"Futuristic 'Cabaret' " — Page 3

Mister Matt said: "Deploying a concept doesn't mean the director doesn't trust the material or the audience. It usually means the director wants to explore parallels of modern relevance in the text [...]"

If a piece is written well enough, couldn't the audience discover those parallels on their own? (...and isn't that part of the enjoyment/appreciation of the piece for the audience?) Wouldn't that imply that the director doesn't trust the audience to be able to do so unless he/she did it for them?

If a director feels that these explorations are necessary enough to make significant changes to the original work, doesn't that imply a level of distrust of the original? (In other words, it seems to imply that the director feels if he/she didn't make the changes, the audience wouldn't be able to "see" or "get" his/her vision or the results of the exploration on their own.)

I think that a good rule of thumb is "if you have to change one word of the text to make your concept work, then you're not respecting the writer's work." For a musical, this also applies to lyrics, as well as any melody, figuration, rhythm, and tempo, etc. written by the composer.

Personally, I wish that this also applied to Shakespeare - it's amazing how many people call him the greatest playwright in history, and yet re-write his plays.

Newintown, your ideological purism is admirable but perhaps a bit stubborn. For instance, Leonard Bernstein famously favored a rather slow and stately tempo throughout West Side Story, and never cared much for the more upbeat or exciting tempos that other conductors and productions have uniformly favored. Critically, the response to his slower West Sides have always been mixed. Is Bernstein "wrong?" Are all other productions "wrong?" Or is there simply room for flexibility and interpretation?

"For instance, Leonard Bernstein famously favored a rather slow and stately tempo throughout West Side Story, and never cared much for the more upbeat or exciting tempos that other conductors and productions have uniformly favored."

I also find Bernstein's approach to tempo too slow; however, he didn't put metronome markings in his score, and "Andante" or "Vivace," etc., are legitimately up to any conductor's interpretation (within reason).

If a piece is written well enough, couldn't the audience discover those parallels on their own? (...and isn't that part of the enjoyment/appreciation of the piece for the audience?) Wouldn't that imply that the director doesn't trust the audience to be able to do so unless he/she did it for them?

It's funny you're mentioning this right around the same time folks are posting about audiences assuming Cyndi Lauper is starring in Kinky Boots because of the marquee/advertising. But no, strong writing does not mean everyone will recognize the same thematic parallels to modern society as specifically imagined by the director. It's kind of ludicrous to believe we're all thinking the same thing at the same time when clearly, our country is never doing that at any time about anything.

If a director feels that these explorations are necessary enough to make significant changes to the original work, doesn't that imply a level of distrust of the original? (In other words, it seems to imply that the director feels if he/she didn't make the changes, the audience wouldn't be able to "see" or "get" his/her vision or the results of the exploration on their own.)

It's not about distrusting the material at all. It's about creative exploration and experimentation. Equating that as "distrust" is a rather myopic vision of the future of any revival of anything. At this point, we don't know what the actual changes will be, much less assess their significance. To me, treating every text as sacred is a rather conservative and narrow-minded approach to the theatre. If you're not breaking licensing agreements or copyright laws, give it a shot. You might just turn a tired old relic into a fresh new treasure without having to make "significant changes" to the text or score.