Caroline or Change/ George C

[OneLastRefrain2]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 3:52pm

Does anyone have any ideas as to why Caroline of Change "flopped" (well, didn't do so well i guess i should say)? I personally think George C. Wolfe is a genius. Anyone have any thoughts? I can't wait for him to do something new and theater-related

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 3:54pm

It was controversial and wasnt appealing to children. Notice how MOST shows these days that are hits appeal to all ages (Wicked, Lion King, Hairspray etc) but there are a few exceptions (RENT, Avenue Q)

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 4:13pm

Wolfe will be directing Neil LaBute's "This Is How It Goes" about an interracial love triangle in smalltown America at The Public in the Spring.

His farewell production for The Public will be a production of "A Midusmmer Night's Dream" in the Park this summer.

After that, he'll be free of his Public duties and responsibilities. He's said he wants to focus more on his writing which he's had to neglect being in charge of one of the biggest not-for-profits in the country for over a decade. He'll also be one of the most sought after freelance directors in the English-speaking world.

"Caroline" was not a work for today's mainstream audiences in NYC who apparently prefer their entertainment splashy, simpleminded, even vapid. It was unlike anything the musical theatre had seen before and many critics and members of the public just didn't "get it." People (including critics) have become lazy and want to be spoonfed and don't want to have to really focus and listen and think when they go to the theatre. When the show opened in a gloomy basement with an angry maid and a talking washing machine and dryer, many in the audience turned off, turned against it and refused to enter the world of this show -- it was their loss. Wolfe's work was superb, as was the stunning and brilliant score from Tesori and Kushner and all of the performances, lead by the transcendant Tonya Pinkins.

The show is getting across the board raves on the West Coast (funny how the show seemed to go over the heads of most of the NYC critics) and by all accounts, audiences are embracing it. Perhaps it'll find the life it deserves on the road and in future productions aound the country.

Updated On: 12/14/04 at 04:13 PM

[Chip1012]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 4:13pm

I don't think audiences were ready to handle it. It really seems people don't want to face their problems (or other's problems) on stage (as in Company...etc.). The reason the Disney shows/Wicked do so well is they are an escape. Caroline is tough subject matter.
I really wish it had a longer run, it was the best experience I've had in the theatre yet. The performances/direction/score/and book were/are all stellar and of the highest caliber.

[maybethistime]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 4:16pm

this is a bit off topic, but does anyone else agree that it almost fits into the genre inbetween musical and opera, with sweeney?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 4:19pm

I'd agree, Maybethistime. It's a very hard show to classify (Tesori INSISTS that it not be called an opera, just as Sondheim does with Sweeney -- though he says that when it plays in an opera house, the experience becomes that of an opera, if that makes sense).

[maybethistime]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 4:22pm

perfectly said, margochanning. what about rent? it has very little of a book.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 5:44pm

i thought it was brilliant. But the people next to me at the theater were like "that's it? What the hell!? That was crap" THe african american lady sitting next to me explained the show to them during intermission and they coughed, fidgeted and sighed all through it. oy.

[jczelyph]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 5:47pm

Interesting discussion...I had a question that I'd love to hear your opinions on.

Chip says, "I don't think audiences were ready to handle it. It really seems people don't want to face their problems (or other's problems) on stage (as in Company...etc.). The reason the Disney shows/Wicked do so well is they are an escape"

I see the logic behind that statement, are the escapist nature of the shows linked to only the music or the story or both? The music in Caroline (and other shows of its ilk) is very different to that of Disney/Wicked style shows. Are there any shows in your opinion with an escapist/cuddly/Disney-style story but more serious music? Or vice versa? Or do serious stores (e.g. Caroline) only ever have non-poppy scores?

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/14/04 at 10:40pm

Margochanning, thanks for your wonderful insights, as always.

I have some mixed feelings about CAROLINE. I agree that it's quite brilliant, and yet... I have some problems with the first act of the show. Because it's so oddly constructed, I think that the audience leaves the first act really confused. I also think that the second act totally makes up for whatever flaws lie in the first act, and yet... I do understand why many audience members were turned off by the first act. While it is certainly true that many people don't want to listen to an intelligent, thoughtful musical at all, I also think that CAROLINE turned off a lot of theatregoers who are smart and intelligent because they just "turned off" after the first act and weren't able to judge the show on its merits.

In my opinion, the big victim was not Wolfe, whose career is deservedly on a high point right now. The victim was Tesori, who deserved much more credit for that brilliant score than she was accorded.

[TonyInATL]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 12:10am

Updated On: 1/17/05 at 12:10 AM

[Chip1012]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 12:28am

I think there is a lot of great 'pop' music (the Radio) in Caroline. It just doesn't feel the other pop music on broadway because its constructed so well.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 12:33am

Although I did not have a chance to see the show in New York, the Cast Recording is one of the finest in the last fifteen years and it is an absolute shame that Tesori did not receive the TONY for Best Score.

