Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit
Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#0
Posted: 1/5/06 at 8:32am
I've been reading "Stephen Sondheim, A Life" of the many biographies of this great man. Here's an interesting anecdote which occured in the try-outs of Anyone Can Whistle.
Apparently a dancer (his name escapes my lips) was sanctioned to dance down-stage, but was blinded by the headlights. He tripped into the string section of the orchestra and caused such a shock that the person he landed on had a stroke and died. Also, someone else suffered a heart-attack (but I haven't fully read it). I know a lot about theatre stories, and have read most of them over the years, but this was pretty new to me. I've never known of any Broadway show where this kind of stuff happens. But eeek...
Also, the golden rule of previews was broken for Merrily we Roll Along. It ruined the show forever, because the audience dismissed it. How dare they. With all its faults it wouldn't have fared as bad as it did if that critic had just shut her mouth.
But anyway...
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/26/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#1
Posted: 1/5/06 at 8:41amTucker Smith (Ice in the West Side Story film), is the dancer who fell into the pit in Philadelphia.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#2
Posted: 1/5/06 at 8:43am
Is he still alive? Has he ever spoken about this in any form of media? The poor guy. Imagine what he would have went through
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/26/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#3
Posted: 1/5/06 at 8:52am
He died in the '80s.
Also, I know the actor playing Schub died, and was replaced by Gabriel Dell, but I forget the original actor's name.
The original Merrily was a very problematic production. Even with the columnist that wrote about it during previews (which I believe was Liz Smith), word of mouth was so bad on it, the reviews were inevitable. Having seen the second to the last performance, the score absolutely landed, but it was an ugly looking production and the youth of the cast really did work against Act One.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#4
Posted: 1/5/06 at 9:34am
Would hell have to freeze for these shows to be revived on Bway?
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/27/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#5
Posted: 1/5/06 at 10:16am
Yes. MERRILY doesn't work, period. Never did, never will.
Daisy Gamble
New York, New York
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/26/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#6
Posted: 1/5/06 at 10:25am
I think, despite its many fascinations, a revival of Anyone Can Whistle would be a Broadway flop, and I'm not sure the authors would like to see it back on Broadway, although they had tinkered with the material fairly recently.
I have to think that Merrily will definitely be tried again on Broadway some day. I think the revised version is a very satisfying show, and I thought it played like gangbusters recently in Washington. (A friend that accompanied me, who is not much of a theatre fan absolutely burst into tears about 20 minutes after the end of the show when we were on the street, because he was reminded of his own life, and friends he no longer sees). If critics can cut the show a little slack and say that the show works well enough now to support its score and provide a worthy evening, instead of focusing on the things that are still a little problematic about the show (who cares about the problems of rich, attractive people anyway?), I think the show could work. Certainly, Roundabout should give it a try.
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/25/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#7
Posted: 1/5/06 at 11:10amAn old trumpet player playing in a pit (show and location escapes me) went for a high note at the end of a song and dropped dead.
Featured Actor Joined: 3/22/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#8
Posted: 1/5/06 at 11:16am
Merrily certainly did well in London during its revival at the Donmar - it won three Oliviers including Best Musical.
ACW on the other hand - whilst it has many wonderful moments it's a bit confused as to what its objective is.
Updated On: 1/5/06 at 11:16 AM
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/18/03
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#9
Posted: 1/5/06 at 11:30am
Anyone Can Whistle has a book by Arthur Laurents who has an ego the size of Ohio. In order for that show to begin to work, the book needs major overhauling and he won't do much and won't let anyone else either.
Merrily is a heartbreaker. It is a show that every theatre fan wants to work and it just won't. The structural problem is the told-in-reverse book. When we first meet these people they are bitter, estranged and burned out. It isn't until well into the show that we begin to like them. That's too late. I saw the original plus recent productions in DC and The Shaw Festival and that has been the largest problem each time.
