Anyone can Whistle- Page 2

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 1:44pm

According to Sondheim the pressures and emotional strain that came from trying to comform to 1964 America simply isn't the same today. It still exists, but not to the mammoth degree it did then. People have much more freedom to act and be who they want to be today.

That is why Sondheim thinks the show is outdated. To him it is about 1964.

I get this from his pre-show discussion talk about the show from the Ravinia Festival concert.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 6:28pm

I have a soft spot for this show--it was one of the scores that got me into SOndheim as an 11 year old going through the records and tapes (!) of musicals at my library--they also, surprisingly had the libretto (whichw as published by Random House--I guess back then even flops got published for commercial sale). Anyway i think faulting the libretto has been overstated--much of it is very good. I'm not really sure if Laurents is the best choice at this style of show (he directed it too right? maybe he was too involved in general)--yeah many of his libretti are stylized but not in this same way. but many of the ideas in the book are striking.

One thing I love about the show is how much it relied on dance--and apparantly Herbert Ross' choreographyw as striking (Sondheim is my top theatre composer but i'm often at odds because my other love is dance and it seems like few SOndheim shows use dance effectively, and the ones that did, like Company, now in revival love to almost completely minimize that aspect). I'd love to see the original Cookie Chase choreography.

Anyway so the show has kinda been mytholosized (sp?) in too ways--some seem to think it was ahead of its time and a masterpiece which i think is overstating things frankly others seem to think it was HORRIBLE except for some songs... (it's funny I *love* Don Walker's orchestrations in the original recording--quirky and fun but in a later interview the great orchestrator totlaly dissed the score calling it a pretentious unmelodic mess that he worked hard to try to tear melody out of...)

Thank god G Liberson (sp?) head of cast albusm at Columbia realized it was an important score and basically forced them to record it

Another aspect--1964 was a pretty great year for Broadway shows wasn';t it? one where things get lost in the shuffle?

E

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 6:46pm

Interesting that you're the first to mention Herbert Ross' choreography. I believe Ken Mandelbaum said Ross' choreography was fascinating, in fact I believe he was the only one from the show to get a Tony nod.
If I'm not wrong Sondheim has said that it was a mistake to have Laurents write the book AND direct the show.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 6:51pm

Like I've said dance is a big part of what I love about musicals (as I'm pretty sure it is for you) and Sondheim fans ar enotorious IMHO for ignoring that aspect *grin*. And Whistle is truly one of Sondheim's few dance shows--so I think in any revival the choreography aspect is important (plus Ross was a significant choreographer)

*don't get me started how dance has been trivialized in revivals of Company and even, amazingly, Follies*

I think usually it isn't a good idea to have the writer of a show also direct--as much as there are examples it's worked wonderfully (the Lapine/Sondheim shows--especially Sunday in the Park) etc

[Taryn]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 6:56pm

A big problem with the development of the book was Arthur Laurents position as both librettist and director. So instead of having a different voice as the director to help bring up problems, Laurents really just proved that he wasn't one of the rare people who could separate the two and cut and change what needed to be cut and changed. Musical theatre is such a group process that it requires all those voices to mold the piece. Laurents needed a different director to tell him when things didn't work.

[NCSAcat]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 1:27am

All I can say is, if you think the book is awful, you've seen a bad production. If you see a bad production of Chris Durang plays they don't seem to work either. Get a copy of the libretto and read it. The Book Works ...

Its just that directors have the nasty habit of not doing the same.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 1:44am

Well James Lapine wrote and directed
SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE, so it's all
in the timing.
The audiences were just not ready.
I loved Doyle's SWEENEY
Not so much his COMPANY.
But if he got a great choreographer
ANYONE might be a good project for him in a few seasons.

[Taryn]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 4:54am

A libretto can work on paper and not work in execution. Three act musicals that work are few and far between, too.

And Curtain, I didn't say that it was impossible for the same person to write and direct a musical. Just that doing it well is very rare. Lapine is a happy exception.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 5:17am

I directed the show around9 years ago in the UK. The audiences had no problem following or relating to the themes: there are still communities where the unconventional is frowned on. I worked hard on ensuring the tone wasn't smart-alec or condescending, and people seemed to really love Fay and Hapgood.

It's still one of my personal favourites, and 'With So Little to be Sure of' is a gorgeous song.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 7:06am

>> I loved Doyle's SWEENEY
Not so much his COMPANY.
But if he got a great choreographer
ANYONE might be a good project for him

NO. NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO.

He's inflicted *enough* on poor Sondheim. I dont need to see Fay Apple carrying a trumpet or a pocket whistle around for three acts.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 10:44am

Sean-
I agree, I would personally kill John Doyle for that one.

Didn't Laurents try to revise the book a few years back, and end up with some really disastorous results??? A local theatre did it near my home town my sophomore year in High School, and I thought it was BRILLIANT, and still do, and it reamins tied in the top 3 for favorite Sondheim show.

[D2]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 11:34am

Ditto.

Given the sensational job Casey Nicholaw did with FOLLIES, I'd love to see him tackle a few more of Sondheim's works, and I think he'd do marvelous things with ANYONE CAN WHISTLE. I think the show is problematic, but the book isn't the disaster some people think it is. It is just a show that is never going to be popular with anyone but the cognescenti, a fate is shares with FOLLIES. Of course, FOLLIES is a far superior show, but, like ACW, it forces people to face things they don't particularly want to deal with. Brilliant theater perhaps, but not a recipe for long-running success.

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 11:38am

Dream (nightmare) revisal:

Anyone can whistle takes place in Washington DC.

