Amanda Dehnert's ANNIE

I was going to post this to Ivo Van Hove thread, but it's been locked...I was fascinated by the "It was all a dream" Annie and had to Google it. Not only did it actually happen, Martin Charnin got wind of it, flew in, and made them cut it out.

I don't have any moral objection to what Amanda Dehnert did, I just find it hilarious that she tried go all "serious theatre artist" with friggin' Annie.

https://nypost.com/2003/06/13/annie-go-get-your-gun/

Strauss liked it enough to specifically want to work with Dehnert on his next project after.

Exactly. When I direct a Shakespeare play, I will cut the hell out of it, reorder scenes, combine or eliminate characters, and make all sorts of self-indulgent directorial choices. However, when I'm doing a licensed property, you really have to just do the damn show - especially something like Annie where everyone is coming in with their kids expecting the same thing they've seen before. Some plays are meant to be like McDonald's, where you get what you've ordered 100 times before - and that's okay.

Well, I actually really like McDonald's.

I agree with you about supporting the intention of the work. If you are doing Shakespeare or the Greeks, you often have to "do something" with it to bridge the gap between the centuries, but if you try to make, say, A Midsummer Night's Dream a serious commentary on the nature of love, it's not going to work. It was clearly written to be a silly comedy, and should be performed as such.

However, generally speaking, the "younger" a play or musical is, the less "help" it needs, provided it was well-written to begin with. Maybe in the year 2400, Annie will need to be "reinvented," but it seems to do just fine on its own merits for right now. And even then, it should still be a heartwarming, family-friendly musical comedy. That's the DNA of the piece and trying to change that is just pointless - not to mention insulting to the authors and to the ticket buyers.

It was fifteen years ago that this production happened, but since it was brought up, I thought it was worth discussing. Anyway...

I've always been fascinated by this production. Directors often add framing devices to pieces and no issue is usually brought up if no text is changed, and this didn't change a single word of the script. But this framing device seems like it didn't serve to contextualize but to contradict. Part of the project of the text is to inspire the audience (particularly young girls) that through compassion and optimism, they have the power to change the world around them. What does this production say about that? I guess I am more curious how exactly the added scene was played--I've typically heard it describe as a harsh, upsetting yanking back into reality, but in the article The Distinctive Baritone linked to, Dehnert describes Annie as being hopeful in the final scene, believing that what she dreamed was possible. I can't tell if that's honestly how it was intended or if that's just something said in defense after the fact.

On a related note, David Cromer has publicly said several times that he would love to direct a production of Annie. Apparently he was up for the 2012 Broadway revival before the producers ultimately decided to go with James Lapine. Cromer's take would be another production I'd be really curious to see.

The Distinctive Baritone said: "I was going to post this to Ivo Van Hove thread, but it's been locked...I was fascinated by the "It was all a dream"Annieand had to Google it. Not only did it actually happen, Martin Charnin got wind of it, flew in, and made them cut it out.

I don't have any moral objection to what Amanda Dehnert did, I just find it hilarious that she tried go all "serious theatre artist" with friggin'Annie.

https://nypost.com/2003/06/13/annie-go-get-your-gun/

"

Dehnert's explanation makes no sense - there is a difference between an abandoned or empty theatre and an orphanage. Would an audience really mistake the two? And what does Annie do to make it hopeful? Just smile? Sing another chorus of Tomorrow but change "tomorrow" into "today"? Get up from her seat and take a proud Matilda like stance? Pulls out a red wig from her bag and puts it on? You can't have Daddy Warbucks enter the scene and smile at her, because that could appear rather creepy.

^ Didn't Trinity's West Side use some of that chalkboard surface as a running scoreboard for the Jets and Sharks as well? (Warwick resident, and frequent Providence visitor, here.)

If memory serves, that was probably pretty helpful to anyone confused in the audience, considering both gangs were played by mixed-race performers (and the girl playing Anybodys doubled as a Shark girl)...

Thanks for the nightmares, Distinctive Baritone...Lol

The 1st half of that NY Post article had me rolling. The salt, man...you could season a steak dinner with it. I will say this much- for whatever course her life takes, Ms. Dehnert has solidified her place in theatre lore. And isn't that half the battle we face as artists?!

ColorTheHours048 said: "How is it masturbatory? If you’ve ever seen a production by Amanda Dehnert, you know how thrilling it is. In particular, her Fantasticks and Edwin Drood (both at Trinity) are very, very strong highlights of my theatregoing. She loves a high concept, yes, but she deploys it expertly."

Peter Brook's Midsummer Night's Dream was high concept. Amanda Dehnert's Annie was just silly and insulting. Brook understood the skeleton of the play and how it could be exposed in a new way. Dehnert wanted Annie to be something it manifestly is not -- the opposite of what it is, in fact. And, as the saying goes, "the first requirement for a revisionist production is a dead playwright." Martin Charnin was and is very much alive, luckily for Annie. I believe you are mistaking a bold but foolish and sophomoric experiment for a revelatory conceptual discovery. Annie simply doesn't say what Dehnert wanted it to say, and so both came off looking bad.