We all on these boards live in a rarified Show Afficiado's world where we can get past these flaws. Most audiences can't or won't do that. It is that audience reaction that killed both of these shows.
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#10
Posted: 1/5/06 at 1:18pm
Everyone says Merrily doesn't work, but when I did it, people LOVED it. I think it's a matter of timing. They did a revival 10 years ago so hell doesn't have to freeze over. As a matter of fact, Roundabout was considering it for a long time as the next Sondheim in their canon of shows. I find it interesting that the English audiences tend to accept Sondheim's work a lot easier than Americans.
Like was stated above, WHistle needs a new book. I did that show too (with a member of the original pit in Philly) and people were perplexed and just didn't get it. There's too much confusion going on in it. Sondheim thinks it's dated. To a point it is, but we still have these racial, sexist, leftist discrimination so, I'm not so sure about it. I think it fares best in concert setting. I really don't think it can be fully relooked at until Laurents dies.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/27/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#11
Posted: 1/5/06 at 1:41pm
The structure of the show self-destructs. We're expected to become involved in this cynical story of unsympathetic characters and follow them backwards into their salad days. And the book mistakes bitchy, camp attitudes for dialogue and characterization. There is simply no compelling reason for the audience to stick along for the ride (and by audience I don't mean theater bunnies, Sondheim aficionados or other fringe elements but the audience-at-large).
Finally, though the score has its lovely moments and contains one of Sondheim's best ballads, it simply doesn't work in the theater. I've seen the show in several incarnations and it isn't until OLD FRIENDS that an audience responds with any enthusiasm. By that time a sense of diminished expectations has set in and the rest of the score plays to general indifference.
"If critics can cut the show a little slack..."
Which is the antithesis of distinguished criticism.
"...and say that the show works well enough now to support its score..."
Which means it doesn't work at all.
"...instead of focusing on the things that are still a little problematic about the show..."
Which is the whole point of criticism.
A show best left on the shelf.
Jerusha Bromley
Walpole, Massachusetts
Updated On: 1/5/06 at 01:41 PM
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/23/03
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#12
Posted: 1/5/06 at 1:51pm
When someone hates everything, it's a little difficult to care what they think about a show though.
I saw the Donmar revival of Merrily and loved every minute of it. As the film Irreversible proves, sometimes following a story backwards can have more of an impact than going forwards. Seeing these broken, ruined people (who I didn't find unsympathetic) and then tracing them back through their youthful ideals made it all the more wrenching, I thought.
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#13
Posted: 1/5/06 at 3:10pm
From personal experience, some audiences to stick. I think it's a show that people will get soon enough. As far as the score goes, That Frank and Franklin Shepard Inc. are def crowd pleasers. Franklin Shepard Inc. is actually a tour de force for the right performer. It really depends on how you look at theatre. I was intrigued by this piece when I first was introduced to it. I WANTED to see how these people got so jaded. That was my reason for sticking around.
I'm interested in knowing why you think this score doesn't work in the theatre. What about it doesn't work?
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/27/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#14
Posted: 1/5/06 at 4:48pm
When I say it doesn't 'work,' I mean it doesn't land with audiences. Here's why:
The whole opening sequence through the end of RICH AND FAMOUS is overly verbose, unnecessarily complicated and unsatisfying. The audience always sits on its hands. Then it's followed by LIKE IT WAS which is a dull and uninteresting song with a rather banal lyrics. FRANKLIN SHEPHARD, INC, I grant you, can liven things up a bit if the performer can put it across but it's still essentially a character turn and musically of secondary interest (with a hint of the less-appealing gnarly, dissonant style to come in SITPWG, etc). Finally, OLD FRIENDS gives the audience something to hang on to--a universal sentiment and catchy tune. The high point of the score NOT A DAY GOES BY is, of course, sheer bliss--but due to the unworkable book, it's simply hard to care for these characters. Act One closes with NOW YOU KNOW, another uninteresting clinker. IT'S A HIT! is a good song but again, does the audience identify with the situation? GOOD THING GOING's lyric has always seemed gimmicky and unfelt to me. And there is something musically about it that I find off-putting and ,not too surprisingly, I find a lot of other people don't care for it either (however I can appreciate the fact that it, like other passages in the score, is a development of THE HILLS OF TOMORROW). JACKIE AND JACK, clever, but a throwaway. OPENING DOORS I personally like a lot. OUR TIME, wistful yes, but plays very weakly in the theater--too little, too late, I'd imagine.
