#1
Posted: 5/25/16 at 1:32am
I just wonder without his direction the show would not have worked at all. And that is why he should win the Tony
Did John Doyle save Color
#2
Posted: 5/25/16 at 1:40am
Without direction, no show would work. He did a very good job but he doesn't deserve the Tony this year IMO with the competition he has. Cynthia Erivo 'saved' the show as much as he did.
#3
Posted: 5/25/16 at 2:13am
Well, Cynthia definitely didn't save it tonight. She was out after the first act and the understudy had to go on for the second.
http://www.glamsmash.com/ - Glamsmash Productions, a video production company in the heart of New York City
#4
Posted: 5/25/16 at 2:24am
I heard about that, that's a shame, but not unexpected considering her recent marathon and Colbert appearance. I'm sure she's exhausted.
#5
Posted: 5/25/16 at 2:36am
^ She sounded sick in SC's television show. I am sure she was very sick and needed time off
#6
Posted: 5/25/16 at 3:56am
The original production didn't have either John Doyle or Cynthia and it was a success. I do think they made the material much better, though.
Updated On: 5/25/16 at 03:56 AM
#7
Posted: 5/25/16 at 5:02am
That kind of makes me wonder... Will this production get similar attention? A few tours, a couple more years on B'way? Who knows, but this production certainly received more warm critical (and commercial) reception. So ya gotta wonder...
#8
Posted: 5/25/16 at 5:51am
I'm in the minority, but I found Doyle's direction uninspired.
I'm just thankful he didn't have the actors play instruments.
....but the world goes 'round
#9
Posted: 5/25/16 at 6:02am
Revivals don't usually run all that long. A year, 18 months is the norm.
He also couldn't save something that wasn't in danger. Did he elevated the show? Yes, I think he did, and I loved the original, too.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#10
Posted: 5/25/16 at 8:11am
He also couldn't save something that wasn't in danger. Did he elevated the show? Yes, I think he did, and I loved the original, too.
Exactly. I also loved the original. I love both the original production and the revival for different reasons. Both productions emotionally moved me.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
#11
Posted: 5/25/16 at 9:40am
I saw the original production twice and just did not get it. I think the gianormous set and theatre it was in took a lot away from the material, which no one realized how good it was until now. Yes, he saved it for if it wasn't for this reconceived production, it never would have been brought back to Broadway. If this was the original production back in 2006, it would have beat Jersey Boys by a landslide for best musical and won best music over Drowsy, and probably taken book too. The original production wasn't even in the running for these awards.
edit: I know the show was technically nominated for those awards, but what I meant was it didn't stand a chance at winning any of them at the time.
Updated On: 5/25/16 at 09:40 AM
#12
Posted: 5/25/16 at 9:56am
I think he might have saved its future potential for more regional productions. The reimagining with simpler sets and a streamlined focus might cause groups with more limited budgets to give it another look.
#13
Posted: 5/25/16 at 9:57am
I really do think that he focused the show more, but Cynthia Erivo and the fantastic cast is what "saved" the show.
#14
Posted: 5/25/16 at 10:05am
I think he changed the perception of what the show could be. When I remember the original, I think of words like slow, clunky, and bulky. When I think of the revival I think of words like streamlined, simple, and sparse.
http://backstagebarbie.blogspot.com
#15
Posted: 5/25/16 at 10:05am
double post
http://backstagebarbie.blogspot.com
Updated On: 5/25/16 at 10:05 AM
#16
Posted: 5/25/16 at 10:09am
Is that the first time Cynthia has called out?
My father (AIDS)
My sister (AIDS)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS, AIDS, AIDS)
The gays and the straights
And the white and the spades
#17
Posted: 5/25/16 at 11:45am
Actually, I think he did save the Color Purple. But it's not like the show was terrible the first time around. People did like it, myself included. But there were a lot of elements to it that felt bloated...the set for one. It's just not a big Broadway show and I think they tried to put too many decorations on a small tree so to speak. But it also had an affectation about it which i think was it's biggest problem. It just felt false...from the larger than life dialects (bordering stereotype) to the performances directed to be far too melodramatic, the choreography that came across as camp/parody in certain moments, and the music direction that didn't sensitively tell the story of these peoples lives; this all contributed to an unpopular opinion of the piece amongst a large portion of theater fans. Whether you liked it or not, for a few years The Color Purple Musical was considered a failure in terms of being produced in professional theaters.
For those of us who have seen the revival, I think we're really glad John was convinced to take another look at the musical. What he did was take all the decorations off the tree find the simple truth in the writing and songs. By doing so he uncovered a wonderful show that is even more true to the book than the Spielberg movie. It's a small singular story with a huge emotional payoff. But you can only get there if you strip away all the Broadway cliche. There is virtually no set, just chairs and distressed wood on the floor and walls representing an old porch. The theatricality is simple. But we zero in on the lives of these people that Alice Walker created and actually get to go on the journey with them...John Doyle did save The Color Purple. Honorable mention to Jason Michael Webb who has musical directed this cast so sensitively it feels like you're listening to a brand new score.
#18
Posted: 5/25/16 at 11:58am
I've got to put my foot down and say a word on behalf of John Lee Beatty's perfectly appropriate and lovely sets for the original Bway production of THE COLOR PURPLE. The vast majority of those original sets for the show were simple and skeletal with an abstract wheat field drop that dominated the visuals. I remember the lovely act curtain that was one of Nettie's letters to Celie (very similar to Michael Yeargan's SOUTH PACIFIC act curtain). Beatty caught the emotional story very simply and beautifully.
Was the rest of the production bloated and clunky? That could be. The ensemble was huge and the key cast members didn't stand out the way the principals do in the current revival. The original production's book was also much longer and wordier than the reduced libretto that the revival uses.
Don't get me wrong-- I think the new production is the best thing on Broadway right now (at least the best thing anyone can afford tickets to). But raising up the new doesn't mean we must by definition tear down the old.
Updated On: 5/25/16 at 11:58 AM
#19
Posted: 5/25/16 at 12:09pm
From everything I've heard about Doyle's production, he turned the mediocre show into a mini-masterpiece. He should probably get the Tony. But Hamilton's Kail, whose direction is somewhat muddled and does not always get the story across clearly ( as a good director should) will win... unfortunately.
Karl reminds me somewhat of Julie Taymore (sp?). Her direction of The Lion King is ghastly, puppet show aside. But really, what the hell was going on for two and a half hours? She cannot tell a story on stage to save her life.
#20
Posted: 5/25/16 at 12:11pm
As I said, I thought Doyle did a good job but in terms of being muddled I'd say Doyle's direction was far more muddled than Kail's. Even if Hamilton wasn't in the race, I'd give it to Michael Arden over John Doyle.
#21
Posted: 5/25/16 at 4:34pm
Did he save it? No. Did he reinvigorate it? Yes.
#22
Posted: 5/25/16 at 4:44pm
I love the title of this thread, as if color, the idea, was in danger.
#23
Posted: 5/25/16 at 6:21pm
There was one reason the original ran as long as it did...Oprah.....she produced it and worked hard plugging it Bus loads of church ladies rode 6-7 hours to see it. This version in my opinion is a vast improvement because of the cast and simplicity.
#24
Posted: 5/25/16 at 6:22pm
I think unless you been under a rock you know what I mean by Color!
#25
Posted: 5/25/16 at 7:39pm
Oh, calm down -- he never said he didn't understand it. (Because its so hard to type Purple....ouch.)
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $106
Tickets From $159