HOW TO SUCCEED... Dated?

[Almira]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 3:03am

As much as I admire the craftsmanship of the book and, of course, that GLORIOUS score, the show just seems dated to me.

I'm thinking since we know so much about the savage nature of corporate culture, these characters come off as pretty tame.


In the same way I don't find the gangs of WEST SIDE STORY threatening, I don't find Finch particular clever in his strategies. These days he'd be a kindergarten Machiavellian.

I imagine some Wall Street type in the audience thinking "Amateur.. I was using those tricks in the sandbox!"

I'd love to hear from people who saw the original production. I suspect that, at the time, Finch's charming but shameless insincerity must have been startling and refreshing.

Updated On: 3/15/11 at 03:03 AM

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 3:44am

I think the only thing about revivals that is dated is the go to complaint that they're dated.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 4:10am

Rooted in a an era, but true to the era. You can't do a show form another time period and expect today's realitiies to apply. It's the themes that are timeless.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 5:18am

When I think of a book being dated, I generally think of topical humor and not so much the plot. Archaic references to then current events make a show dated; a story set in a particular era with sentiments of that era makes it, in a way, a period piece.

[Almira]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 8:59am

Jimmycurry01, I agree with you, but I would add that the entire sensibility of a piece can become dated. True, the themes of ambition and manipulation are, of themselves, timeless. However, the satirizing of those characteristics in SUCCEED look, to me, almost juvenile today.

I remember seeing OF THEE I SING in the 90s during the height of the Lewinsky scandal and we, the audience, were laughing at how simplistic and naive the show's approach to the presidency was. I'm sure that wasn't the reaction of the 1932 audience. Like SUCCEED, OF THEE is a satire of a subject we, today, have a much more sophisticated understanding of. Both, interestingly, won Pulitzers.

Updated On: 3/15/11 at 08:59 AM

[lightguy06222]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 9:05am

Yes, the book may be a bit dated. Thats because the book was written 50 years ago. But its the job of the creative team to bring life to the show they have choosen to revive.

The new production of H2$ has so much life and heart, and the team has done a brilliant job adapting the play to a modern audience.

The director inserted brilliant references to pop-culture, without changing the script, or the playwrights purpose. For example:

SPOILER KIND OF, BUT NOT REALLY:

When Finch realizes that he is in love with Rosemary, and jumps up and down on the couch to exude his excitement? Tom Cruise anyone? I got the reference immediately, and thought it was brilliant.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 9:09am

Why is that brilliant? What is meant by drawing that parallel?

[Almira]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 9:15am

Thats because the book was written 50 years ago.

Interesting. The book to GUYS AND DOLLS was written over 60 years ago and I don't find that dated.

The new production of H2$ has so much life and heart

That line struck me. I haven't seen new revival yet, but "heart" isn't a term I'd use in connection with SUCCEED.

Does the new production try to leave you "warm and fuzzy?" Or do you mean the performers and working at full capacity to put the show over?

Updated On: 3/15/11 at 09:15 AM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 10:16am

Things can be "dated" in different ways, I think. On one hand, something like H2$ I think is dated, but in a fun, nostalgic way. On the other hand you have a creaky old play like THAT CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON that at one time apparently made quite a cultural impact but now just lies there like a dead fish.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 11:02am

The first time I saw H2$ was the national tour of the '95 revival, with Ralph Macchio, which means I was probably in 10th grade, relatively near the beginning of my interest in professional theater. I knew nothing of the show but the its title and its star. My mother and I were bored to distraction. We nearly left at intermission, but didn't because we spotted a pair of better seats and moved into them for act 2, hoping being closer to the action might improve upon our engagement. It didn't. We stayed bored through the end, the lone exception being the thrilling "Brotherhood of Man," which seemed to come out of nowhere.

13 years passed, and my theater and musical-theater grew experience and vocabulary improved significantly before my coming upon another production of H2$ that I was interested in seeing, as a friend of mine was music-directing it for a local conservatory. Since my original experience with the show had left me unenthused, I'd only revisited the score a few times, always finding it charming and pleasant but never very exciting. So I went with great interest to this production of H2$ a year and a half ago, curious to rediscover and maybe see anew a classic show that I felt maybe I was too uknowledgable to appreciate the first time around.

It was designed and orchestrated and choreographed to the fullest potentials of the talents of the people onstage and backstage and directed with attention to detail and firm hand on keeping the entire cast in the same production, stylistically. It was lovely to hear the score played by an impressive orchestra and the songs sung by gorgeous, fresh, trained voices. But I was so bored... just... so... bored. I do think the book is hopelessly dated.