I've always felt MERRILY was a transitional score for Sondheim between his great middle period (COMPANY through SWEENEY TODD) and his third, more astringent period (SITPWG through PASSION). It seems a workmanlike, if well-crafted, effort but an uninspired one, as if it were written out of obligation (or the desire for a popular hit) rather than passion. Finally, I think Tunick's brilliant orchestrations go a long way in making the score seem more vital and vibrant than it really is and, combined with the excellent sound recording, make the CD a fun listening experience. But in the end, a cast recording is ancillary to the show and should not be confused with seeing the show live in a theater.
Charlie Kringas
Miami Beach, Florida (retired)
Featured Actor Joined: 3/22/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#15
Posted: 1/5/06 at 5:10pm
"When I say it doesn't 'work,' I mean it doesn't land with audiences"
God knows - how many happy audiences I have sat with that this partcular musical has been well and truly landed. As ever you write nonsense. Oh by the way, it's great that you don't know the playing version of the show.
Maybe you should be more discriminating over the people with whom you spend time in dark rooms or theatres.
Sir Noel Coward
Ebury Street
London
Updated On: 1/5/06 at 05:10 PM
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/27/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#16
Posted: 1/5/06 at 11:57pm
"God knows - how many happy audiences I have sat with that this partcular (sic) musical has been well and truly landed."
Apparently, not enough to make it worthwhile.
"Oh by the way, it's great that you don't know the playing version of the show."
Darling, I used the running order as it appears on the RCA original cast recording since none of the subsequent revisions make a bit of difference. But you're right about one thing--judging from your 'nonsense', I should be more discriminating about whom I respond to in the future. See ya!
Gertrude Lawrence
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#17
Posted: 1/6/06 at 12:25am
I've definitely never heard Sunday in the Park With George described as gnarly. I think people should be careful with the connections they draw between cynicism and sympathy. Cynical characters probably deserve their sympathy most of all if they are so quickly dismissed in favor of peppier, happier people. Also, I think most of us have a lot more in common with the universal ideas cynical people express than with the simple minded cartoon happiness of people like Tracy Turnblad or somesuch character (although I'm all for equality, overweight and afrotastic). Merrily We Roll Along and Sunday in the Park With George have always struck me as Sondheim at his most autobiographical slash artful slash why are these titles so freaking long? I suppose that's a credit to his ego that it took him so long in his career to get really self reflective. What are your feelings about Into the Woods, Hunter? It's hardly astringent. I wouldn't classify any of those shows as astringent (in comparison to Sweeney Todd, you find Sunday astringent?!), but to each their own. I can point you to some much more acerbic writers if you'd like to see what really cutting sarcasm is like. There's this guy named Sartre. He wrote this play about these people who have no eyelids. That's just mean.
I think until you support them better Hunter, your reasons for why the songs don't work are opinions, same as other people's, so let's all be slightly less bitchy. I'm perfectly willing to read your forthcoming essay but others might not be : But time has told that the shows did not work. Nostalgia and time have given the shows more of an audience, and tastes have changed. But Broadway doesn't really support that kind of experimentation anymore (unless you fund it yourself I guess), especially on something that already failed, so we'll just have to leave it up to history, regional theater, and our shiny golden cast recordings, won't we?
