Annie Get Your Gun--original vs. revisal

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 6:44pm

So I'm finishing up playing in the pit for a comm. theatre production of Annie Get Your Gun. We're playing the revisal (1999) version, and when someone briefly mentioned how different it is from the original, I did some research regarding the differences, and was shocked to see how much there were.

What are your general opinions about the original vs. the revisal, and the changes they made? Which do you prefer?

Also, please help confirm that the changes I know about are correct and add any that I might have missed:

*The ending--in this version, Annie purposely misses 5, then Frank purposely misses 5, and they call it a draw. In the original, Annie loses but gets Frank. She misses one maybe?

*The removal of I'm A Bad, Bad Man, Colonel Buffalo Bill, and I'm an Indian too (And The Wild West Pitch Dance?)

*Addition of Old-Fashioned Wedding (originally added to the '66 revival)

*The concept of it being a show-within-a-show and Buffalo Bill telling the story, which also includes the addition of the Opening, which was more of a finale in the original? (How many there's no business...reprises were there in the original? As many as in the revisal?)

*Some differences with the Tommy/Winnie subplot (which was removed for the '66 revisal). Winnie was originally Dolly's daughter? And was Tommy always half-Indian, or did they change that to be more PC?

*Some of the song order. I think "Wonderful" came earlier in the original than the revisal? Maybe before Moonshine Lullaby?

*Dolly actually does try to make Wilson feel less lonely in the original. She is unsuccessful.

*Annie has 3 sisters in the original, 2 in the revival

*Very different orchestrations. If someone can more specifically explain, please do. All I know is they're very different, a little more Gershwin/Bernstein or something.

[Link Larkin Wanabe]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 6:54pm

Also the way they dealt with the "Indians" or Aboriginals as we call them here in Canada is extremely different.

Akiva

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 6:56pm

Would have loved to have seen the unsanitized version

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 7:08pm

They made the revival less racist.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 7:09pm

Remember that the original is not available for performance. The 1966 version has some big changes from the original.

In both the original and the 1966 versions, "Wonderful" precedes "Moonshine."

One difference between the earlier versions and the most recent one that I think is particularly harmful (and seems to go against what appear to be the intentions of the last version) is that in the earlier versions Annie sings "I Got Lost in His Arms" to Sitting Bull, strengthening their relationship and emphasizing that he is her father figure. I think that Sitting Bull is a more dignified figure all around in the earlier versions.

Also, it really is pretty clear in the earlier versions that everyone, including Frank, knows that Annie is purposely throwing the final contest.

You might want to try to get hold of the John McGlinn recording of the original version. I'm not the biggest Kim Criswell fan but I think she's good here and Thomas Hampson is not bad as Frank.

Really, this show has been particularly lucky on record, with Merman captured both in 1946 (even if that's not an ideal recording) and the fantastic 1966 recording and with fine, musically nearly complete studio recordings of both the original and 1966 versions.

[Jon]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 8:03pm

Winnie is Dolly's little sister, not daughter, in the original and the latest revival. Tommy was not a Native American in the original.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 8:17pm

"Very different orchestrations. If someone can more specifically explain, please do. All I know is they're very different, a little more Gershwin/Bernstein or something."

Not sure which orchestrations you're describing as being more Gershwin/Bernstein.

The original orchestrations from 1946 are very different from those in the 1966 version, although Robert Russell Bennett was the lead orchestrator in both cases (famously having come in to redo Philip J. Lang's original orchestrations in 1946 when Lang's work was deemed wrongheaded, though Bennett himself later downplayed the extent of the changes he made). And, of course, the most recent version's orchestrations are very different from both earlier versions.

I guess I'd say that the 1946 orchestrations are very 1940s musical comedy, with lots of saxophone, and that the 1966 orchestrations are rather symphonic, very much what you might expect in the "Lincoln Center version." I only heard the most recent version once, in the theatre, so I can't comment much on it.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 8:31pm

Pardon my ignorance, but what made "I'm an Indian, Too" so racist? There may be something that I'm not catching, because I honestly can't figure it out.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 8:35pm

The PC police have spoken & that is why it went

I wonder if those who think that way fast forward thru this part in the movie.

[Jon]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 8:57pm

"Just like Rising Moon, Falling Pants, Running Nose..."

[mike L G]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 9:49pm

I went to the 1966 revival and took my neice to the 1999 revival with Bernadette Peters and she did a wonderful job.

I tend to like the 1966 revival the best arrangments and the
trill of being just a little boy at such a production they tell
I just sat there in amazement. I do remember a terrific response
to An old fashion wedding being done for the first time.
My favorarit vocal's for Merman and ray middleton are the 47
original just because they are .