[RadioTV2]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 12:44am

I LOVED "Caroline" and I think it is the best show to hit Broadway in years. It is a shame that it closed so quickly, but it lives on in LA, San Francisco, and hopefully throughout the United States in the future. And of course, the Cast Recording, which is, AMAZING!

[sweetiedarlinmia]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 12:46am

This wonderful, insightful show required its audience think beyond simply being entertained. Unfortunately, many people only want the spectacle. The music from this show is absolutely amazing. Tesori is a genius. The way she intermingled various musical idoms was incredible.

Here's to hoping that it gets the respect it deserves in touring and revivals.

Posted: 12/15/04 at 1:06am

We finally get to see this on Monday. I must admit an enormous curiosity as to what all the hoopla is about.

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 1:50am

TonyInATL,

I agree with you that the first act of CAROLINE is a foundation for the rest of the show.

I think that the problem lies in the fact that there is really only one actual event that happens in the show: the scene where Caroline confronts her young charge and they both say horrifying things that they will instantly regret. However, this scene doesn't happen until the middle of the second act. Yes, everything in the first act sets the scene for this major event. Dramatically speaking, however, it's a very, very odd construction.

The first act sets up many characters, and spends a lot of time on characters who end up being utterly tangenital to the story (Caroline's best friend, for one, and most of her children, for another). And it is also strange that a washing machine and a dryer are singing for most of the first act. But I think an audience can accept this device. They're symbols. However, when you use that kind of symbolism, you have to have a cogent blueprint that an audience can follow -- characters that make sense from the get go.

The first act finale, although a fun, exciting number, doesn't really tell an audience anything. When I saw the show, the audience left the first act confused, which, as a writer, is not a place you want to leave an audience.

Caroline is certainly an anti-hero. You do come to love her, but that affection really only grows during the second act, when the plot kicks in.

I really loved this show. But I also understand why an audience, who has been historically trained on a two act format wherein the end of the first act sets up the denouement, had problems with this show. I agree that it's a terrific piece of musical theatre. But I'm not sure that the reason CAROLINE failed was because "audiences were too stupid to get it." I think that some of the blame needs to fall on the authors, and the construction of the piece.

Posted: 12/15/04 at 1:56am

Caroline is brilliant, although I think it had some structural flaws. but come on--it wouldn't have done any better in 1973 Broadway as it would now--I think they should be happy with the run--and woulda been in any year.

E

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 2:27am

Veuve, thank you for your insightful comments. I also felt (from listening to the recording, anyway) that there was an imbalance between the two acts. After listening to the first act, my immediate reaction was, "That's it?"

Surely it would have been better to end the first act with the confrontational scene between Caroline and Noah, but then the show would have a completely different developmental arch, and probably one that wouldn't work. Would Caroline play more effectively if it didn't have an intermission, so you would have an uninterrupted buildup to that scene? (Of course, that would mean trimming the entire piece so that audiences weren't exhausted by the end of it.)

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 2:47am

Blue, I think you're totally correct. The logical place to end the first act, dramatically, is with that scene between Noah and Caroline.

That provides a difficulty, however. There's really not enough story to continue the arc after that scene.

Perhaps CAROLINE should have been a one act musical with no intermission. But I understand the writers' quandry. It's very difficult to get an audience to sit through two and a half hours with no break. FOLLIES never resolved that problem. Its arc doesn't call for a break -- and yet there's so much stuff that happens in the show, it couldn't be cut to suit the bathroom needs of an audience. An intermission is always plopped into FOLLIES randomly, for the convenience of theatregoers. But having an intermission doesn't do FOLLIES any favors. It has no dramatic structure.

However, I don't think it's just a "bathroom break" problem. I don't think audiences felt uncomfortable watching the singular act of A CHORUS LINE -- dramatically, it never gave you a chance to worry about your bladder. But A CHORUS LINE, like CAROLINE and unlike FOLLIES, had a singular idea, a basic, simple premise with a quick dramatic throughline. I think that CAROLINE may have benefitted from that structure, and some judicious pruning by the authors. Updated On: 12/15/04 at 02:47 AM

[eslgr8]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 3:24am

This is a fascinating discussion for me, as I have just returned this evening from my 3rd time seeing Caroline, or Change in Los Angeles. I often see a good show twice, but this one I felt I needed to experience a third time, it is that great. All of you are making very intelligent points. The first act finale is probably intended to leave audiences on a bright and bouncy note. It did that for me, but perhaps not for others, and it is true that it has no bearing on what happens in Act 2. I'm one of those who loved Wicked (saw that one twice on Broadway) and find its message about the importance of friendship and not judging people superficially to be quite profound. It's much lighter and more family oriented than Caroline, or Change, but that doesn't diminish its quality or impact. On the other hand, Caroline, or Change is a much tougher nut to crack, and I think the out-of-towners who are needed to keep Broadway in business were probably not ready for its challenges. One thing does seem to be true. L.A. audiences are "getting" it, something which Broadway audiences apparently didn't. All three times I've seen it, the audience has risen in cheers at its conclusion. We don't depend on people from out of town to fill out seats, and I think we do have more sophistication than we are often given credit for. I'm so fortunate to have been able to experience this show three times. I know it will have a long life in different incarnations after this California run.