Fay Apple is the Speaker of the House.

The cookies are congress.

Hapgood is a first term congressman.

Cora, Comptroller Schub, Chief Magruder and Treasurer Cooley become the First Lady, White House Spokesperson, Secretary of Defense and House Minority Leader.

Washington gone completely corrupt and mad!

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 3:28pm

I'm not particularly fond of John Doyle (I disliked his direction in Company) but I believe his style would actually work wonders with Anyone Can Whistle.
This show is probably better off if it's given an Actor's Fund Benefit concert or an Encores! production.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 2/24/07 at 6:47pm

The book is a mess.
A horrible, horrible mess.
It doesn't force the audience to face anything uncomfortable except unclear plotting, and poorly articulated themes.
There are good ideas there, but they don't go anywhere.
I think the score is fab. And so are most of the ideas.
But the whole thing needs a lot of fixing up.


kmc

[Eastwickian]

Posted: 2/26/07 at 8:44am

I agree; I saw it in London a few years ago and though I loved the show, the book takes a scattergun approach to it's targets and never really makes any points in a particularly effective way. It just needs someone to go in and make a few nips and tucks here and there to focus the story and the 'message(s)' and I think it could work...

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/28/07 at 2:57am

I'm pretty sure I read in the Sondheim Review of Laurents making some changes in one production after the Carngie concert--cell phones in :Come Play Wiz Me" and a few other mild updates that didn't seem liek they'd work too well

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 3/1/07 at 12:36am

Laurents did allow someone to adapt the script into two acts. I've been wanting to see a copy of that...

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/1/07 at 8:24am

Off the top of my head I can't think of any commercially successful musical that was 3 or more acts--anyone? It always seemed odd to me that musicals were traditionally in 2 act structure with Broadway plays of the same era usually being 3

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 3/1/07 at 9:23am

The 2 act version is what comes out with the concert rights. It's definately more streamlined. I don't know where the 2 aqct format came from. Shakespeare, Chekov, and Ibsen plays usually had 4 or 5. Operas had 3 generally. I'm sort of interested in where that came from.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/1/07 at 9:39am

Interesting bits about the actual 'live' Carnegie Hall concert. I haven't listened to the CD in ages, but I'll do so again, mostly to compare it to the actual concert -- I have an archival video of the concert so I like seeing what was 'fixed' in the studio and what actually took place during the 'live' performance. I remember listening to the concert CD and always wondering why the audience was laughing so much in certain parts. Sheer bliss seeing the video and actually seeing WHY they were laughing. Great stuff!

Same thing with the DREAMGIRLS Actor's Fund concert -- quite a bit of it was 'fixed' in the studio, which is obvious when you watch the archival video of the concert itself.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 3/1/07 at 11:31am

Well all of Billy's stuff was fixed because he had no voice that day. Also some of the Dreams vocal stuff was fixed.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/1/07 at 1:32pm

"Sondheim hates this show right?"

Sondheim (on Larry King's TV show said) there is only one show he wrote which he is not proud of: DO I HEAR A WALTS which he describes as a "perfectly all right musical except it had no reason to be done." He feels that just taking a successful play or movie and adapting it to the stage is not enough of a reason to make a musical. (ARE ANY PRODUCERS LISTENING??) The music has to add other layers and textures not found in the original.

A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC was based on a film and Hugh Wheeler's book follows the basic screenplay faithfully, but the overall feel of NIGHT MUSIC is far different from SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT.

MERRILY was based on a play but rewritten and updated. Ethan Mordden argues that the original play was brilliant and should have made an excellent musical, but a crucial error was making it a 2-act musical instead of following the original play's 3-act structure.

The question of successful 3-act musicals was raised:

THE BOY FRIEND is in 3 acts
THE MOST HAPPY FELLA - a big hit in 1956 is also 3 Acts
NO NO NANETTE a hit in 1925 and in 1971 was done in 3 Acts

They are less common and today many directors eliminate one of the intermissions just to get the show out 20 min earlier.

ANYONE CAN WHISTLE failed NOT because it was in 3- Acts, but mainly because once the premise was established in Act One, the show trails off and loses focus. (See the detailed synopsis on the LP of the OCR. Fascinating outline, but the published script is long and meandering.

I saw local performing arts High School do this musical about 5 years ago and they did a very fine production, but it is still a problematic show and one that was trying to be so current that it now seems very dated. It was, however, Sondheim’s first foray into extended musical scenes (Simple) and using character attitude to drive a song as in Cora’s opening number: She’s singing about her town’s dire financial situation, but the arrangement and accompaniment tell us that she doesn’t care at all about the town, only herself. Look in later shows, especially FOLLIES to see other examples of this technique.

[Julian2]

Posted: 3/1/07 at 2:08pm

There's also The Apple Tree. Not sure exactly HOW successful, but its still being done today, revival and otherwise.

[Danielm]

Posted: 3/1/07 at 2:41pm

I didn't see the original production of Merrily We Roll along, but in reading the script and writings about it (including Mr. Morrden's) it seems that there were problems beyond it being 2 acts. The original cast--though talented--was very young and George Furth's bitchy humor doesn't sound right coming from a young, unjaded cast. The original costumes and sets were also ugly--Hal Prince abandoned his concept at the last minute and just had the cast in sweat-shirts and the set was almost non-existant. Again--it's Broadway--you want a set. Also, I've seen a few productions of the show that were very good but the book is still unsatisfying. Franklin Sheperd is an underwritten character and you never understand why everyone is so mad at him. It's also told backward--which even in Betrayal is hard to take sometimes.