Hairspray London postponed?

[JakeB]

Posted: 3/19/05 at 2:21pm

Casting has been put on hold supposedly because the Toronto set was going to be used for the British production but it has been bought by another company. So it might not be an October 2005 opening after all..

[Audryna]

Posted: 3/19/05 at 2:45pm

Wow looks like the gossip is might be true! Apparently the set was bought unexpectedly by another producer and Clear Channel are SOL! They had a third round of auditions coming up and they have been postponed until further notice!!

Well there go my hopes of seeing Hairspray for Christmas!

[IMsooHyprToday]

Posted: 3/19/05 at 2:48pm

Does anyone know the Rules for re-using sets? With equity it is an issue, right?

or am i severely mistaken....

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/19/05 at 3:08pm

i dont think London falls under Equity ?

[Audryna]

Posted: 3/19/05 at 3:20pm

They are the same (sort of) company I believe but they follow their own rules. One is considered the US branch and the other (Clear Channel) considered UK branch. But from my understanding they both do what they like seperately.

I mean it would seem sensible to me to cast some of the US actors/actresses that have already played the roles in the states to play the same roles in England. The cast in the states are experienced in the roles and can lend some expertise to the London cast. But the head of Clear Channel is INSISTING that all the cast be english even though it is the most BLATANTLY american musical ever made. Seems daft to me but he has complete control so what ever the suit says you do.

So he can cast who he likes and Equity can sell the set to whoever they like. Seems they only look out for themselves even though they are for the most part the same company.

I think it's hilarious Equity did this... I bet Clear Channel is fuming!

[bjivie2]

Posted: 3/19/05 at 10:22pm

The most blatantly American musical ever made? I doubt that. It's American, but not blatantly. It doesn't celebrate America with flags and fireworks. Oklahoma is more "American" than Hairspray and it received a Trevor Nunn revival a few years back with (gasp!) an Australian in the lead! Let them cast who they want.

[Audryna]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 5:02am

I beg to differ. Oklahoma is about the American Frontier, its settlement and the society and culture which developed as a result.

Now Hairspray, whilst similar in it's aim to show the social and cultural developement due to historical movements i.e. addressing the issue of racism in america during the 1960's, is still more American than Oklahoma. Hairspray is outrageously kitsh, more than ANY other play it slaps you in the face with american slang, products, music (VERY American no matter how you look at it)and fashion. And it's all exagerrated. It smacks of red white and blue; I mean how do you think people outside of the states see the US? They don't think Oklahoma that's for sure. Go to any american themed restaurant in the England and it's ALL 1950s and 60s fountain shops with the music from that era playing in the background and hot dogs and "fries" (very american word) on offer.

I think Oklahoma might be more American, but it's not to people outside of the states no matter what you might think.

[Audryna]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 5:07am

Actually now that of think about it, Grease is the most blatantly american show.... Hairspray comes in a close second.

[shira467]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 5:09am

Good point - Grease is definitely a quintessential American musical.

[wildcat]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 7:46am

This discussion makes me wonder if it's viable to stage HAIRSPRAY at all outside the U.S. if the material isn't going to easily translate to another culture.

[Audryna]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 8:07am

Problem is the casting I think, not the material being accepted. I mean.... I think Clear Channel might underestimate the english public. I think it might be a big joke; a whole cast full of english actors trying to pull off american accents, reciting slang they have no clue about. I'm not saying these are not fine actors, they are some of the finest in the business, but it seems an absolute joke to cast the entire cast opening on West End with English actors.

Even Spamalot opened in Broadway with an english actor playing the lead role. That was a very sensible choice. Seems to me Clear Channel may be too proud for their own good by casting all english. But then hopefully they'll cast at least Tracy with an american actress. The way its looking now they probably won't.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 12:51pm

Here are my 2 cents as I know things... I was under the impression that the producers own the sets and can do what they want with them... if they were sold, that's one thing, but Equity has no part in that.
And regarding casting, there is a UK Equity that's totally seperate. Remember the Miss Saigon debacle when it was to open in the U.S. and Jonathan Pryce's casting caused an uproar because he was not Asian... Cameron Macintosh threatened to end the whole thing before it opened on Broadway saying if US Equity wouldn't allow that, they'd be preventing the future casting of all the Asian americans that the show needs.
There (I think) needs special permissionfor a member of Equity (either country) to perform in the opposite and it can only be for a few months (6-9 I think).
So, that's all... maybe that helps!
DT

[CrAzIaBoUtReNt]

Posted: 3/20/05 at 1:13pm

I hope there will be a London Cast Recording...sorry about the randomness.