the band was primarily made up of cast members.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 2:15pm

"I have never seen a production, outside of Mr. Doyle's, where the actors are also the orchestra."

Or outright (strikethrough)lied(/strikethrough) misspoke.



Is the story that Doyle's first actor-muso production, MACK AND MABEL sometime in the '70s, was born out of necessity because he wanted to do the show but couldn't afford both cast and orchestra?

Updated On: 11/7/14 at 02:15 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 2:16pm

I meant to mention the Mendes Cabaret in my previous post. But again, it doesn't seem to qualify with what's (actually) being asked here, since it's integrated into the storytelling differently. I think the issue is how realistic it is in a show where the characters are musicians as opposed to something that's imposed on the piece and woven into the way the story is being told: music therapy in Sweeney, if that's what you saw, and the big "join the band" metaphor that ran through Company. So, yes, he does it differently than most other people have. I'd argue that it's more of a global "concept" for him than a bell-and-whistle.

Updated On: 11/7/14 at 02:16 PM

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 2:21pm

Im not trying to debate with you but one production of Three Penny, which someone saw somewhere... some actors that pick up an instrument to play with the musicians does still not come close to what John Doyle does. As for Cabaret, they are SUPPOSED to be a BAND so them playing instruments makes sense. It's not like having Mrs. Lovett pick up a tuba... which was absurd.

I am sorry. I saw Sweeney it was horrible. He managed to ring every bit of humor out of Company by having the cast walk around that square set for two hours blowing horns. It's just a STUPID idea that doesn't make any sense in regards to character development. That is just MY opinion. You are certainly entitled to yours. I know there are many who disagree with me.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 2:27pm

Ah, okay. Now we are getting to the meat of things.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 2:32pm

While I disagree with you that his Company was not funny (I found it quite funny, but I also know it was much darker than what many people who knew Company before it were used to -- his was my first Company), I promise you it was not the instruments that made it un-funny. It's interesting to me, when people think the instruments were the only thing he did as a director. There was so much more there. You don't have to like it, I don't care, but at least acknowledge that he's capable of setting a tone (no, the instruments did not do that for him), etc. and hasn't just thrown instruments into actors' hands and said "ok, go."

I am too tired to walk through exactly how the instruments added to the character development in that show, and I've also learned that if you don't see it, you're never going to be willing to see it. It's long fascinated me, how it's either there or it's not for folks with this, there's so rarely a middle ground. But it was there for many of us, and in my opinion, it was beautiful.

The irony here, of course, is that for decades, people have argued that Company, as is, is lacking in character development and that Bobby is a cypher and "nothing happens." That was a Company where something happened, and counter to the humor issue, I think the instruments helped that happen. They didn't make it happen alone, but they helped. Mostly visually, but subtly in the music, too.

Updated On: 11/7/14 at 02:32 PM

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 2:43pm

LuvtheEmcee...I greatly appreciate the thought you have put behind what you say. And you back it up with some thoughful ideas. Company has a GREAT book. Ive never heard any complaints about it.

It still is a gimmick. And if he had done it once, I would have respected his artistic idea. He felt it might have been right for THAT particular show. I still would not have liked it, but I would have respected it as a choice. The fact that he keeps doing it is just absurd. It too random. This is just an example: It's like placing a show like Sweeney Todd in the 1930's pre Hitler Germany. You think that is a great choice and you can back it up. But then you do Oliver and your put it in the 1930's Pre Hitler Germany and then you do show after show using the same interpretation. I hope that makes sense.

[newintown]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 2:44pm

"As for Cabaret, they are SUPPOSED to be a BAND so them playing instruments makes sense."

Ah. I missed that part of the script in - what? - every single other production of that show before Mendes'. I was pretty sure that the Kit Kat Girls, the waiters, Fraulein Kost, and Ernst weren't intended to be in the band (not to mention intended to play for the songs that take place outside the cabaret...).

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 2:59pm

Thank you. I should hope so. I spent a long time studying John's work and I know that production inside out. Company is really solid in many ways, but it's also problematic in others. I see where the complaints about it come from. I don't share them, but I understand.

I'm sensing that you don't know the background of the actor-musicians on the commercial American stage, so, briefly: John first directed Sweeney at the Watermill, a small theatre in the UK. They didn't have the budget for a live orchestra, leaving the options: canned music or get inventive. That's how the actors ended up playing instruments. Sweeney transferred to the West End, and we eventually got our Broadway production. Company was commissioned by the Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park shortly thereafter. There were New York producers on my flight out to see it.

