A Sondheim rhyme that bothers me- Page 7

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 11:47pm

Just in you missed it - the person who has made an analogy likening himself to Galileo because he doesn't care for Stephen Sondheim is recommending you lay off the hyperbole.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 11/2/11 at 11:54pm

Gaveston2: I've seen the Kennedy Center "Merrily" and heard a different performance of the same production, seen the '81 run, and heard a recording of the second preview performance, as well as read an early draft script (mostly matching the preview recording) and the revised script. The thing that shocks me about the revised script is simply how much of the dialogue is just sort of bad in a way that not even Raul Esparza could overcome. Everyone always says that the '81 production's issues were the youthful cast, the awful sets, and the confusing concept, but I think it was more a problem of scale. The essential concept, that the kids Frank gives his speech to act out his life in a sort of extra-glamorous high school production, is pretty good, but the high pressures of previewing on Broadway and an audience unwilling to accept such an off-the-wall concept for such high prices meant that the concept came under attack, and when Sondheim returned to the show with Lapine in '85 they essentially buried it entirely, rewriting it as a Musical Comedy - "fast, loud, and funny", obliterating the flashback concept, removing Old Frank's "eureka" moment and with it any chance for character development. Without it the show is just a cautionary tale, and nothing more.

With the concept went the character depths. Out went Charley's activism, out went Mary's troubling melancholy, and in came the trivial "quirks". They're defined by their defining characteristics but they don't really go beyond that. A big issue with the show is that Frank will never, ever be interesting. What's interesting is how his selfish life choices affect his two best friends. His first-act "fingers-wandering-idly" song "Growing Up" is aggravating because, while it's kind of interesting to hear his side of things, it's undermined by his immediate seduction by Gussie's boobs*, which makes him seem really, really shallow. Frank's descent isn't quite believable because they want to have it both ways, they want him to be horrible but they want him to be lovable, so you get that awful line in the first scene: "And not let the people see how much I hate my life, how much I wish the goddamn thing was over?" It's something out of a soap opera.

So it's a paradox. Frank is, and kind of has to be, the main character, but he's relegated to a secondary status by the very nature of the show, which demands that he descend. The attempted workaround was to sort of decriminalize Frank, but that just makes him boring. He's a major asshole in the first act in the preview recording, but that's okay! The focus isn't - and shouldn't be - on him, which is why I like the original "Rich And Happy" sequence so much.

The funny thing (getting, finally, to the topic at hand) is that the change Sondheim and Lapine talk so much about in regards to their updated version is improving the depiction of the friendship triangle, but there wasn't much wrong with it in the preview and broadway run. If there's anything George Furth is good at, it's writing dialogue between people who know each other, and this was exemplified in Merrily. There's a great scene at Frank's pad in the second act between Mary and Frank - she's there before everyone else - where she describes his apartment as that it just needs a neon sign outside "flashing 'with-it, with-it, with-it'". There's a level of blissful comfort in their dialogue that's not found in the revised script, and I think that's the important factor. The revised script feels so tensely written, the dialogue so often seems to be straining in six different directions that, beyond all the other issues, it's just awkward to listen to. It probably says something that the show's best character right now is Gussie.

If I wanted to squish it all down into a neat little epigram, I'd suggest that the show failed for all the wrong reasons and was rewritten in accordance.

*This isn't say that I dislike "Growing Up" - in fact I'm hugely fond of Gussie's first-act version - I just find it a pretty flimsy excuse for sympathy-building, because the ultimate outcome is that it weakens Frank as a character while giving Gussie that much more power. Another issue found: rather than muscling his way to the top and realizing the consequences only too late, Frank is seduced and compromised over and over again. It makes him seem spineless rather than misguided. Updated On: 11/3/11 at 11:54 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 5:59am

To a far far FAR lesser degree, I do think Furth removed some of the personality in his revisions for Company too... I now have to go back to the original script and think about everything you've said, I think there's some truth there.

One problem with the initial production I think was the show Prince and Sondheim (and I assume Furth) set out to make, and the show they made. Especially after reading the Merrily part of Finishing the Hat, the plan was to make a hugely youthful, optimistic, fun show. But (and I've only seen not geat bootlegs of the original production), I don't think that was really the show as created. It deals with heavier issues and is more pessimistic (even if, in reverse, it ends on an uplifting note) than was ever the initial concept. (When Sondheim next teamed up with prince on Bounce I think they had a similar problem of identity, the goal being to do a light vaudeville).