Almira, I agree with you about the book for GUYS & DOLLS -- not dated in the least. But the book for H2$ seems to me not only devoid of surprises, but -- much worse -- devoid of moments that *can* surprise, And you make an excellent point about its satirization of a subject the general public's knowledge of has so significantly increased in the past half-century-plus. As satire, it's thin and polite. If you play it straight, it's treacle. While I hope this production succeeds for the folks that love the show, for me personally I'm not sure that even the most top-flight production of it could really thrill me.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 11:08am

Satires always risk becoming dated simply because the concepts that are being satirized are always at risk of changing. Some satires hold up remarkably well (like, for instance, Dr. Strangelove or Candide, despite both coming from a unique time and mindset). How to Succeed, in terms of writing, is not really on the same level as either of those works.

[Jon]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 11:22am

When How to Succeed came out 50 years ago, Abe Burrows warned the audience (in press interviews) that if they were looking for heart or any genuine emotions, they should forget it. He was proud of the fast that it was pure satire with one-dimensional characters.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 11:26am

Exactly, Kad. Those are two excellent examples. Jane Austen and Mark Twain are pretty sharp over 100 years later. Billy Wilder, Chaplin, and Marx Brothers movies still maintain quite an edge. BORN YESTERDAY is so relevant to today's politics that it's scary. Is it that PROMISES, PROMISES was just written too broadly to age well? Has THAT CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON simply fallen victim to changing times, or is it a problem of its ideas being too simplistic to begin with?

Hard to say. Hard to say.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 11:41am

How to Succeed is also remarkably toothless in its satire. I doubt anyone has ever walked out feeling that their ideology had been insulted. Again, I think you will find the most timeless satires are the ones that bite the audience/reader- because they will to do so ages after the creator or the original audience is gone.

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 11:48am

lightguy, the theater lost it when he did that. Even better the evening I saw it, according to paparazzi outside at intermission, Katie Holmes was attending that evening's performance.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 11:53am

That's why ANYONE CAN WHISTLE so baffled its original audiences.

Act 1 ended with the actors literally laughed at the patrons.

Its book has a number of significant problems, but a willingness to bite and bite hard isn't one of them.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 1:33pm

Remember, this show came out during the Mad Men era and was a revelation to audiences back then. It is very cleverly written for a period when the big hit show was "Bye Bye Birdie." Or "Camelot."

I cannot recommend enough that you try to find a copy of Shep Mead's original book "How To Succeed in Business, The Dastard's Guide to Success" (and by Dastard, I'm sure he meant Bastard.

It is vey slim and very, very funny and you'll discover that the musical is only the first half of the book. The second half deals with Finch, now the boss, totally destroying the up-and-coming "Young Clarence Bibber" who is trying to do to Finch what Finch did to JJ Bigley.

But yes, the show's script is dated. I produced a revival in the 90s and had the critics ripping me a new one over the sexist attitudes. Apparently, they missed the fact that the show is a satire on sexism (and many other isms...)

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 2:26pm

Almira,

I’m glad you brought this up. I also feel the same way about this show. I’ve always wondered what the great love for it is.

I find the show sexist, misogynistic, dated, and corny.

The first time I saw it was when Reprise did it here in LA. I took a gal pal of mine, who is not shy in the least, and we were both offended at the boner jokes they made when Hedy made her first entrance. We left at intermission because we were so bored.

The music was simplistic and repetitive, like something you’d hear coming from a music box.

I found the story line slightly offensive. In this day and age of corporate greed, how are we supposed to laugh at a guy who ‘fakes his way to the top’? The lead character shows no other skills than learning how to manipulate a situation and the people around him to get what he wants. That’s not a quality I like to root for.

The women are stereo-types; the sex kitten, bombshell, the sweet, wholesome girlfriend who’d be ‘happy to keep his dinner warm’ while he treats her like crap, and the wise-cracking best friend who, although is single, HAS to hook her BF up with a MAN, even though she herself is obviously a lesbian.

I know when the show was originally written, these subjects were not used in a musical before and were never really talked about in public, which made it new to people. That’s why it won a Pulitzer, much like NEXT TO NORMAL.

I did another production of it at Goodspeed just this last summer, and found the show exactly as I had remembered it. Even though it was a top-notch production, I still thought it reeked of mothballs.

[Almira]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 3:14pm

and the wise-cracking best friend who, although is single, HAS to hook her BF up with a MAN, even though she herself is obviously a lesbian.

