Deaf West Revival of Whistle Down the Wind- Page 2

[kdogg36]

Posted: 4/14/26 at 8:41pm

John Adams said: "This was before he recycled "Our Kind of Love" from The Beautiful Game (which I also saw on that trip) into "Love Never Dies".Other songs are also very reminiscent of ALW's scores."

Just as a point of information, the main tune you refer to was first written for the song "The Heart Is Slow To Learn" for an earlier, abortive attempt at a sequel to Phantom. Then it was trimmed down for The Beautiful Game (shorn of its lovely verses) before coming back again for Love Never Dies.

I completely agree that it's inappropriate to recycle material from a successful show. It's one thing to use the bridge from "Half A Moment," in the original megaflop Jeeves, in "As If We Never Said Goodbye" - quite another to reuse a song from a relatively long-running Tony-winning show like Song and Dance. And frankly I think it was better used in Song and Dance.

[pmensky]

Posted: 4/14/26 at 9:00pm

I saw the original West End production in London, and it did absolutely nothing for me. There are a few solid songs, and the set design was genuinely impressive, but the accent work was rough and the story itself is… unsettling. At its core, it’s about a drifter hiding in a family’s barn who develops an inappropriate, quasi‑romantic fixation on the eldest daughter, who appeared to be about twelve.

At one point in Act II, my friend leaned over and whispered, “Please tell me he’s not about to f*ck that little girl,” which tells you everything about the tone the show unintentionally created.

And yes, the little girl’s name is Swallow. Because apparently no one in the room stopped and said, “Maybe not that.”

[kdogg36]

Posted: 4/14/26 at 9:24pm

pmensky said: "At its core, it’s about a drifter hiding in a family’s barn who develops an inappropriate, quasi‑romantic fixation on the eldest daughter,who appeared to be about twelve."

I think she's supposed to be about 16. It's indeed unsettling, but I think that's more of a feature than a bug.

"And yes, the little girl’s name is Swallow. Because apparently no one in the room stopped and said, “Maybe not that.”

I think what that says is that this wasn't your kind of show, which is totally fair. I've seen the show twice, listened to recordings dozens of times, and have never made the connection you apparently made on your first viewing. Again, different strokes.

 

[pmensky]

Posted: 4/14/26 at 10:36pm

kdogg36 said: "pmensky said: "At its core, it’s about a drifter hiding in a family’s barn who develops an inappropriate, quasi‑romantic fixation on the eldest daughter,who appeared to be about twelve."

I think she's supposed to be about 16. It's indeed unsettling, but I think that's more of a feature than a bug.

"And yes, the little girl’s name is Swallow. Because apparently no one in the room stopped and said, “Maybe not that.”

I think what that says is that this wasn't your kind of show, which is totally fair. I've seen the show twice, listened to recordings dozens of times, and have never made the connection you apparently made on your first viewing. Again, different strokes.

I honestly don’t know what’s creepier, the fact that you’re reassuring me it’s fine because you’ve decided the child is “supposed to be about 16,” or the fact that you’re trying to reframe my taking issue with the sexualization of a minor as “not my kind of show,” or “different strokes.” You might want to take your moral compass in for a tune‑up. 

 

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/14/26 at 10:46pm

pmensky said: " the story itself is… unsettling. At its core, it’s about a drifter hiding in a family’s barn who develops an inappropriate, quasi‑romantic fixation on the eldest daughter,who appeared to be about twelve.
[...]
And yes, the little girl’s name is Swallow. Because apparently no one in the room stopped and said, “Maybe not that.”"

I think you bought a ticket, but stumbled into the wrong theater at the AMC. You definitely saw the wrong movie.

It also seems you bumped your head really, really hard. Honey, you ain't right.

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/14/26 at 10:51pm

pmensky said: "my [mis]taking issue with the sexualization of a minor"

There. I fixed that for 'ya.