And sory--yeah to be clear I meant the Japanese televised version of the 1976 production of Pacific Overtures. I've never seen Miyamoto's staging.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 12:05pm

"henrik, I believe Eric is referring to the original Broadway production, which for many years circulated on VHS among fans and sold for outrageous prices on eBay before the advent of YouTube, where it now exists in full.

http://www.sondheimguide.com/television.html

See first item under "Part One."

But then I'm sure you already knew this."

Mysterious, I didn't know this, and I'm totally excited about it. Thank you!

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 12:43pm

*hugs*

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 2:04pm

EricMontreal22:

I'm not as intimately familiar with the various versions of Company but I'd love to read Furth's original drafts. I'd still cite Company as an example of a musical with an excellent book because his writing wasn't compromised for its medium, whereas the Merrily revisions are nothing but compromise.

In regards to the original production, you're right, it's not the most uplifting show. Prince et al seemed to confuse ending the evening on an uplifting note with ending the narrative on an uplifting note. Discovering "how did you get to be here?" is interesting but what we really want to know is "where do you go now?", which the revision completely fails to address. The solution is really simple - come back to Old Frank at the end of the show, where he realizes what he's made of his life and what was really, truly important - and I know there was some version of this written into the '81 show towards the end, but the production was such a fiasco that it was overlooked and when the revisions came along it was thrown out like the proverbial bathwater baby. And that sucks, because it would provide the audience with closure, both narrative and emotional.

So the show is stuck as a downbeat cautionary tale. That it ends negatively isn't the issue, it's that it's used in such a flimsy, shallow way. The characters don't really make anything of the evening.

Also, I do really love Merrily, all versions of it - that I'm so critical is only because I love it enough to be frustrated by its mishandling.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 4:38pm

"'Balderdash' is a sight more an 88-year-old's word rather than an 8-year-old's word."

Point taken. But I always picture After Eight as a British child of 1905.

(Sorry, After Eight, couldn't resist. I am just kidding at this point.)

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 4:59pm

Thanks for the very interesting explication, Charley. I haven't done the research you have, but I saw the first and last previews in 1981, and I've read the script. I've worn out one copy of the York Theatre CD and have had to replace it, and I saw the staged reading I mentioned. I basically agree, though I would add that the original Broadway production sank under the weight of too many concepts:

going backwards
high school musical
amateur actors

It was all just too much, even though there were great moments and the young cast wasn't bad, considering. Unfortunately, whenever a concept didn't work, Prince added another layer: costumes with character names on them.

To me, the basic theme is essentially cliche (success corrupts) and the story is one that's been told a hundred times. Running it backwards doesn't make it more original or interesting. And while we're talking, why is it such a crime that Frank eventually becomes a producer rather than a composer? I think shows and films need both.

But running backwards does eliminate that "What will you do next?" question that you rightly say is so important. And it always will. The device may work for Pinter, but I don't think the characters or plot of MERRILY have the same depth.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 5:08pm

"Just in case you missed it - the person who has made an analogy likening himself to Galileo because he doesn't care for Stephen Sondheim is recommending you lay off the hyperbole."

Duly noted, Phyllis, and thanks.
Updated On: 11/3/11 at 05:08 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 5:34pm

I don't think there's any reason to discuss Sondheim (or LaChiusa) with AfterEight. I appreciate his opinion to an extent, but it's started to become like beating a dead horse.

Henrik, that recording of Pacific Overtures is a gem. For years, as mentioned, a bootleg of it has been floating around that was, farnkly, in crappy, close to unwatchable quality, so I was thrilled when I finally got a very watchable, good quality copy, which seems to be what's online now. Apparently Image was interested in releasing it on DVD, but sadly didn't think the money and money to restore it would be worth it (another example of PO being neglected? :P) Anyway, it's great to have one official release, well filmed, of these Prince/Aronson shows.

Charley, it's worth comparing the original script of Company. Again, it's in no way as big a change, but aside from the addition of the "gay scene" (which actually I don't mind and would keep), a lot of the rest has been toned down--Joanne is FAR FAR less abrasive in the revival, details are changed, etc. I rpefer the original, though I don't have a big problem with the revised one either (it's less of an issue for met han say, with Follies). The original Company libretto is pretty easy to find (I was surprised that my old university, which ahs a decent theatre department but zero musical theatre, had both the current and original published scripts) unlike Merrily which I believe wasn't published until the revised version, and it's worth comparing. http://www.sondheim.com/commentary/company_rewritten_1.html article also lists most of the changes.