Didn't Harry Guardino die before the Whistle finished its short run? I can't remember, but I've always had a fondness for him because we nearly have the same last name. Unless I have it wrong. I'm not good at trivia.
joey
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/27/05
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#18
Posted: 1/6/06 at 12:43am
"I've definitely never heard Sunday in the Park With George described as gnarly."
Sondheim's less-appealing style post-Merrily is certainly more dense, dissonant, chromatic and, melodically, less memorable (due to his verbosity) . Hence, 'gnarly.'
"I think people should be careful with the connections they draw between cynicism and sympathy. Cynical characters probably deserve their sympathy most of all if they are so quickly dismissed in favor of peppier, happier people. Also, I think most of us have a lot more in common with the universal ideas cynical people express than with the simple minded cartoon happiness of people like Tracy Turnblad or somesuch character (although I'm all for equality, overweight and afrotastic)."
Agreed. The difference, however, is how the characters are presented and that the audience is made to CARE about them. Not love, even, just understand. Jimmy Porter in LOOK BACK IN ANGER is a malcontent and a bastard and yet we identify with his plight and unhappiness because we understand him. Lord knows, we are even made to sympathize if not empathize with SWEENEY TODD! Who among us has not known injustice and feelings of revenge? Hence, its power. But the audience is never allowed to emotionally invest in the MERRILY characters for all the reasons I stated in my first post.
"Merrily We Roll Along and Sunday in the Park With George have always struck me as Sondheim at his most autobiographical slash artful slash why are these titles so freaking long? I suppose that's a credit to his ego that it took him so long in his career to get really self reflective."
I don't know but Sondheim has claimed SITPWG is not autobiography, that he was just writing the character. Which could be true but I think SS can be defensive and/or modest and on occasion, obscurantist. In the end, he has been the progenitor of only two projects: SWEENEY TODD and PASSION. The rest were brought to him.
"What are your feelings about Into the Woods, Hunter? It's hardly astringent."
Sure it is. Another score that required a lot of tolerance in the theater and among my least favorite Sondheims.
"I wouldn't classify any of those shows as astringent (in comparison to Sweeney Todd, you find Sunday astringent?!), but to each their own."
SWEENEY TODD is a fountain of lyricism compared to the meandering, aleatoric SITPWG (which has its moments, but also has its longeurs).
"I think until you support them better Hunter, your reasons for why the songs don't work are opinions, same as other people's, so let's all be slightly less bitchy."
Roninjoey, when an audience applauds tepidly or barely at all after a number designed to get a hand, it's not working. Period. That's not opinion, that's fact and there can be many reasons for it. Whether it's THE WOMAN IN WHITE (which I endured tonight) or MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG is irrelevant. And, for the record, you may notice that I usually keep my comments limited to the topic at hand unless I am addressed by another poster or can't tolerate the sheer nonsense of what's been posted. But if bitchy is what they give, bitchy is what they gonna get.
"I'm perfectly willing to read your forthcoming essay but others might not be : But time has told that the shows did not work. Nostalgia and time have given the shows more of an audience, and tastes have changed. But Broadway doesn't really support that kind of experimentation anymore (unless you fund it yourself I guess), especially on something that already failed, so we'll just have to leave it up to history, regional theater, and our shiny golden cast recordings, won't we?"
And some shows are simply duds and should remain where they are. RIP.
"Didn't Harry Guardino die before the Whistle finished its short run? I can't remember, but I've always had a fondness for him because we nearly have the same last name. Unless I have it wrong. I'm not good at trivia."
Heavens no. Harry didn't leave us till the mid-90's, I believe.
Amelie Helie
Belleville, Paris
Updated On: 1/6/06 at 12:43 AM
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#19
Posted: 1/6/06 at 12:49am
After listening to the cast recording of Merrily for years, I finally saw a staged performance by the Gallery Players in Park Slope in May of '04 and then again this autumn at NYU. As a Sondheim afficionado and Broadway Bunny of the first order, I grant that I am not a useful guide to the response of the broader audience. Any familiarity with the score and the lyrics eliminates the possibility that one would be indifferent to the characters from the outset of the show. The structure of the show results (for me) in such incredible emotional connection to the characters by the final third of the show, I find the inevitable debate about the viability of the show extremely frustrating.