 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 4/14/26 at 11:13pm

pmensky said: "I honestly don’t know what’s creepier, the fact that you’re reassuring me it’s fine because you’ve decided the child is “supposed to be about 16"

I wasn't trying to reassure you that anything was fine. No one who sees Whistle Down the Wind is supposed to think that the relationship between The Man and Swallow is "fine." It's absolutely creepy as ****. That's part of the show. 

But if you don't like it - that's really what is fine with me.

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/15/26 at 5:15am

kdogg36 said: "I wasn't trying to reassure you that anything was fine. No one who sees Whistle Down the Wind is supposed to think that the relationship between The Man and Swallow is "fine." It's absolutely creepy as ****. That's part of the show."

I disagree. 

Swallow (named for the bird symbolizing freedom and innocence) is 14-15 years old in the musical, 12 years old in the novel. (FUN FACTS: the author of the novel, Mary Haley Bell, is Haley Mills' mother. Swallow, Brat, and Poor Baby are based on Bell's own children—Juliet, Hayley, and Jonathan Mills.)

The Man's age is unknown. We just know he is an adult.

Swallow is innocent, naive, and has never had a boyfriend. Her naivety leads her to believe things that are not true (e.g. she confuses The Man's exhausted, feverish expletive as being his name, 'Jesus Christ'). She is desperate to believe he is the messiah who will bring her dead mother back to life.

As an adult, The Man's character is the antithesis of Swallow. He voices his understanding of himself (which is pretty bleak, but never indicates, or implies 'sexual predator') in the song, "The Nature of the Beast". That link offers both the lyrics, and insights into the meaning of the song.

The year the show takes place is 1959. As Jim Steinman explains, "That period in America crystallizes a lot of things. That period was about the birth of the teenager, of rock 'n' roll, of the freeway, and all this is perfectly right for the story which is essentially about a 14-year-old girl who's discovering sexuality, magic, God, and music."

Please note how Steinman's "essential" synopsis differs from pmensky's.

There is nothing "creepy" that I find in The Man's relationship to Swallow, nor in hers to his. "Essentially", he wants to escape from "the blackness there. That's the nature of the beast". Swallow naively wants to believe (and wants him to believe) that he is, and has a good soul.

That is the only tension between the two. Nothing sexual beyond a possible innocent, adolescent crush Swallow might be experiencing for the first time in her life. 

As an adult (even one who is admittedly really flawed), The Man both knows and chooses to continue fleeing - from the Law, from Swallow, and from himself (as he sees himself).

The Man does leaves some possible clues about how he might have been changed by Swallow's persistent belief about him, however. Symbolically, the barn has been burnt down, but The Man leaves behind the gun that he coerced Swallow to retrieve for him, earlier in the show. (In the novel, the children's father shows Brat, Swallow and Poor Baby a cross left behind on a wall still standing after the blaze and they assure him that the whole affair has not changed how they felt about Jesus).

Any sexual implications between Swallow and The Man (especially that really immature, middle school notion that  'apparently no one in the room stopped and said, “Maybe not that') are in the mind of the beholder. ...But that speaks to mind of the Beholder - not the show.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/15/26 at 5:41am

kdogg36 said: "I'm gratified to see such a vigorous discussion about this show. It's not in my top-five or anything like that, but it has a special place in my musical-theater heart. I saw the original production at the National Theater, which I don't remember that well but I know that I liked very much, as well as the US tour in Philadelphia about twenty years ago. Unfortunately I didn't see Gale Edwards' London production, which has to be regarded as definitive, though of course I'm familiar with the cast recording.
If Hal Prince didn't have to choose between them, then neither do I! (I know no one here suggested that I had to make such a choice.) I've heard before the suggestion that ALW and Sondheim alternate on Broadway - when one is up, the other is down - and it certainly seems like we're in an ALW renaissance amidst a slight Sondheim lull. I doubt that will last very long.."

There must be a bootleg of the London production out there in full--it ran more than long enough and since we have one of the Hal Prince production, but I've yet to come across it, so its disappointing that all we seem to have footage wise of the Edwards production is the 15 minute electronic press packet with a few clips and lots of talking heads.
 