Anyway, I love Merrily too, and have always thought the revised version plays better (I've only seen the original thanks to bootlegs, but did see a VERY good production of the revised version, which maybe played a part. Although I have to say, while I thought it was an amazing production, many in the audience who didn't knwo the work still seemed mixed or confused by it). But your argument is starting to change my mind as you bring up great point--and I do prefer the OBCR to listen to.

(I'll admit that some changes did make sense--Rich and Happy was seen as a bit too superficial, even with the choreographed mass cocaine snorting written into the music, but it makes sense when it's shown as these high school kids re-enacting his life, and probably is too glib when that framework is removed--although I tend to want to sing Rich and Happy over That Frank when I'm playing it).

Gaveston I think the reason it's seen as a crime that Frank becomes a producer is he's lost touch with his true "talent" or something, but I do agree it's feeble. that said, I DO think telling the story backwards is effective, and when done right it does keep audiences more interested (And of course to us Sondheim geeks, it gives a great chance to have Sondheim write his score essentially backwards).

As Charley says and I was trying to less eloquently say, I think the trouble with the original productionw as a disconnect--I should re-read the opening of the Merrily part of FTHat, but that's when it really made sense to me, even if Sondheim doesn't spell it out--the reasons they wanted to do the show, and their original concept, simply didn't jibe with the show as written. I do agree the Hills of Tomorrow framework at least does restore some hope or optimism at the end, and it did show Old Frank kinda realizing what he lost after seeing the kids perform his life. But still...

(When my sister, with no background with the show, saw the revised version--she loved it, though as I think Charley mentioned her favorite character probably was Gussie, lol--but she did immediately comment on how damn *sad* it was, and I really don't think any of the writers realized that that would be the reaction of audiences).

Of course there weere superficial problems--poor Eugene Lee and his sets which, at least on that poor quality video, truly were ugly (I don't mind the tshirt costume concept as it worked with the kids framework, on the other hand). Prince should have gone with his original instinct of an Our Town bare stage or something.

They also fired at the last minute the original choreographer, who by all accounts was doing fine work and was not a problem(I could have this backwards but Ron Field, who did awesome work with Cabaret and Zorba was replaced with Larry Fuller, who did some great movement for Evita). Hal Prince has said he often moves away from dance because he can't stage it himself, and he likes to have control, but maybe Merrily needed more than just the couple of dance breaks (mainly Now You Know) to make it even more stylized. Or not. But...

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 6:25pm

"I don't think there's any reason to discuss Sondheim (or LaChiusa) with AfterEight. I appreciate his opinion to an extent, but it's started to become like beating a dead horse. "

And what horse are you beating, Eric? And your confrères? Seems pretty cadaverous to me.

But you go on being just the way you are. Like that song says in Maggie Flynn, (far more enjoyable than Merrily, Company, Follies, and the rest), "I Wouldn't Have You Any Other Way."

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 6:28pm

Eric, without knowing your sister, I will speculate that the overwhelming "sadness" she is talking about is the inevitable result of the going backwards. MERRILY (in every version) is two hours of dramatic irony: at every turn, the viewer knows that these characters' hopes aren't going to be realized.

My memory of "The Hills of Tomorrow" was that it was chilling, not inspiring. Absolutely gorgeous, mind you, but all the more distressing for its beauty. And nothing they tacked on at the end gave me any hope for Frank and his friendships (those friendships being the only thing in the plot about which I cared).

It's true that some of us enjoy analyzing the way Sondheim goes backward, with the modular composition and the reprises preceding the songs, etc. But obviously that's a highly specialized appeal.

I think your sister got it right.

As I said, I saw the first and last previews and at the latter I really thought they had "fixed" everything that was fixable without really improving much. Firing a choreographer was just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as the saying goes.

***

As for After Eight, I'd be more sensitive to a charge of jumping on the bandwagon if I hadn't been memorizing and savoring Sondheim lyrics since a day when my peers were still debating Bob Dylan v. The Beatles, and New York critics were divided between the camps of the two Jerries, Herman and Ragni. I can't help it if Frank Rich built a bandwagon underneath me.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 6:49pm

ha, sorry AfterEight--I actually agree with many of your (non Sondheim/LaChiusa probably someone else too) posts, it's just when I see your name in one of these threads I pretty much know what you'll say (and yes, you probably do know what I'll say too). Maggie Flynn though? Serious? LOL

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 6:57pm

" I can't help it if Frank Rich built a bandwagon underneath me."

Isn't it about time you got off it?

One can excuse the follies of youth. At your stage of life, one expects more seasoned-- and reasoned -- judgment.

I'm not usually an immodest person, but in this instance, I do take pride in accurately assessing his work from the very springtime of my years.