I flat-out disagree that it's "random" but that's a viewpoint that comes down to whether you see the ways in which it's been woven into the story. And it's absolutely not the same as setting Sweeney Todd in pre-Holocaust Germany, IMO, which, I agree with you, would be random. There's justification in each story for what he did. I can't think of any way you would locate justification in the story for staging Sweeney in 30s Berlin. He's never, to my knowledge, outright said what the metaphor is in Sweeney, but I and many others think that it's Toby, later in life, in an asylum, and he's re-living the story through some kind of music therapy with other patients. It carries a lot of similarities to a very famous production of Marat/Sade that you can probably find on YouTube, although I believe John has said this wasn't intentional. So, your "random and stupid" is my "look at this new way of telling the story."

I also think your specific example of how a concept can be repeated isn't super solid because you're comparing the use of instruments, which has proven itself highly malleable, to a very specific place and period setting, which isn't. The Main Idea of it? Sure, that was the same. But the way it actually worked in the story? Not the same at all. Your example, translated, would be "ok, he did the music therapy thing for Company." And that was not there at all. Like I said before, it's much, much more nuanced than shoving instruments into actors' hands and having it be meaningless. But again, I find that if the focal point for your feelings on his work is, "BUT THE INSTRUMENTS!!!" that takes over everything else. I can explain it for another eight years (and I probably will), but I cannot force anyone to see.

For the record, calling what others love "stupid" is not really respecting their opinions.

Also, my goodness, it's 2014 and we are still doing this. I sleepily sigh at my computer screen.

Updated On: 11/7/14 at 02:59 PM

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 3:10pm

Thank you again for that terrific post. But ... you said the idea came about ORIGINALLY because they did not have the budget for musicians. That kind of sums the whole thing up. It's all based on that and the music therapy concept (which I find weak) came after.

But I appreciate your intelligent answer. Calling something stupid isn't insulting, it's my opinion of what I perceive. It's just a difference of opinions. I didn't call anyone on this board stupid.. I said JO's artistic choice was stupid. We can all be a little more thick skinned artistically.

Thanks again for the great responses.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 3:38pm

Well, yeah, the financial constraints created the need for some kind of solution. Granted, that solution could have literally been exactly what you perceive it to have been: actors standing around with instruments for no reason. Instead, he found a way to turn it into something with meaning, although you think he didn't. And we'll never know if, maybe, someone would have tried it anyway without the financial impetus. It isn't that crazy of an idea.

I'm not personally insulted. i just didn't find the word choice as respectful as you seem to think you're being. The purists are always the ones who think we should get a thicker skin. *shrug* My skin is plenty thick after nine years of hearing every permutation. Everybody's gotta love something, Louis.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 4:44pm

luvtheEmcee, I just feel the need to mention how much I love and appreciate your posts about John Doyle. In every thread about any production he does, the actor-musician "gimmick" is mentioned, and in every thread, you respond wonderfully.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/7/14 at 4:58pm

Aww, thank you.

[starcatchers]

Posted: 11/8/14 at 12:09am

To whoever asked about the student rush: I got there at 6PM last night (tickets are sold an hour before curtain) and was the only one there. I ended up sitting in the front row but the seats are scattered.

I really enjoyed this production. I knew absolutely nothing about the show going in, but I thought the performances were excellent, and the staging was interesting. I do agree though, that they should have had a younger actor play young Joe.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 11/8/14 at 12:24am

I think it's a cool concept because it was grown out of necessity. However, it was weird to see Company considering it was always planned to really go to Broadway. So it had a Broadway budget. It wasn't born out of a necessity.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/8/14 at 11:26am

Technically it was a regional budget, and Cincinnati Playhouse commissioned it because they liked the idea. Whether it was always intended to go to Broadway and that was a tryout in disguise, I don't know (I don't think so), and I'm not sure if you do either or you're just assuming. There were, of course, differences in the budget between the two productions. There was an article on it somewhere, once upon a time, but it mostly focused on how Raul's suit got fancier.

Updated On: 11/8/14 at 11:26 AM

[wonkit]

Posted: 11/8/14 at 7:13pm

Responding to a much earlier post: for both SWEENEY and COMPANY, the actors were required to become members of the musicians union in addition to Equity, so there was a union budget for the "orchestra" in those productions, too. It was a smaller expense for each of those shows than a full orchestra but, surprisingly, not that much smaller. (Anticipating your next question, I was an investor in both shows so I know about the "nut" for each.)

[jnb9872]

Posted: 11/8/14 at 9:03pm

In regards to the staging concept of actors doubling as musicians, when previous Doyle productions were discussed at some point I came across the phrase "actor muso" to describe this technique. A quick google search revealed the Facebook page linked below, which features countless productions around the world of shows (both written with actor muso staging in mind and adapted to it) being produced and directed in that style.


"Actor Musicianship" on Facebook