It always interests me how in the 90s and early 2000s Prince reunited with three of his most successful composers (or teams.)  We had Kiss of the Spider Woman reuniting him with Kander and Ebb, almost 25 years after Cabaret and Zorba, and to ultimately a success.  But less successful was both his reunion with ALW--Whistle obviously--and then with Sondheim on Bounce...

As for people who read or see the plot of Whistle Down the Wind as simply being flat out inappropriate...  Well others here have said it best.  I do think elements of the show and the relationships ARE meant to be unsettling--does anyone watch this and think "Oh, I get it, they want us to hope that the Man has sex with Swallow?"  There's a lot going on, and it really is Swallow's story, but the story (going back to the novel) isn't meant to leave you with easy answers.  That's why it's compelling.

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/15/26 at 6:59am

EricMontreal22 said: "its disappointing that all we seem to have footage wise of the Edwards production is the 15 minute electronic press packet with a few clips and lots of talking heads."

I found this a couple of days ago. I like how it shows use of the multi-layered set I'd forgotten about until you jogged my memory. I also came to recall the use of live snakes in the revival scenes.

 

[pmensky]

Posted: 4/15/26 at 7:01am

EricMontreal22 said: "As for people who read or see the plot of Whistle Down the Wind as simply being flat out inappropriate... Well others here have said it best. I do think elements of the show and the relationships ARE meant to be unsettling--does anyone watch this and think "Oh, I get it, they want us to hope that the Man has sex with Swallow?" There's a lot going on, and it really is Swallow's story, but the story (going back to the novel) isn't meant to leave you with easy answers. That's why it's compelling."

For the record, the Mary Hayley Bell novel is a children’s book and contains no romantic or suggestive tension between the Man and Swallow. If the book “isn’t meant to leave you with easy answers,” those unanswered questions were about faith, not whether or not there was sexual tension. The musical added that layer. Having seen the production, the implication was unmistakable. Referencing the novel to defend something that only happens in the musical isn’t much of a defense.

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/15/26 at 10:07am

pmensky said: "those unanswered questions were about faith, not whether or not there was sexual tension. The musical added that layer."

Examples?

pmensky also said: "Having seen the production, the implication was unmistakable."

Yet, it's still my opinion that you are mistaken. Eye of the beholder.

Updated On: 4/15/26 at 10:07 AM

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 4/15/26 at 4:50pm

kdogg36 said: "I suspect that Jim Steinman contributed to more than the lyrics of "A Kiss Is A Terrible Thing To Waste.""

While I can't confirm this, I can tell you that the part of "Tire Tracks" that isn't "English Girls" came from Jim ["Those good girls never know what they're missing..."], melody and lyrics. [The sharp-eared Steinman fan will detect a stylistic resemblance to "And I'm never gonna make it without you..." in "Making Love (Out of Nothing At All)."]

I also suspect that he had a hand in shaping more than just the lyric of the recurring "Unsettled Scores"/"Nature of the Beast" theme based on a scratch lyric that scans to that melody in a 90s draft of his Bat Out of Hell musical, reproduced below:

"The things that you desire the most
May be the things you need the least
But you can get it all if you pay the price
In the underbelly of the beast

The pie is steaming rich and ripe
So you cut yourself a piece
Then you cut the crap, and we cut the cost
In the underbelly of the beast

There are no limits, there are no rules
The laws are all deceased
And everything is permitted here
In the underbelly of the beast"

As for which version of Whistle Deaf West will perform, unless any DW-specific revisions occur (as when Stephen Schwartz cut "Extraordinary" from their Pippin in 2004), the currently licensed acting edition is that from the end of the Aldwych Theatre run. Any contributions, big or small, by Bill Kenwright, such as the new song with lyrics by Don Black that replaced "Annie Christmas," are (thankfully) not included.

Updated On: 4/15/26 at 04:50 PM

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 4/15/26 at 6:08pm

Having covered those topics, let's get to the thorny issue of Swallow and The Man, which needs its own reply.

For better or worse, pmensky is right; there is an element of sexual tension that may register uncomfortably. But John Adams is also right; it's not nearly as serious as it is being made out to be.