Oh, and or the record, I do not hate Sondheim's work. I dislike a great deal of it, but I like some of it. What I find appalling is the ludicrous overpraise it has received.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 7:48pm

You may find it ludicrous, After Eight; what I don't get is why it makes you so angry.

I mean, if you don't like Sondheim's work, why spend so much time--why spend any time--in threads about it?

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 7:48pm

After Eight, if you were ever to become capable of discussing Sondheim reasonably, you would find that I am not the sort of theater queen who finds him infallible.

But insisting that TENDERLOIN and MAGGIE FLYNN are superior to some of Sondheim's most skillful shows is so silly, there's really nothing rational to be said in response.

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 8:04pm

Try to avoid offensive terms like "theatre queen."

And Tenderloin is so far superior to anything Sondheim has ever written, that there is no need for a response. And I certainly don't want one from you.

It's like comparing a diamond to a lump of coal.

[pinoyidol2006]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 8:18pm

Oddly enough, I love "Color and Light" whenever I watch it. I just can't listen to it by itself. I don't like the lyrics.

Updated On: 11/3/11 at 08:18 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 8:32pm

HA I love that GIF

"And Tenderloin is so far superior to anything Sondheim has ever written, that there is no need for a response. And I certainly don't want one from you."

Your powers of debate positively blow my mind.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/3/11 at 10:00pm

After Eight, I'm sorry you are so unable to rise above your internalized homophobia.

I'm fine with the term "theater queen", a term which even GLEE-watching teens can understand, and will use it when and where I please.

And arguing that TENDERLOIN is better than Sondheim's best work is either facetious or insane. Even Sheldon Harnick would agree.

But I see that it is impossible to be civil with you and that's good to know.
Updated On: 11/3/11 at 10:00 PM

[morosco]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 2:02pm

Merrily We Roll Along "Rich and Happy"- Cutting capers. All my life I thought the lyric was about chopping up spices that would go into a dish being served at a party. But cutting capers really means to engage in brief frolics, romps, or frantic, ridiculous dances.


And on the covers of magazines
And in the columns and on the screens
And giving interviews,
Being photographed,
Making all the important scenes,
And —
At the parties cutting capers,
And on the talk shows and in the papers
And unbelievably
Happy, too!

Talk about your piece of Mahler's! lol

[marknyc]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 2:22pm

MichaelBennett wrote:

"I was always bothered by Oscar Hammerstein's line in SOUTH PACIFIC: "Flatly, I'll stand on my little flat feet and say..."

How about this line from "Cockeyed Optimist":

"...and appear more intelligent and smart."

Aren't they the same thing?

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 2:42pm

Surely the point of that line from Cockeyed Optimist is that she's not the shiniest penny in the till and wants to sound intelligent and smart and clever and wise and sage and lots of other words?

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 6:46pm

marknyc, I'm repeating myself because we discussed that lyric many pages ago here. (I'm not blaming you for not reading all of them.)

Sondheim agrees with you and believes "intelligent and smart" is an obvious and painful redundancy.

Myself, I think Nellie means "intelligent" as in possessing a high i.q., and "smart" as in hip, clever, avant garde. (But, then, I've also assumed "bromidic" was just something people said in the 1940s.)

In fairness to Sondheim, the semantic distinction I'm attributing to Hammerstein would be hard for an audience to catch at the tempo of that song. It's something I thought of only after growing up knowing the lyric.

So even if my understanding is what Hammerstein intended, one could still argue that the lyric is unclear in performance.
Updated On: 12/14/11 at 06:46 PM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/14/11 at 9:33pm

I was asked to design MERRILY by a company in New Jersey, and the director and I spent many an hour trying to figure out how best to approach this thing. We didnt succeed any more than anyone else, I think, but having worked with it so much now, I can sorta/kinda see where Prince wanted to go with it.

Bearing in mind that it's based on an old Kaufmann and Hart play that runs backwards in time, I get the impression that everyone involved fell in love more with the conceit than anything else. And it *is* a great conceit, when you think about it: taking a man's life and peeling back one layer after another after another until you come to that "anything is possible" moment in life. But that's so cinematic in nature that it almost seems like a doomed project from the start.

When we worked on it, we played with turntables and projections that would visually propel the audience deeper into the set, and that pretty well worked, I'm happy to say. But we just couldnt get past that book, which takes on far more years in time than the K/H original. I was hoping that it might have had something of a "Memento" style structure, with each scene built on the detrius of the one following, but nope.

A problematic script, to be sure. Maybe it needs Harry Connick in the main role.