Hal Prince school project

Hey everyone! I have to do a presentation for my directing class on Hal Prince, and well, I have never seen a production of his being stuck out in western Canada.. I was hoping I could gather some quotes from some broadway world users about his productions, those that have seen them! From his directing style, parallels you've noticed between productions, to just what you think of shows you have seen of his. The impact they had on you! Any history or anything you want to say about him will be greatly appreciated!!

I've been stuck out in Western Canada most of my life, and yet managed to see tours of Spider Woman, Phantom, Parade and the Canadian sit down production of his Show Boat. Just saying

As Gaveston said, a number of people on here could probably give good answers to specific questions, but it's kinda hard to know where to start.

One thing that comes to mind is that he very much needs a concept for his shows--and preferably a political one it seems. His flops often seem to come about when he doesn't find one (like with Merrily--actually in that case it was more a muddled mix of concepts). He famously didn't reallyget Sweeney until he saw that he could use his industrial revolution concept. Equally famous is his quote to Lloyd Webber when asked to do Cats--I don't remember it word for word, but essentially he asked if it maybe had something to do with Queen Victoria, and was a metaphor, and ALW replied basically just saying "Hal, it's about *cats*".

If you have time, aside from the books mentioned by Gaveston, there are two pretty good bios of his work: Harold Prince and the American Musical Theatre and Hal Prince: A Director's Journey. EVerything Was Possible about the making of Follies aso gives great example of his process.

For what it's worth, he's my fave director who wasn't also a choreographer (if that makes sense).

There will be tons of research done, but I guess I'm just looking for first hand experience for some quotes to include.. So essentially... A production of his you have seen, how it impacted you.. If you've seen more then one of his shows, did you notice similarities? What are your thoughts on Hal Prince?

This is just an informal, oral presentation. So I'm really just wanting to throw some random audience thoughts. So it could be Anything you want to say. From a moment in a show that strongly impacted you, to some Hal Prince quirk you've noticed in his shows. I just want to add a relatable, we see theatre, here are our thoughts section.

Lots of folks would say Hal Prince helped invent the Concept Musical. A tawdry cabaret stage can stand in for all of 30's Germany. A buzouki taverna holds the essence of Zorba's Greek tale. A twilight lit birch grove serves every location for its Swedish summer night's romances. Ragtag ramps and trapdoors through the audience can be Candide's unreliable world's stage. An iron foundry becomes all of Sweeney Todd's London.

Productions could be opulent or bare stage affairs-- they all seized a visual language to tell their stories that was uniquely OF the theater. As an audience member you couldn't wait to see what treasures awaited when the curtain (or stagelights) went up.

I've heard that about A Doll's Life. That show seemed to have several concepts too many--between the actors rehearsing framing device (had he just seen Reisz and Pinter's film adaptation of French Lieutenant's Woman, or something? It did come out around the same time IIRC), and what you mention...

Prince also was greatly inspired in the 60s by the modern Soviet theatre--I think he's admitted that the curtain of light he used in Cabaret (and elsewhere) came to him directly from there, Meyerhold's work in particular. Part of Prince's genius was using those elements in a much more commercial context.

I know various revisions (at York, etc) of Doll's Life have flirted with dropping the framework, as well as opening with House's final scene, or not. I guess the thought was that a lot of audience might not actually know Doll's House, and to give them at least a reminder but I don't think it worked--if they don'tknow the original play (and I suspect a lot of audiences for a big, commercial Broadway musical wouldn't--and why should they?), opening that way won't really help anyway.

I suppose I'm looking at it from my generation. Unless read in school (and some theatre courses I know of did cover it), I think most of my friends who are into theatre know the basic idea of Doll's House, and not really much more (though perhaps they all know the famous final scene). Certainly nobody I ever knew was itching for a sequel to it, but that's another matter (what an odd choice for Comden and Green, stylistically, anyway).

That'sa fair point about the concept of the actor playing all those different men (though, that could be another questionable concept...).

I'd say if there's any through line to Prince's later work, it's a failure to edit as ruthlessly as he had when younger. To take one example, when he created Phantom of the Opera's staging in 1986-7, those ravishing stage pictures were often composed of one or two cast members perched on a skeletal setpiece that floated in a vast black void. It was the movement of drapes (or fog or ballet dancers) wiping across the scene that filled in the impression of luxury and opulence.

So what happened when he went to create the show anew for Las Vegas 20 years later? Gone was the empty stage, gone was the SUGGESTION of opulence when the real thing was now in demand. Literal theater boxes, literal chandelier, literal wing-and-drop set after set. Sad to see a brilliant (and ruthlessly editorial) theater artist succumb to the more-is-more aesthetic that he might have rejected decades before.

And just to try to be more clear, I guess my initial statement was more that a fairly big budgeted, commercial Broadway musical obviously needs a fairly universal hook to bring in the audiences if it's gonna turn a profit. Doing a sequel to A Doll's House, and then assuming you'd have an audience on that alone, obviously isn't enough.

Someone in a Tree that's a good point--though I certainly thought highly at the time of Prince's staging of Spider Woman and Show Boat, as well as the revised tour of Parade. Re Vegas--I wonder how much say he had? I mean obviously he could have not taken the job, but the whole point of doing it in Vegas seemed to be to amp the show up to a Vegas level. I agree that Prince's original staging, along with Bjornson's designs of course, is striking--and more often than not it's done with a lot less than people seem to imagine they seem which is the point. (It's interesting that for such a cinematic stage director, he seemed to be so leaden when making films).

(Sirlin does have a lot of opera credits that are projection based, as well as doing the design for the European production of Disney's Hunchback http://www.jeromesirlindesign.com/index.htm_files/1024.htm)

Thanks for reminding me of GRIND, Eric. I loved that production when I saw it, one of those shows when a perfect idea of a show (race relations in a down-at-heels 30's burlesque house) with a so-so script and score got an absolutely brilliant set design (by the frankly uneven Clarke Dunham) and overall staging that resulted in one of the great nights of theater of that season for me.

I agree with you on the Hal Prince Showboat being one of the glories of the 90's on Broadway. As for Parade and Kiss, not so much. Both have rich scores but staging and design only fitfully rose to the greatness inherent in their material. Gotta call them near-misses in the Hal Prince pantheon for me.

I agree with Someone that GRIND looked great. I remember the show itself being underwhelming, probably due to what Someone calls a "so-so" book and score.

As Eric knows, I hated everything about KISS, which badly mutilated one of my favorite books and plays.