Leave it Sondheim--with his incredible ability to illuminate the dark side of brightness--to create a show where a song like Our Time, with lyrics brimming with such optimism and hope, makes you want to slash your wrists in despair.
I dream of a first-class Bway or (better yet) Off Bway staging.
re: Anyone Can Whistle: the Fatal Tumble into the Pit#20
Posted: 1/6/06 at 2:07am
Now this is what I'm talking about when it comes to discussion!
"Sondheim's less-appealing style post-Merrily is certainly more dense, dissonant, chromatic and, melodically, less memorable (due to his verbosity) . Hence, 'gnarly.' "
I was just noting that it was a funny word choice, and in my opinion still a poor one for Sunday in the Park With George, which is occasionally verbose but not really thematically complicated. The book is a bit of a soap opera, which is reflected in the music (Your EEEEEEEYES George). I keep my opinions about the dramatic writing to myself though most of the time. Musically gnarly? No. Musically different? Maybe. But the man has written many gorgeous melodies post Merrily. He doesn't go crazy with the tuners, but what show besides Company is really filled with tuners?
As far as verbosity, perhaps Into The Woods was very verbose (because it is, after all, a collection of fairytales) with some rather dense rhymes, but you're trying to tell me that parts of Follies are not incredibly verbose? A Little Night Music? Sweeney Todd? The man has never been known for his lyrical simplicity.
Also, he's a famous pastiche artist (Something a lot of people forget when gushing openly about his music). He quotes, he borrows, he twists, incoporates. Follies, Night Music, Sweeney Todd, Merrily, all works of musical pastiche. Company, Sunday, ItW, Passion, are we regarding Forum? All these find him working more originally, although still not above pastiche even if it's simply of musical theater. He pastiches endlessly. Bounce feels like a pastiche of himself :P
I do think Sondheim works best just listening. Some of his shows come across nicely on stage, but a lot of the times there's so much in the music to open up to. I don't think he's as overtly dissonant as other composers who flirt with chromatic styles. Sondheim studied under Babbitt, but said himself he never really got into atonality. But the man definitely keeps his options open.
"Agreed. The difference, however, is how the characters are presented and that the audience is made to CARE about them. Not love, even, just understand. Jimmy Porter in LOOK BACK IN ANGER is a malcontent and a bastard and yet we identify with his plight and unhappiness because we understand him. Lord knows, we are even made to sympathize if not empathize with SWEENEY TODD! Who among us has not known injustice and feelings of revenge? Hence, its power. But the audience is never allowed to emotionally invest in the MERRILY characters for all the reasons I stated in my first post. "
Sweeney Todd is probably his greatest theatrical work. Considering the musical theater cannon, it has two extremely juicy characters, it's theatrically exciting, it's just plain exciting, and it offers an extraordinary score. Merrily We Roll Along, which is essentially another soap opera, couldn't really begin to compare. If the authors aren't doing their jobs to give us enough to dig into, I guess we won't care about cynical characters.
As far as the female protagonist of Merrily goes, I wonder if the authors were even very interested in her. Are we supposed to actually like Franklin Shepard? Is it dramatically compelling? Not so much. So I agree with you, it's not a particularly intriguing show, but it has great music, and there has been much worse to play to audiences.
"I don't know but Sondheim has claimed SITPWG is not autobiography, that he was just writing the character. Which could be true but I think SS can be defensive and/or modest and on occasion, obscurantist. In the end, he has been the progenitor of only two projects: SWEENEY TODD and PASSION. The rest were brought to him. "
It's just personal opinion. Many writers/artists find themselves obsessed by just the idea of art, myself included, whereas Sondheim is rarely so interested in the greater social message.