[thtrteacher]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:16pm

THe original is racist and sexist. The revival is not

[thtrteacher]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:22pm

The PC police have spoken & that is why it went

I wonder if those who think that way fast forward thru this part in the movie.

Mr. Roxy,

Have you read the libretto? It isn't just people being overly PC it's a very racist script.

http://libretto.musicals.ru/text.php?textid=612&language=1

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:45pm

THe original is racist and sexist. The revival is not

I thought this was a given.

[D2]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 11:51pm

Like most older shows trying to become "politically correct," the revisal of ANNIE GET YOUR GUN was so bland it became offensive just in its attempts to placate the PC police.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:48am

Well said D2

I do not politicize everything. You could do that with almost every show. It is entertainment pure & simple

I guess all the westerns we grew up on were also racist & sexist

Take them for what they are & move on

Updated On: 3/17/07 at 12:48 AM

[lesmisforever]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:50am

I saw a school edition about 2 years ago at a local high school and they included I'm A Bad, Bad Man, Colonel Buffalo Bill, and I'm an Indian too.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 1:05am

Thanks very much for posting that link, thtrteacher. I'd never read the script before, though I think most of it is in the movie almost unchanged (though there are some changes, including some good ones).

But I have to disagree with you. Not only did reading the script not prove to me that it was racist and sexist, my perception was that it portrayed American Indians in an extremely positive way and that it was profeminist.

I do feel (and felt before I read the script at the link) that a few things involving the Indians might give an impression of racism that wasn't intended by the authors and that it might not be a bad idea to cut or alter some of that.

But sexist? Tell it to Dorothy Fields.

It's clear that Annie is not only a better shot than Frank, she's a better person. And everyone knows it, including Frank and even Dolly. And most of all the audience.

And after Annie, the most sympathetic character is Sitting Bull.
Updated On: 3/17/07 at 01:05 AM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 1:52am

Nobodyhome, I was referring to the '99 orchestrations as people having told me being a little more "Gershwin/Bernstein-ish."

I also forgot that in the original, Dolly was Charlie's sister! That's a little weird considering the change in '99...I mean it was pretty funny the way they did, but just kind of...weird that they were once siblings.

Thank you for the link to the libretto. That has to be the '66 version considering there's Old-Fashioned Wedding and no Tommy/Winnie. I was able to grasp hold of other little changes here and there in the libretto. Now my question is aside from the addition of Old Fashioned Wedding and the cutting of Tommy and Winnie and their songs, how different was the '66 libretto from the '99?

I like the placing of "Wonderful" right before "Defenses"...takes a bit more time for Frank and Annie to embrace.

And even if it may seem obvious, I still don't like Annie loses, and Frank makes her his partner. I still definitely prefer the '99 version of that. But I suppose it wasn't that different.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 2:14am

But, wrq, it's clear that everyone, including Frank, knows that the match has been fixed, that Annie is just pretending to lose to him. She's performing an "act." (Andrea Most's book Making Americans: Jews and the Broadway Musical has a good chapter on the show, though some of the book is way off base and there are some pretty silly factual errors in parts of the book.)

Don't people often have to compromise who they are a bit for the sake of their partner's ego? Doesn't everyone usually know that the bigger person is the one making the sacrifice? Including the other person?

And haven't women usually been the ones to do this? In this the script is being realistic. Does portraying reality make something sexist? Or does it say, in this instance, "This is way things are because men are often such morons"?

And it's not as if we really get the sense that Annie's going to bow down to Frank in all things in the future. Her last line makes that quite clear.

And don't we know that Annie will be the bigger star than Frank? He will learn to live with this because he loves her.

The show if anything is feminist. Who does the audience like more, Annie or Frank? Annie. Who do they think is smarter? Annie. Who do they think is the better human being? Annie. And is there any question who is the better shot?

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 2:21am

Read what I wrote nobodyhome. I simply said I prefer the '99 version, nowhere did I say that the other version is sexist.

You're right, that's the sad reality.

But my friend when he saw my show came up with a good moral that I hadn't thought about. Love needs to overcome pride...they both compromise and not just Annie.

I'm not arguing with anything you say. But it's so cute when he misses too--why shouldn't I prefer that?

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 3:10am

Sorry. I did realize that you had only said that you prefer the '99 version, not that you thought the earlier versions were sexist, but I know that my response made it seem otherwise.

