Arena Stage "Music Man"-set in the 1930's... — Page 3

Mollie Smith's work has run hot and cold with me. I loved Oklahoma!, Damn Yankees and She Loves Me, whereas I hated what she did with Light in the Piazza. Parker Esse's choregraphy for Oklahoma! was wonderful.

I'm seeing The Music Man tonight, so I'll be able to see first hand what this concept of setting the show in the 30s has done. So far I haven't liked the videos I've seen.

Diva, your last post made me laugh, and felt like some kind of pull quote that I could see hanging in front of the theatre of a production one didn't like.

---

Isn't there an artistic director at Arena Stage who can say to a numbskull like this Mollie Smith, "That's not an interesting idea, dear. It's a stupid one. And far beneath the standards of Arena Stage for us to discuss any more."

Zelda Fichandler certainly would have!

---

I don't inherently have a problem with a director exploring changing the time frame of a production. I'm perhaps less of a purist than many posting in this thread.

I do agree that the MUSIC MAN creates issues because unless they have some how painted the portrait of a town obsessed with the rosy nostalgia of a bygone era, there are so many topical references that don't much make sense beyond the 1912 reference point of the original setting.

The GeVa Theatre did a production of THE MUSIC MAN a few years ago set in the 1950s - it was a lot more colorful than what we are seeing here, but of course ran into the same continuity issues.

I think what this is basically pointing to is regional theatres feeling torn between having to present classic musicals to get butts in seats 'in this economy' and finding an artistic reason to justify doing so.

Frankly, thats what regional theatre was set up to do, and sometimes changing the setting does work. I saw a modern dress production of CAROUSEL a few years ago that was absolutely stunning and timely in a way that made the material feel entirely fresh. I also have fond memories of a production of SHE LOVES ME I saw set in a sort of Almadovar 1960s which was gorgeous and a lot of fun.

So while this production is probably a failed experiment, I truly don't begrudge the director or the theatre for trying to reinvent the piece.

Updated On: 5/24/12 at 09:33 AM

I think there are all kinds of creative ways you can approach "The Music Man" without undermining its intent.

This is a crappy "artistic justification," going no further than saying "let's set it in the 1930s! Yeah, that'll be different!"

I do believe there are certain shows that both time and location can be moved without affecting the integrity of the work. This isn't one of them.

How about trying an "Our Town" approach, with minimal or no sets at all? Do the whole thing with suggested sound effects of horses and buggies, crickets chirping, trains rumbling by, etc. How about trying a highly stylized design theme ... maybe try to make them actually look like vintage cards or illustrations? Or make them all sepia tone until the finale? How about immersing the audience in the era? Actually have barkers or salesman in the lobby or roaming about the aisles selling Sen-Sen, Bevo, etc.? ("Medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle!")

There are all sorts of creative approaches that don't betray the writing or insult the intelligence of the audience. A million ways to communicate the story.

Exploring various creative ideas is perfectly fine ... as long as you've actually read the material and understand it before you start.

---

Apropos of this discussion, I just got a ticket offering email for a production of Shakespeare's King John, with the following proud note:

===

Join the renowned American Theatre of Actors for this rarely produced full-length version of SHAKESPEARE'S KING JOHN. Director James Jennings sets the show in a nondescript time.

---

There are people I love dearly in this thread who are argumenting passionately. I love their passion. I love their knowledge. And I love that I don't have to work with them when I create theatre.

I'm with Michael Bennett. Nothing about this offends me. I agree it might not work. I have no idea how to make the very specific references marry with a resetting. But isn't that ok? I mean...it's not like it's going to harm The Music Man as a property. I've been a part of wonderful productions...and productions in which I wish they'd have murdered me before I had to set foot on stage. It's all part of it. Sometimes, something that seems like a wonderful idea (even throughout the entire rehearsal process) flops in front of an audience. And I've had times where I've sat in a room with my face all 'This SH*T ain't gonna fly!' And then it plays like gangbusters.

So please...argue passionately. Just remember that those that don't agree with you aren't necessarily idiots. And we don't necessarily need a lecture either.

Said with love. Lots and lots of love.

I actually disagree with you on the audience thing, newintown. At least in this case. In my experience, regional theatre audiences are more sophisticated and more knowledgable than the (this is gonna sound so c*nty) unthinking hordes that populate many a Broadway show. I went to school at Syracuse University, and we were attached to Syracuse Stage. Some of the most exciting theatre I've ever seen was there. Many a risk was taken, some that worked, some that failed spectacularly. But the relationship between the theatre and the audience was extremely strong. I think a theatre that services a community (as opposed to a large, multi-lingual tourist center) can have a conversation with that community through its work that just is no longer possible here in NYC. Do I think this is an idea that I wouldn't even attempt with The Music Man? Absolutely. But, I'm not willing to dismiss it completely...because it's just one part of an ongoing cultural conversation in DC that I'm simply not privy to.

I actually think resetting The Music Man to the 30's is in no way a dumbing down. I actually think it assumes the audience has a fairly intimate knowledge with the piece and with the time period in which it is being reset. I'd say it's the opposite of dumbing down (which is a phrase someone used somewhere in this thread...maybe not you). I allow for the fact that it might fail miserably. But, that's ok, too.

Oh...I've met a-many.

For directors like that, I don't understand why they just don't stick with working from the ground up with projects so that their stamp is a part of the process. I've worked with directors who should only work on things that are amorphous enough to allow for their 'interpretations.' Conversely, I've worked with directors where my first and last thought is, 'Girl, stick with revivals...leave Chromolume No. 7 to George.'

I would certainly be interested in seeing this Music Man. Just so I can form a real opinion on how it works in practice and not in theory.

Less fabric to buy.

^^^True.

As someone who has learned quite a bit of history from watching musical theater, I hate to think of an audience thinking references to 1912 are actually references to the 1930s. So to the poster above who said, "Most people won't know the difference," I say, "That's the problem!"

My issue lies with the fact that when you get a copy of the libretto, Meredith Wilson states BEFORE page 1 that setting and intent is very important here. I can appreciate when things are tried and failed (I am NOT a purist at all), but undermining a STATED intent that an author laid out is just not smart.

I saw a production of Dolly set in the 40's that was wonderful.

I can certainly see the outlines of an interesting exploration of The Music Man set in the 30's. A town hit by the Depression being taken in by a huckster can be really interesting. I happen to think the score is a little to period specific (unless, you really went there and got all Woody Guthrie with the arrangements) to withstand the resetting. Mostly cause there are still people alive who remember the 30's and know they weren't anything like what's in The Music Man.

As for the stated intent of the author, once the work passes into public domain, then no one's gonna give a SH*T. So, is the argument copyright-protected works are different from public domain works in terms of the limits of exploration?