Whistle's main problem is its book, which no one in this thread can deny. And the premise is the shakiest part of all, weakened by changes to the characters from the original novel and film. The premise and the main issue with it appear below, spoilered for whoever the hell hasn't already been spoiled on the biggest twist in this thread (y'all need to remember to use this, out of courtesy if nothing else):

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Three kids find a mysterious, wounded stranger hiding out in a barn, ask him his name, and his response, groaning in pain and shocked at being discovered, is "Jesus Christ!" which they take to be an answer to their question.

Though they’re painted as the "good old days" by conservatives, the Fifties weren’t as clean-cut as people like to remember. Nasty things were hushed up more easily, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. Which is why I say, Deep South or not, Bible Belt or no, even if religion and belief are stronger there than in other places… what children would mistake someone hiding in their barn for Christ because of an expletive?

Maybe the Fifties were comparatively innocent times, but no one ever "took the Lord's name in vain" in front of these kids? Even in a deeply religious community filled with rabid Southern Christians, surely someone's had a heated moment at some point - shattered a plate, stubbed a toe, burnt their fingers with a match, something!

In other versions of the story, when they were all sweet, naïve kids who were adolescent or younger, one could maybe let it slide. But Swallow's 15! If she believes he's Jesus just because he said the words "Jesus Christ," it's hard to argue she's anything but mentally challenged. They know what swearing is -- in the licensed script, Brat apologizes to The Man for saying "hell" in exasperation -- so surely they know the difference between imprecations and identifications (even if they don't know to call them that)!

Frankly, in addition to the film and novel not being as popular in America as in the UK, it's not hard to see this premise, especially as redeveloped, sank the show here. Critics felt patronized, even offended, that anyone would believe we're that stupid, even in the South. I can't say I blame them, but it's been the central premise since the original novel. Excise this plot hole, and the entire show's lost, so like it or hate it, we have to deal with it another way.

Lloyd Webber and Steinman (and, I suppose, Knop and Edwards) did half the job by finding an equivalent American community where this could conceivably happen, and the choice of Louisiana (and the Deep South in general) is a good one, for both musical and cultural reasons. Religion can be quite intoxicating, especially when it's been drilled into one's head (and that of their friends, family, and neighbors) throughout their childhood.

The other half is much more subtle and not immediately apparent for two reasons: one, it requires an actress to be in on the conceit, and two, the book -- as settled -- makes it very easy not to be, both because it plays her belief in The Man's "divinity" straight if taken as read, and because even once it hit the West End, they made a ton of cuts that, while they succeeded in shaving run time, knee-capped a lot of detail, even if it was only "color."

So, here's the big secret, and I realize this may be my own interpretation as someone who thinks about the show a lot (I dunno if I'd call myself an expert, Eric, but thanks for the vote of confidence!):

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

...she doesn't actually believe he's Jesus, or at least not at first. She does, however, have a lot on her plate: she's on the cusp of womanhood, with all that that entails (including those pesky hormones and romantic tension with her childhood crush Amos), and no mom to guide her through it (which comes up as the primary point of several of her songs); her distant dad’s doing the best he can between his drinking (at least in the Prince production), his grief, and his inability to open up to his kids, but he'll never win Father of the Year, so her two younger siblings -- evidently much younger, if they're able to accept the notion that this stranger is Jesus with little doubt -- basically look up to her as the "new mommy"; and then this stranger winds up in her barn.

She doesn't know what to do or who he is, but he's hurt, the kids think he's Jesus Christ himself (hey, girl, if you can't follow it, try being in the audience!), and people in a small town rush to judgment, especially when looking for an escaped convict. If he isn't who they're searching for, she doesn't want him lynched, and if he is, she doesn't want him to hurt her or the kids, so she'll play along with their misguided belief. Besides, why break their hearts? He's a symbol of hope for them; Poor Baby's possible Christmas bonfire notwithstanding, it's the first thing they've really been excited about in ages. Better to handle this alone -- she's not a kid anymore, after all. (Or so she thinks.)

