Have there been any attempts to get a GONE WITH THE WIND musical to broadway ?

It's my favorite film and I think it could look beautiful onstage.

---

Two major attempts.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlett_(musical)
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_(musical)

---

Can't speak for Scarlett but Gone With The wind was pretty damn bad.

---

GONE WITH THE WIND was indeed atrocious. The first act was barely tolerable, although opening night in Miami, during the highly touted "burning of Atlanta" sequence a fiery pine tree fell and then stood up again--still blazing away. Meanwhile, the horse attached to Scarlett's getaway carriage took a dump on stage.

In order to get all the plot in, the second act resorted to having the company stand like chess pieces while Scarlett ran from character to character playing brief versions of all the events from the book.

The following day, the local reviews mostly discussed the resilient tree and incontinent horse. There wasn't much else to say.

If any of this sounds exciting, suffice it to say that although I worked at the theater I didn't bother sitting through GWTW a second time.

(Checking Wiki, I see that what I saw was the version once entitled SCARLETT. But I worked the Lucia Victor mini-tour in 1976; by that time, the title had reverted to the original.)

Updated On: 7/29/13 at 07:11 PM

In a ironic coincidence of theatre time, in the same year both the West End (GWTW) and Broadway (Tale of Two Cities) saw epic novels turned into mega-musicals written completely by a single woman (book/music/lyrics) for their first ever published theatrical work/music that both tanked (both around 70 performances). (Tale was better)

Martin had a few big problems with her attempt: first, she tried to shy away from film and thus decided to add even more detail from the book which made it impossible to be below 3.5 hours at the final perf (it was over 4 hours in previews!). Not only did her music not really advance the plot, it just wasn't very enjoyable (though I do have a soft spot for the title songs ending the acts).

Trevor Nunn then took her script and decided to do similar what John Caird had done for Jane Eyre, in adding narrators to scenes (although that was only for the titular character). Nunn, however, added the most unnecessary narration - in the vain of something like the slaves all moving off the stage and a narrator saying "The slaves had left" etc, etc. It was a totally failed attempt, but Jill Paice and even Darius Danesh gave impressive performances.

Martin is a fascinating and nice woman, and some credit must be given considering that she was able to not only convince the estate of Margaret Mitchell - but also a complete unknown getting their first production directed and retooled by Trevor Nunn is unheard of (though I personally haven't liked a production of his in a while).

There is/was a [2cd] Japanese cast recording of Scarlett

NaTasha Yvette Williams was Mammy in Gone With the Wind with Jill Paice and she talked about it at length in the Porgy and Bess Chatterbox interview with Seth Rudetsky (which I believe can still be found for free on this site by googling). The stories are quite funny, but it seems like the whole thing really was a bit of a disaster.

When I was in college an actor who was part of the original production came to my class to speak on his career. He told us that he use to tell folks he would call the show "Gone With Her Wind" because it was such a mess. He told me that the audience was responding well too him and the star of the show got him fired out of jealousy.

Oh God. That London soundtrack is horrid. The overture sounds like it was recorded on a Kenner Close 'n Play. It's obviously mastered incorrectly.

GWTW was announced for The National Arts Centre in Ottawa and I hoped to crew on it (I was in college and moonlighting at the NAC) but unlike Sherman's March, it failed to reach its destination.

Sorry Harold Rome but the South shouldn't rise again.

---

I saw the 2008 London GWTW and laughed at some of the apalling lyrics from the third row. The show was bloated, misconceived, and worst of all, mind-numbingly boring with amteurish lyrics like:

Wounded soldiers may be physical wrecks
But at least they're members of the opposite sex

Seriously.

It was hard to believe that John Napier had made such a boring, uninspired set (complete with visible stagehands in modern blacks and not period costume pushing and pulling platforms by poles), and that Trevor Nunn who - albeit known for making everything he touches longer than any other production - could turn out a production so lifeless.

Imagine This, which followed it in flopping at the New London, was light years beyond what Martin got staged, and gave me hope that anything can be produced, no matter how awful, if you know where to find money.

The problem with all of these projects is editing. They are too expansive to get into less than 3 hours and keep the full story. You have to have a very select set of scenes to tell the root of the story. I have both the 73 LP and Japanese translation (Scarlett), which could also use some more compelling music. Don't think they issued a recording of the more recent London production (completely different show/creative team)

I saw "Lord of the Rings" in Toronto. Similar problem at 4 hr 15 min (2 intermissions), it still took the books and condensed what took 8 hrs to show on film (and that was too contracted for many fans) and added 11 songs. You really had to have read the books to know what was going on on stage. That show at least had breathtaking staging to keep your attention and some beautiful music. Because of the staging this show would never tour.

"The problem with all of these projects is editing. They are too expansive to get into less than 3 hours and keep the full story."

I don't think that's necessarily true. The Les Mis guys figured it out.

---

N2N Nate: I was thinking of Les Miz and Oliver! As I said it is an issue of editing. Knowing what to cut and not lose the essence of the story. Otherwise, you end up with something like what Johnny Carson did with "Abridged too far." Hilarious when intended.

Or you could do what they did with "Wicked" and throw the story out and take the name and characters and make a whole new story.