[Effie]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 3:39am

Caroline isn't poorly structured. It's unconventionally structured. Kushner wrote outside the box, and unfortunately, audiences like their stories to behave a certain way.

I also disagree about the "tangential" characters. I think they're important because they help illuminate Caroline's journey. The children are there to show us who she's making all these sacrifices for. And Dot is there because she's doing all the things Caroline wishes she could do -- bettering herself by going to college, having sex. (Her boyfriend has a car, "they don't hardly talk no more.") Plus Dot knew Caroline before she became so mean.

I saw it once in NY and twice (so far) in LA. And, yes, Los Angeles audiences seem to be embracing it more enthusiastically. This will sound weird, but I think the show is miked (sp?) better in LA. It's easier to hear all the lyrics. e.g., Noah's line about buying "Barbie doll dresses on the sly" comes in loud and clear in LA. (It gets an amused/nervous reaction from the audience.)

[VeuveClicquot]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 4:21am

Good point, Effie.

CAROLINE is unconventionally structured, and that doesn't make it a bad show. It doesn't do it any favors from a commercial standpoint, however. (The original question here was "Why did CAROLINE fail?")

I'm fascinated by this subject. Personally, I don't want to believe that audiences are simply too stupid to understand brilliant theatre. I think that audiences, even very smart ones, are conditioned by a structural format, and when something deviates from that structure, it has a hard road to hoe.

I think that you have to pick your battles, as an artist. COMPANY was a success, even though it broke many rules. It had no plot, and it had a message that was very depressing.

To extend the COMPANY analogy further, both Caroline and Bobby are anti-heros. They're not particularly likeable people. And they are both ciphers. However, Bobby is always wanting something more than he has, whereas Caroline just wants it all to be over with. COMPANY is depressing, but there's an out for the audience. We can hope that Bobby gets married, and finds satisfaction. We know Caroline's outcome, and it isn't pretty.

Of course, CAROLINE is really Noah's story, not Caroline's. But it's not called NOAH CHANGES, it's called CAROLINE, OR CHANGE. Which is deceptive for an audience. An educated audience realizes that Tony Kushner (Noah) grew up, and became a great success. But I don't think that an author should count on his audience knowing the biographical details of his life, because most of them don't.

At their core, I think that COMPANY and CAROLINE share the same message: Life stinks. It's not a message that audiences generally go to the theatre to hear. But I think that audiences can accept that message, as long as they're offered an out. "Being Alive" offers an audience hope. "Lot's Wife," brilliant as it is, doesn't. Updated On: 12/15/04 at 04:21 AM

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 4:41am

It's 4:30am, I'm studying for my Linguistics exam, I have to memorize nearly 400 morphemes and their meanings, and I'm bored. So here I am.

One thing I've always of interest was Kushner's choice in titling the piece "CAROLINE, OR CHANGE". It's been explained ad nauseum the double-meaning of change, and even the significance of the OR. But I'm really curious about the comma. It's as if Kushner has decided on two parallel titles for the show; you can call it CAROLINE, or you can call it CHANGE (ie. Shakespeare's AS YOU LIKE IT, OR WHAT YOU WILL). By titling it like that, he either
a) proposes a choice (it's either Caroline or Change, it's your call), which is what many people have interpreted it; or
b) he equates the two (Caroline IS Change -- just two different names for the same thing)

The second one doesn't really make sense if you interpret Change as metamorphosis. But if we take change as pennies, the title suggests Caroline is like pocket change -- and that opens up a whole can of worms in connotation.

Does any of this make sense, or is it just too late into the night?

Updated On: 12/15/04 at 04:41 AM

[fiesta1]

Posted: 12/15/04 at 8:55am

What a wonderful thread.

I saw CoC in New York in July and was immediately mesmorized by the piece (the acting, the construction of the piece). I had a TDF seat in the balcony and was seated next to a very nice elderly woman from the Upper West Side in the balcony. Since we both came to the show solo, we chatted a good deal before the show, in the intermission, and afterward. She was confused by the talking appliances, and was uncomfortable with the second act (feeling that it was 'anti-Jewish'). Although I did not agree with her point about the second act, it underscores that different audiences latch onto different points.

I raved about the show to several gay friends later that evening over cocktails, and they brushed me off. One thought the show was about segregation in the South, and did not want to shell out money to get depressed in the theatre. He remarked that 15 years of 'AIDS plays' had depressed him enough. He wanted 'happy musicals' like Wicked, 42nd Street, or La Cage.

Maybe Caroline should have stayed Off-Broadway. I hate to admit but I am getting to prefer the acting and directing chops Off-Bway more and more nowadays. Broadway musicals are just too 'White Zinfandel' - light & sweet. Give me a complex Cabernet anyway.