When she seemingly wholeheartedly begs him to bring her mom back, she is overwhelmed by all of the above. And it just turns into a perfect storm from there on, because it's the first time she's felt hopeful since Mama died, and now she has these same confusing quasi-romantic feelings about him that she does about Amos, and whether or not she believes as fiercely or devoutly as the town's children that he's Jesus, she at least needs him to be who she thinks he is as a person. The tension is less "oh God, does he reciprocate the child's feelings?" than it is "oh God, when she learns the truth, will she be able to handle any more crap on her already teetering pile, or will it destroy her?"

...whew, that's a lot of words. Anyhow, thank you, and tip your waitress generously.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/15/26 at 6:23pm

John Adams said: "EricMontreal22 said: "its disappointing that all we seem to have footage wise of the Edwards production is the 15 minute electronic press packet with a few clips and lots of talking heads."

I found this a couple of days ago. I like how it shows use of the multi-layered set I'd forgotten about until you jogged my memory. I also came to recall the use of live snakes in the revival scenes.

Oh, I didn't forget the snakes (ack!)  Thanks for this, I thought I had gone through all of Aurora's videos but seem to have missed it.

Someone talked about the accents which... aren't great on the cast album.  I saw the show in London over two Summers and can't remember how I foudn them the first time, but will say by the time I saw it another time I thought they were much better handled than on the recording (that time I had the replacement leads--Glenn Carter who I think came from the Gale Edwards Jesus Christ Superstar revival, fittingly, and a great Laura Michelle Kelly in one of her first West End leading roles.)

"

 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/15/26 at 6:30pm

pmensky said: "

For the record, the Mary Hayley Bell novel is a children’s book and contains no romantic or suggestive tension between the Man and Swallow. If the book “isn’tmeant to leave you with easy answers,” those unanswered questions were about faith, not whether or not there was sexual tension. The musical added that layer. Having seen the production, the implication was unmistakable. Referencing the novel to defend something that only happens in the musical isn’t much of a defense."

I have read the book but not in decades--but am much more familiar with the film and I think the film does start to lean into those elements, personally (of course this is where Swallow is aged up to roughly 15).  But you're right to call me out on using the book as my rubric.

And this isn't a defence but just a statement--of course as SOON as you sign up Jim Steinman you know that that's going to be a theme (his life time obsession was various variations on the Peter Pan myth which he saw as being about the story of teens on the brink of discovering their sexuality.)  I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with addressing the fact that some of Swallow's feelings for The Man are of a naive sexual nature (especially in the way I think the show handles it.)

 

Updated On: 4/15/26 at 06:30 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/15/26 at 6:55pm

Thanks G for all that great info (I agree with you about what Steinman may have contributed to musically as well--and yes "those good girls never know what they're missing" music and lyrics is pure Steinman.  (Re the Kenwright changes--I find it hysterically typical that Steinman was like "well I won't do that" and they had Don Black come in for the lyrics...)  

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "For better or worse, pmensky is right; there is an element of sexual tension that may register uncomfortably. But John Adams is also right; it's not nearly as serious as it is being made out to be. "

This is I think the answer that makes the most sense to me.  I think that element is undeniably there, but not the extent that I personally see it as problematic (I hate that word) or even inappropriate.  And commenting on your spoiler--when I saw the piece, before knowing the story, that was my takeaway too about just how much Swallow believes the Man is Jesus.



As for which version of WhistleDeaf West will perform, unless any DW-specific revisions occur (as when Stephen Schwartz cut "Extraordinary" from their Pippin in 2004), the currently licensed acting edition is that fromthe end of the Aldwych Theatre run. Any contributions, big or small, by Bill Kenwright, such as the new song with lyrics by Don Black that replaced "Annie Christmas,"are (thankfully) not included."

 

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/16/26 at 12:24am

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "So, here's the big secret, and I realize this may be my own interpretation as someone who thinks about the show a lot"

Without revealing the spoiler (always an issue when quoting a post w/a spoiler), it's my belief that Swallow has a very strong need to keep the possibility that he is Jesus alive. Jesus is her only hope that she can see and speak to her mother again - even if it's only for just one night. And she yearns for that soooo badly.

