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

[bk]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 2:16am

Someone said the choreography is WONDERFUL? Not in Shi-poo-pi it isn't. It's bland and generic and boring, that's what that is. Onna White, rest easy. She knew how to build a number.

And having Harold Hill stand on a POOL TABLE? Save me from this sort of stuff.
Updated On: 5/24/12 at 02:16 AM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 6:54am

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.

[morosco]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 9:11am

The lighting. Was that filmed under work lights instead of the actual show lighting? It may has well been performed inside a Wal-Mart. The only variance I could see was the bump at the end.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 9:19am

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!

[morosco]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 9:29am

There's the problem...Molly Smith is the Artistic Director.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 9:33am

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

[iflip4musicals]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 9:48am

I will preface this with I am not a board member. I'm doing Theater 101 which is a class of 50 or so that followed the production from the meet and greet and first read through to last night.

I really enjoyed the production, I've now seen it twice. At the first rehearsal presentation, Molly Smith explained that it is representative of America in the past with no exact time period. The dreariness was, as someone stated, to show that once Harold Hill came to town, the town and everyone became more colorful (I agree it's a little hokey, but that was the concept). It is supposed to be set in a gym which symbolizes the town meeting place and people coming together for a common goal. I'm not denying that the script specifically states that the show is a valentine to 1912, but that was the idea for this production.

Kate Baldwin is amazing, I thoroughly enjoyed Burke Moses's performance, and even if the choreography is less than desireable there is no denying that the dancers are great!

Updated On: 5/24/12 at 09:48 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 9:51am

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.

[iflip4musicals]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 9:58am

Last night they did have a barbershop quartet inside the main doors and a Wells Fargo wagon in the lobby, not sure if they are staying there for the duration of the run.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 1:09pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 1:56pm

"A nondescript time."

Brilliant!

I hope they have spaceships and dinosaurs!

And go-go boots.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 2:23pm

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.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 3:15pm

Oh, I don't think anyone is offended or believes that The Music Man will be irreparably harmed going forward.

Some people just think that it's OK to acknowledge that some ideas are stupid and self-aggrandizing; re-setting a 20th-century musical that was clearly written to take place in a very specific time, with very specific references to that time (references which make no sense in the new time setting) doesn't clarify the story, nor does it tell the story in a wonderful new way. It's just a silly director trying to make the show about her and her ideas, rather than putting the written script and score first.

Many audiences will check their brains at the door when they see this show; they won't be thinking at all, just passively accepting what's shown them, so they won't remember that there was no Wells Fargo Wagon in the 30s, nor traveling anvil salesmen. But they won't care; they're hearing songs they already like, sung by attractive people, and that's enough. But there will be others, brains turned on and engaged, wondering what the hell is going on. And their point of view comes from active engagement, not passive receiving; I certainly prefer approaching art from the former.

Updated On: 5/24/12 at 03:15 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 3:25pm

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.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 3:32pm

You may be right about the sophistication of regional audiences; I haven't seen it. I find that most of any audience anywhere is rather passive. I could be wrong.

I wouldn't call this "concept" "dumbing down;" I call it self-aggrandizing. An example of an egocentric director who thinks her job is to put her stamp on a show, rather than presenting the material in the best possible way. And there are a lot of directors like that out there.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 3:39pm

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.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 3:44pm

I don't know this director so this is sheer speculation. But I suspect she is under some pressure to do a certain number of "warhorses' for commercial reasons. Putting THE MUSIC MAN in the 1930s may just be pretentiousness or maybe it was the way she could get herself excited about the material.

Where is iluvtheatre? He just staged A DOLL'S LIFE and set it in the 1930s. Perhaps he'd like to tell us why.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 3:52pm

Less fabric to buy.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 3:55pm

"...or maybe it was the way she could get herself excited about the material."

Aren't there drugs for that?

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 3:55pm

^^^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!"

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 3:55pm

Now we get to have an interesting conversation! Because often its actually a careful line between a director serving their own self interest and a director reinventing a piece in a way that makes it viable to a new audience.

An obvious example here, of course, being the works of Shakespeare which are now routinely 're-set' by directors into different time periods, often brilliantly, and many of those have a more specific historical setting than the MUSIC MAN.

Part of the endurance of Shakespeare's works is in the very fact that it can and has been moved to different time periods to continually affect new audiences.

So are we arguing against the concept in theory, or are we simply saying perhaps that THE MUSIC MAN is too recent a play to endure such a re imagination?

I frankly agree with Robbie that without having seen the production, to me its impossible to value whether this particular concept 'works' or not - but I'm fascinated by the very strong opinions that have sprung up here, simply because a director (self serving or not) had the audacity to try something different with the material.

[AHTC]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 4:05pm

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.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 4:13pm

Michael, one difference is that Shakespeare wrote before naturalism/realism were concepts. His plays were mostly performed in what was then modern dress.

THE MUSIC MAN, while not actually realistic because it's a musical comedy, is nonetheless written to reflect highly representational impulses. The opening number is an attempt to "represent" the sound and motion of a train, even within the conventionalized context of an opening number.

(Others have already pointed out the unlikelihood of traveling salesmen using trains instead of cars in the 1930s, not to mention the declining demand for anvils.)

Meredith Willson takes great pains to get the period details right. I admit I haven't seen and won't (because I live 3,000 miles away); but I don't really see what is to be gained by yanking the play into another era.

For the record, I'd feel the same about a production of THE GRAPES OF WRATH set in 1912 or 1952.

(A modern dress production of MUSIC MAN might be another matter. With modern dress, I think we readily assume the period of the pay hasn't changed, we're just supposed to use our imaginations. Frankly, if she'd done TMM in modern dress, I'd be intrigued.)

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 4:13pm

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?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 5/24/12 at 4:21pm

Moreover, Robbie, I think you could make a case for how a town in the depression could conceivably carry huge nostalgia for the era of John Philip Souza and early Americana.

Again in execution, it might be a disaster, but in theory I don't find it necessarily a blasphemous theatrical exercise.