I suppose what I feel is that the authors, one of whom was a woman, had a different intention than to show us a thoroughly enlightened Frank at the end. And that that intention was more subtle and left it to the audience to figure out the authors' point of view. And in this instance I would prefer to see the authors' intentions carried out.

LIfe is not always so simple or ideal as it's portrayed in the last revision. And the original shows us the truth of the past (which is still often true today). And those who refuse to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it, so I think it's valuable to audiences to see shows like this performed as originally written.

And I wish that everyone felt that way.

Which I suppose is pretty doctrinaire of me. I should celebrate diversity. I should be happy when people don't agree with me.

After all, life's not always so simple. I must remember that.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 3:20am

Well, I generally see what you're saying, in terms of trying to not make it so PC, etc.

But I don't know, it also can have to do with the fact that I'm playing it in community theatre where I don't feel so many people are going to go learn from it, that I just kind of take it as fun. I really wouldn't go so far as to call Frank "enlightened" at the end, just he too sacrificed his pride for love.

I mean, things are a certain way during times and we have to accept that...when we read Freud it's so frustrating because his theories are sexist due to the time period.

That doesn't mean I don't read it and still be like ulgh stupid time period.

Maybe I'm just not looking at the show that seriously, it seem sto be a show based on fun, and in that respet, I prefer the cuter version ending.

Sure, the ending is ideal, but I guess I consider some of those older shows to be so old-fashioned anyway, that I just assume everyone lives happily ever after at the end and it's all corny, like O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A!

Maybe it's a problem of the times and our ages. I dismiss this show as fluff more so than you do because of the material compared to some of the things I'm used to now and the time it is written.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 3:32am

"I'm an Indian, too" is incredibly racist, and I I hate how people are trying to downplay it as overzealous PC-police ruining their fun. Oh, no...we can't enjoy stereotyping and the portrayal of Native-Americans in a way that makes it ok to laugh at them.

There are times where the the PC movement has gone too far that actually makes it worse and is counter-active. However, I really think some people here are really trying to excuse racism by crying how awful Political correctness is and not trying to understand why they would make the changes that they did. Others, I feel, are only doing it because they want to be a victim too, or that they feel being un-PC is cool...like the new Prada handbag.

It's not as if Annie Get Your Gun was really a masterpiece, story-wise, before the hateful PC-police "butchered" it to make it somewhat watchable now.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 5:10am

It's true, wrq, that I don't dismiss the best of the older shows as fluff, and it may be because I'm a good deal older than you. For me, AGYG is not just a good time, it's about the issues that most anyone who's ever been in a relationship has to deal with. It's about other things, too.

Shows that are light in tone can deal with human issues, and sometimes they do it with more complexity than shows that are overtly serious. I'm sure you know that, I guess you just don't feel that AGYG does do that. For me it gives the audience a good time while also having something on its mind. It doesn't bang the audience over the head with what's on its mind. In some ways I think that a show like this respects our intelligence more than some more "serious" shows do. It trusts that we'll get it.

Reading the script tonight gave me a great appreciation of the brilliance of the original book, especially how it tells us so much so quickly. Really brilliant craftsmanship.

As for "I'm an Indian, Too," VIETgrlTerifa, I view it in the context of the show: as a song sung by a young woman who doesn't know much about Indian culture or life. She's very honored to be inducted into the tribe as Sitting Bull's daughter (and the book makes a point of establishing that everyone views this as a huge honor for Annie), but also rather overwhelmed by everything going on around her and all that's happened to her so quickly on an insanely eventful day. She's trying in her naive and uneducated way to fit in, but she's also perhaps a bit dazed. That's where the comedy comes from, not from making fun of Indian culture. But even if not only the singer but also the songwriter was a little (or more than a little) naive about Indian culture, neither was trying to demean Indian culture.

What I can see people objecting to is the use of what seems to be a partly invented Indian language (though I'm not sure it is invented, it does seem to have at least a few authentic things about it) and what is probably a rather naive attempt to emulate Indian music. Again, I don't see this as racist. I can understand if someone does view it that way, but I don't.

I can see some things in the book that might be viewed as a little racist and to tell the truth I'd have to think about some of those things a bit more. But offsetting that, is it not clear that the smartest character in the show is Sitting Bull? Is not the least sympathetic character, Dolly, also the character who's most demeaning to the Indians?

It was a different time. If you think that Irving Berlin, a Jew, was racist about Indians, you might want read about the kinds of songs that he wrote about Jews:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/fashion/29vaudeville.html?ex=1319778000&en=c943790249fe63ae&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

And FWIW, I think I do believe that AGYG is some kind of masterpiece.