Her "I want" song is I Never Get What I Pray For, and she gets the last verse all to herself. While Brat and Poor Baby pray for Dad ('It's scary how he's been', a football, some lipstick, licorice, and a kite, Swallow sings:

AND I JUST WANT OUR MOTHER BACK

IF ONLY FOR ONE NIGHT

THERE ARE THINGS SHE’S GOT TO TELL ME

THERE ARE THINGS SHE’S GOT TO KNOW

GOD HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE HER

SHE HAD NO RIGHT TO GO

THERE WERE THINGS I DIDN’T TELL HER

AND SO MUCH I HAD TO SAY

SO I JUST WANT MY MOTHER BACK

IF ONLY FOR ONE DAY

Jesus is the only one with the power to fulfill her need. If she gives in to the practicality of reality, her hope is completely crushed. She has to allow for at least the possibility that he is Jesus if she is ever going to get what she needs. ...and she keeps testing, questioning, and offering excuses for the possibility.

Poor Baby does not believe he is Jesus, but Brat does:

Poor Baby: It can’t be him.

Brat:  It’s Jesus stupid.

Poor Baby: Is he dead?

Brat: No, he’s asleep. Asleep in the hay.

Poor Baby: He’s not Jesus… he’s just a feller.

Brat: But don’t you see? Every Sunday the Preacher keeps tellin’ us… “He will return! And those who fail to recognize Him will burn in a fiery hell.” Besides, would He lie?

Swallow: He’s a grown-up, right? We all know they can be trusted.

Brat: But we’re long overdue for a miracle, ain’t we? And if He is Jesus, then maybe all our prayers will be answered: “No more pain… no more loss… no more sorrow…”

Poor Baby: Does that mean I might get a new bike?

Swallow: C’mon… lets hide him over there. Pull! I know what I’m seeing. I know what I’m feeling… but it can’t be Him.

Poor Baby: His feet do have holes in ‘em!

Brat: Dear gentle Jesus…

Poor Baby: Wow…

Brat: You know how much you want Ma back? Well… Jesus can raise the dead…

Swallow: If only He was… if only He could. It can’t be him.

Brat: But it is…

The Man: You mustn’t tell anyone I’m here. Promise…

 [The children sing, The Vow]

Swallow: I ALWAYS PRAYED THAT YOU WOULD COME TO SAVE ME

I BELIEVE YOU RETURNED FOR US AT LAST

Swallow, Brat & Poor Baby: WE’LL GIVE YOU SHELTER FOR THE STORMS AND THE WORLD OUTSIDE. YOU’LL BE SAFE—THIS VOW WE MAKE TO YOU. WE’LL NEVER TELL—THIS VOW WE MAKE TO YOU.

When Swallow speaks to The Man, she always speaks holding the possibility that he is Jesus. E.g., when Brat give him bread, and Swallow wine, she explains, "I swiped it from my dad, but I know you’ll forgive me."

During No Matter What she sings, "I'll never leave your side now. We're the only love you need." (Notice how she sings, 'We're', not 'I'm'. Later in the song, she offers her hand to him. After a moment, he accepts her hand and walks downstage to meet her, still holding her hand. She releases his hand, kneels and holds her hands in prayer, looking up to him. (You can see all of this in the video posted below.)

I wonder if it's those types of interactions between The Man and Swallow that are leading folks into interpreting an element of sexuality that I still don't believe exists. To be honest, no one has offered any example for consideration, other than just simply saying it's "undeniably there". 

As Judge Marilyn Milian from The People's Court says, "You can't just show up with your flapping gums. People will just walk it in there, they're insulted that you didn't just take their word for it. It's insanity. I think people think that because they believe their story so much, all they have to do is come forward and say it, and everyone else is gonna see it their way. But when there's two sides involved, you have to prove what it is you're saying."

Updated On: 4/16/26 at 12:24 AM