What Musical Should Be Doyle-ified?

[SirNotAppearing]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 9:56pm

With Company and Sweeney under his belt, what musical do you think John Doyle should take on next and have the actors play their own instruments? What show do you think that would work best for?

I think it might be good for Rent.

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:00pm

the RENT part is a joke, right?

well he Doyleified MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG in England. It was fairly successful. I'm not sure if they're keeping it like that for the 2009 Roundabout revival but I'm excited... even though I'm getting so terribly sick of it.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:06pm

No more please. I really don't like the actors as musicians concept. It completely detracts from the show and takes me out of the story.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:09pm

I always thought Hair could work with this approach.

[heathurrr]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:11pm

"I'm not sure if they're keeping it like that for the 2009 Roundabout revival"

As much as I LOVED Doyle's Company I'm really looking forward to Merrily, and I would be less excited if they did the actors as musicians thing. But isn't Lapine directing?
Anyway, I think that Doyle should quit while he's ahead. Company worked, leave it at that. I wouldn't want to see his inventive idea getting worn out.

Updated On: 6/12/08 at 10:11 PM

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:16pm

Li'l Abner?

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:16pm

heather - thanks for reminding me. yes. Lapine is directing. it's a totally different revival.

I've only heard good things about Doyle's production of it, though. MERRILY would work with instruments... the show revolves around songwriters.

I did not like Doyle's COMPANY. I enjoyed the concept with SWEENEY more. But enough is enough!

I don't think people even realize that this concept was created because of a musician's strike in the early 90's (I believe?) in England. Doyle wanted to continue putting out musicals, so he just forced the actors to play the instruments.

Perhaps someone else can give a more detailed history of this concept. But I just thought I'd share that.

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:18pm

I think it's unfair to say "Doyle-fied." He's not the first director to use the actor-musician concept, and he's only used it for a fraction of all the shows he's directed in his career. It's anything but "his inventive idea."

But, to answer the question, I would have liked to have seen how he did "Fiddler On the Roof." I think before he does another actor-musician show, he should do another more traditionally-directed piece to remind people that he is not a one-trick pony. Maybe he can take his version of "Fiddler" to a regional theatre for a while. Not to Broadway of course, the last revival was enough for a while, but if it did pop up somewhere in the country, I'd try to see it.

[heathurrr]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:20pm

I thought I read somewhere Doyle did it with Sweeney because he couldn't afford the full orchestra it needed?

EDIT -
"This was a gimmick Doyle came up with in his revival of Sweeney Todd, another Sondheim show, and though it started from economic necessity -- he didn't have the budget for an orchestra -- it was so well-received by critics that he's doing it again for Company. "
from: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20061009_134165_134165&source=srch

Updated On: 6/12/08 at 10:20 PM

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:26pm

heathurr is correct. "Forced the actors to play instruments"? Hardly. Below are some excerpts from an interview he did just before Company opened in Cincinnati:

"It grew out of economic necessity. I was working at a regional theatre in the early 1990s where we couldn't afford an orchestra. In those early days, performers sat with their music stands, got up and acted and sat down again. The music and the scenes weren't integrated. What I've tried to do is to be more honest with it as a story-telling form. Now we don't differentiate between naturalism and a slightly anarchic way of storytelling. It's been a long evolution. It's not just about how many rules you can break — it's what you can do to take traditional structures and challenge them without negating or devaluing the original material."

"My approach creates a great ensemble. It gets back to what theatre is all about; it gets back to why people perform. The honesty of the relationship between the actor and the audience is key: We're telling you this story. We're not pretending. We're all in the same place at the same time. We want to break through the fourth wall. We're actually here together, the actors and the audience. It's back to basics — people are attracted to the simplicity and the honesty of the storytelling. I always say, "Let's go to the beginning of the story. Let's look at how the choices we make can best inform the story." It was a great challenge to me to find clarity in the story. That's my job, bottom line. That's what I do for a living: I'm a storyteller."


Full Interview

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:29pm

The creation of the "concept" as we know it was the result of financial constraints. It had nothing to do with a musician's strike. He had done it with several other shows throughout his career before it went high profile with Sweeney, but this is the first I've heard of it being due to a strike at all. Where did you hear that's why it was created? And you can't "just force" your actors to play instruments. They have to know how; they have to be musicians. Do you have any idea the level of skill of his performers?