Well, he was very actively interested in Follies, although it never ended up what they initially envisioned. Also, Bounce was on the backburner for a long time. He doesn't really jump from collaborator to collaborator though. I think he's kind of lazy :P
"Sure it is. Another score that required a lot of tolerance in the theater and among my least favorite Sondheims."
A friend of mine watched the video with me and it's one of the few musicals he's ever really gotten into. It's not sunny, but that's what makes it interesting. The parts with bite were his favorite. The original stories had bite. The second act is the more cutting, but cutting is not the word. More jumbled. Messed up. Why are you randomly killing off characters? But blame James. I think Lapine was trying to go for the same theatricality that Sweeney Todd had, but he failed to realize that just killing off characters does not involving theater make. But the music is great and people have found their way in, and it's one of his best loved shows. It has a lot of uplifting ballads though, that may be why. Oh, and character showcase parts. Which isn't a bad thing.
"SWEENEY TODD is a fountain of lyricism compared to the meandering, aleatoric SITPWG (which has its moments, but also has its longeurs). "
Sunday in the Park With George unfortunately actually FEELS like a painting, in that it is very slow, it thinks out loud, and you feel like you're running your eyes over the same places. I don't find the second act as problematic as a lot of other people do, but I don't find anything wrong with it. I think it's a piece of art a few people put together and said "Here's what we made, if you like it, you like it."
"Roninjoey, when an audience applauds tepidly or barely at all after a number designed to get a hand, it's not working. Period. That's not opinion, that's fact and there can be many reasons for it. Whether it's THE WOMAN IN WHITE (which I endured tonight) or MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG is irrelevant. And, for the record, you may notice that I usually keep my comments limited to the topic at hand unless I am addressed by another poster or can't tolerate the sheer nonsense of what's been posted. But if bitchy is what they give, bitchy is what they gonna get. "
I suppose. I just don't think it's worthwhile. But I'm the sort to be plagued by guilt five minutes later for saying something mean.
I don't know. Really I have no feel for audiences. They're very sheep like. Sorry I said that out loud. But there's an easy way to manipulate audiences. Scream really loud and they'll jump to their feet. I mean, look at Woman in White. Andrew Lloyd Webber writes a few wrong notes and complicates the plot a little and people fall to their knees and say it's great, but the lyrics still go "I believe my heart... it believes in you..."
I'm uber critical though. I mean, I'm sorry, but I'm just not all THAT impressed with the score of A Chorus Line :P
"And some shows are simply duds and should remain where they are. RIP. "
As I said, and agree :P Let's free up theaters for new stuff.
Hopefully good stuff.
"Heavens no. Harry didn't leave us till the mid-90's, I believe."
Oh, okay. As I said, I have no memory for trivia. I don't know where I got that idea in my head.
I don't know, on the subject of some shows being duds... the thing about a Broadway show is that you get it in your mind that they are supposed to appeal to everybody. The nice part of off Broadway is that it supports the fact that not every show will appeal to every person.
Also, on another topic, I just want to say that while I think Sondheim definitely brought an edge to the musical theater, he's not so much the cutting edge satirist we make him out to be. His shows are usually ultimately upbeat (maybe not his choice but they usually turn out as such. Note how phony the end of Company is. Follies is not an upbeat ending, neither is Sweeney Todd).
The man just brought that sensibility to a sunny musical theater world where it had never been particularly embraced. I mean, get over it... he's just a different kind of artist. I don't understand why people pigeon hole the theater and expect it to be a certain way when it's a forum for so many different kinds of expression. If they aren't dancing people complain, if they are people complain, and nothing gets appreciated for what it is. If something even slightly different comes along it's randomly either dismissed or hailed as The Next Big Thing. All the rules and such about how things have to be done. Whatever.
That's my little complaint, sorry :P
joey
Videos
