How is cutting a quarter of the show serving the original material? LOL i know AT LEAST 10 people who hated Porgy and Bess. Sondheim absolutely hated it as well. I personally loved it, however do i think it was true to the original material? Not really. I think they did what they had to to so people wouldn't be sleeping in the theatre after watching a show for a million hours which is perfectly logical. The Gershwin Estate probably just let them do whatever the **** they wanted to do for $$$$, but thats the biz.
As far as comparing a reimagined version of Fiddler on the Roof, and Porgy and Bess, i was talking about it in terms of being true to the original material. The last revival of Porgy and Bess is a perfect example of a successful show that made changes, and wasn't true to the original text. If Fiddler on the Roof isn't 100% true to the story by adding different cultures into the cast, well I'm sure people would get over that considering this is 2014. My point by adding different races to the show was to show off different traditions that different cultures have. You people asked how someone can reimagine Fiddler on the Roof and i gave you an example. Of course its hard to imagine something like that happening since it has never been done before.
"In a show specifically about racism (or anti-semitism), the last thing a show needs is some random casting choices to flag how color-blind the revival's director might be. Oh please, FIDDLER is a show ABOUT discrimination against Jews, just as PORGY is about racism aimed at Blacks, just as THE KING AND I is about the conflicts between Asians and Europeans." Whatever that ****s about, Porgy and Bess is about RACISM. Fiddler on the Roof is about TRADITION. I would never recommend color-blind casting Porgy and Bess. In the last scene of Fiddler on the Roof when the town is leaving Anatevka, it would be cool to see other races too, which would show how other cultures have been forced to leave their lands too, not just the jews, and this would add to the show in a really great way.
"you boys don't understand that two different actors playing role are going to be different because they are different people. Each actor is going to see different things in the role which will influence their performance." umm I'm fully aware of that, i said that like a million times. And I'm not even a director, just someone with an opinion who thinks it would be nice to see Fiddler get switched up. Thats all
"In the last scene of Fiddler on the Roof when the town is leaving Anatevka, it would be cool to see other races too, which would show how other cultures have been forced to leave their lands too, not just the jews, and this would add to the show in a really great way."
Pretty sweet gig for those actors. "You're not in the first 2 hours and 35 minutes, but in the last scene... you walk across the stage looking sad."
Who said they wouldn't be in the rest of the show? And I'm a freshman in college with an opinion about theatre. What does it matter how old I am. You should be happy that there's a young theatre person who actually has an opinion and sticks with it
Well, if you can explain how a show about tradition, using a specific culture to to tell a universal story, which has been able to play to audiences of all backgrounds all across the glove, needs to interopolate cultures unrelated to its story into its staging in order to appeal to people that it has already been appealing to... But you can't legitimately defend that idea.
Fiddler doesn't need a new theatrical metaphor to make it work. It is not a show like Pippin, which really does need inventive staging to compensate for its numerous weaknesses. It is not a show like Porgy and Bess, which is in many ways dated, socially and artistically.
Fiddler needs a director who trusts the material and doesn't feel the need to impose themselves on it. It doesn't need to be deconstructed or be made minimalist. It doesn't need to be genderbent or queered. The text does not support it.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
In the future, whenever people ask "Why don't they give a bunch of bored 17 year olds who've run out of things to dream cast complete creative control over classic Broadway musicals and $10 million budgets", I think I will refer them to this thread.
Philly, I'm glad you have an opinion and a passion about this show.
But doing something different just for the sake of being different doesn't cut it. You have to look at the text within the script, the style the show - including the music- is written in, and the context of the story. What you're suggesting is a show very different from what is written.
Stick to your choices, but be willing to change them if they don't work. That's whether you end up being a director, an actor, a writer... or just a person living their life. Best of luck to you!
"Stick to your choices, but be willing to change them if they don't work. That's whether you end up being a director, an actor, a writer... or just a person living their life. Best of luck to you!" Thanks! And yea i know that Feste, I just think its ridiculous to me how barely anyone on this thread has an imagination, or open mind. You'd think they would when we are talking about a musical here.
FishermanBob, im 18 and your joke was really lame. And I don't really dream cast much either...
Do we know what Sondheim thought of the recent production of PORGY AND BESS? His remarks to the NYT were made in response to an interview with Paulus, MacDonald, et al. He hadn't seen the revival at that point.
"FishermanBob, im 18 and your joke was really lame. And I don't really dream cast much either..."
17, 18 what's the difference. You're still obviously not old enough to understand why what you're suggesting is ridiculous despite the best attempts by a number of people to explain it to you. You're not old enough to understand that having an open mind doesn't mean that everything always has to be changed and that some things aren't just fine being left as they are. The maturity to understand when and why something NEEDS to be changed is what I hope you some day acquire.
FOTR is a show with deep meaning to a number of people. It's a show that many parents take their kids to, to introduce them to theater. Its message is timeless. It stands on its own. It doesn't need to be reimagined, reinvented, changed, altered just because you're not interested in seeing the "same" show you may have seen the last time it was on Broadway. Under the 2011 Federal "So Just Don't Go" Theater Act, you now have the right to simply not see a show if for whatever reason you don't want to see it. The producers will just have to live without the $37 in revenue from your rush ticket.
Im not sure if Sondheim actually saw the last revival of Porgy and Bess, but I know he wrote them a letter attacking them for messing with a classic. I remember watching a 2004 documentary on Broadway, and he said how much he loves Porgy and Bess, so he probably just had a strong love for the show, however a lot of people LOVED the revival.
FishermanBob, EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THEATRE!!! And I'm not the only one who thought it would be a good idea to reimagine the show either...
Yes, the Sondheim letter was discussed here at length. But as I said, Sondheim was irked by published remarks that PORGY AND BESS "needed" a major overhaul and by the Gershwin Estate's de-emphasizing Heywood's contribution to the project.
IIRC, in the same article Sondheim said he was looking forward to seeing what they had done with the show, but I don't recall ever hearing if he saw it or what he thought.
FOTR needs nothing added. Maybe a new production, not the same Robbins staging, but the book, music, and lyrics remain as fresh as they were back in 1964.
"Sticks and stones, sister. Here, have a Valium." - Patti LuPone, a Memoir
"Under the 2011 Federal "So Just Don't Go" Theater Act, you now have the right to simply not see a show if for whatever reason you don't want to see it. The producers will just have to live without the $37 in revenue from your rush ticket." Lmao the producers would be happy with my $37 rush ticket considering nobody is gonna pay 100 bucks to see a show they have seen a million times. Especially not with Danny Burstein. Maybe if they at least got Nathan Lane. People still went to see the last revival of Gypsy because at least it was staring the amazing Patti Lupone. I don't really think Danny Burstein will be a big draw for people. I think he's wonderful but by no means is he a Nathan Lane or Patti Lupone
"nobody is gonna pay 100 bucks to see a show they have seen a million times."
Broadway tickets cost more than $100, btw, and people see Fiddler to see Fiddler, just like Phantom... it's sort of not important to have a name in the cast, as long as the production is good.