I can provide a more detailed "history" if anyone is legitimately interested.

Doyle's Fiddler had a kind of wacky historical concept to it, a lot of which was in very unconventional costuming... I wish I could remember the specifics, but apparently it wasn't very well-received.

To consider his work no more than just a "concept" is to unjustly diminish the complexity, intricacy, and frankly, f-ing genius of what he does. It's far, far more than that.

Updated On: 6/12/08 at 10:29 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:30pm

SweeneyPhanatic, I love that interview. I didn't realize it was online, but it's great.

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:44pm

luvtheEmcee, I actually would like to hear the more detailed history you offered. Please share.

[misschung]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:46pm

He did Fiddler with that conceit? That's something I'd like to see.

Updated On: 6/12/08 at 10:46 PM

[heathurrr]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:51pm

"luvtheEmcee, I actually would like to hear the more detailed history you offered. Please share."

I second that.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 10:52pm

I'm blanking on whether Fiddler had actor-musicians or not. I'm pretty sure it did... I'll check.

And sure, I'll actually just PM you in a little while. Is that cool?

ETA: Or I guess I'll post it.

Updated On: 6/12/08 at 10:52 PM

[heathurrr]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 11:01pm

Whatever works best for you, emcee!

[Jon]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 11:07pm

I like the opposite concept. Instead of having the principal actors play instruments, have the some of the orchestra members function as an ADDITIONAL part of the ensemble in scenes where it would make sense to have musicians on stage. For instance, in MY FAIR LADY, there could be street musicians (buskers) in Covent Garden, A formally dressed chamber group playing at the ball, some musicians in the pub for "Get me to the Church On Time", etc. Obviously, there would be no onstage musicians in Higgins' apartment.

[philly03]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 11:10pm

I don't really like this concept at all. Even if you didn't like the way it was done with Sweeney, the cast was too great not to like it.

[VonTussleGirl]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 11:27pm

I'm with Emcee on this the whole way - there's so much thought that goes into this style of direction. It's not just a concept.

And I'd personally like to see A Little Night Music and Assassins done with actor-musicians, partially because characters in both shows already play instruments (Hinkley, and in some productions the Balladeer in Assassins and Henrik in ALNM).

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 6/12/08 at 11:33pm

He is NOT a one trick pony. He's also done A Catered Affair and is doing Bounce, and I'm sure he's done many more without the concept.

I also take issue with calling it a gimmick. I think calling it a style of direction is much more dignified. It may be new, but I wouldn't call it a gimmick.

And I would like to see A Little Night Music done that way just because that was the original concept, to have the actors play the instruments. Maybe not for a full scale revival because the show hasn't been seen on Broadway in so long, I'd love to see a recreation revival (taped please!) as well.

[Patash]

Posted: 6/13/08 at 12:33am

He also did Mack and Mabel that way in London. It was the first staged production of Mack and Mabel I've really enjoyed. I thought it worked well, despite that it wasn't a fantastic cast.

After seeing Sweeney Todd and enjoying it, I really thought that Company would work even better. I'm not sure why, but when I saw it I actually thought it worked less well than Sweeney Todd.

[little_sally]

Posted: 6/13/08 at 12:37am

If he had to do it again, I'd love to see what he could do with Into the Woods.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/13/08 at 12:44am

He also, before Sweeney, used instruments in Cabaret and Pal Joey, whose plots both lend themselves to allowing it to feel pretty natural anyway. I think he also did it with Candide?

The Lincoln Center library has a video of a panel discussion/moderated interview he did along with Mano Felciano and Mary-Mitchell Campbell in the summer of 2006, called "An Evening With John Doyle." It's really informative, and goes beyond Sweeney and Company, into his background and general philosophy, etc. It's worth checking out if you're interested in his work.

heathurrr and SweeneyPhanatic, I'll just PM both of you. I don't want to bore everybody else. I'll do it tomorrow, though, I'm about to fall asleep.

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 6/13/08 at 12:48am

Awesome! Now I've got something to read tomorrow!