That was priceless.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 3:21pm

I find the show sexist, misogynistic, dated, and corny.

It's supposed to be sexist and mysogynistic. As allofmylife says, it's a satire of those very sentiments. The very nature of satire is to highlight and exaggerate the very qualities you're trying to break down.

The women are stereo-types; the sex kitten, bombshell, the sweet, wholesome girlfriend who’d be ‘happy to keep his dinner warm’ while he treats her like crap, and the wise-cracking best friend who, although is single, HAS to hook her BF up with a MAN, even though she herself is obviously a lesbian.

As somebody else quoted in this thread, Abe Burrows has stated that the characters are SUPPOSED to be one-dimensional. Another aspect of the hyperbolic nature of satire. You're complaining about the show being exactly what it tries to be. That's like going to see LEGALLY BLONDE and complaining that it's just like the movie, or seeing a jukebox musical and complaining that they used preexisting songs.

In this day and age of corporate greed, how are we supposed to laugh at a guy who ‘fakes his way to the top’? The lead character shows no other skills than learning how to manipulate a situation and the people around him to get what he wants. That’s not a quality I like to root for.

That's why it takes an actor with a special charm and charisma to get you to like him despite everything he does. In my opinion, Radcliffe had charisma in spades and was a huge part of why I enjoyed the show so much.

It was my first time seeing the musical (I never saw the movie), although I knew the music and the basic story going in, and I loved it. The performances, the choreography, everything. Maybe it was because I did not have the original performances to compare it to, but still, on its own merits, I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was a very successful production.

[Almira]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 3:46pm

So, Yero my Hero, are you saying the show isn't dated?

Since the show is populated with one-dimensional characters, I have to assume that the desire to satirize corporate America is the point of the show rather than understanding the people involved.

Are you saying that the show satirical points are as timely and potent as they were in 1961? That American corporate culture is pretty much the same as SUCCEED's simplistic cartoon depiction?


As for myself, I don't have a problem with rooting or an anti-hero. With CHICAGO I find myself rooting for a couple murderers.. CHICAGO's satire of the judicial system is still potent, in fact it took the audience to a couple decades to catch up with it. HOW TO SUCCEED's satire is...like I said..dated.

Updated On: 3/15/11 at 03:46 PM

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 4:03pm

It's not about the corporate culture being exactly the same as depicted in the show. But the THEMES it's depicting -- greed, sexism, rewarding people who don't actually deserve it -- definitely still exist to some degree.

Also, the current revival is set in the early '60s. If they had tried to set it in the modern time, it probably would have felt more dated. But because the look made it abundantly clear from the start that this was a different era, it was easier to enjoy it as a period piece and let the themes happen.

It was kind of like HAIR. When people try to place it in a modern setting, it just doesn't work and feels incredibly dated. But the recent revival worked so well because they DIDN'T update it -- they kept it in its own era, and by doing so, the universal themes were able to resonate without the anachronism being a distraction.

Sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm finding it difficult to explain exactly.

I guess in short, the situations are dated, but the themes are still relevant, so watching it in its own setting made the dated stuff make sense and the relevant stuff even more meaningful.

[Almira]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 4:12pm

I've already posted my thoughts on how SUCCEED approaches its THEMES. But I'll add that for 1961, it might have been biting in the satirical execution of its themes, but today, to me, it just comes off as harmless and a bit naive.

And since the show is all about its satirical viewpoint, I think it has not aged well.

By the way, the show has always been set in the early 60's. It opened in 1961.

Updated On: 3/15/11 at 04:12 PM

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 4:17pm

Yes, I know that. My point is that this creative team set it in its original time and did not try to update it.

I agree perhaps the satire is not as biting as it might have been in 1961, but the criticisms could still apply to today's business world, and as a piece of entertainment, I totally enjoyed it and did not leave feeling as if it was dated, and as I said, I think part of the reason is because it was done as a period piece.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 3/15/11 at 4:21pm

Actually, just a few weeks ago I was having a conversation with a coworker who is from the Midwest. I grew up in the northeast and went to school in New York, and I was saying that I felt the old notion of the man "providing for" the woman, and the woman giving up her education and her job the minute she gets married, is archaic and isn't prevalent today. She said that sentiment is still huge where she grew up, and many of her friends from high school and college have done exactly that - quit school or gave up working the minute they got engaged.

As she said, we are in a bit of an equality and diversity bubble in New York, but sexism, mysogyny, and patriarchy (all major themes of H2$) still exist in major ways in other parts of the country.

I know that's only one example, but this discussion reminded me of that conversation.