Horrid FORUM at Papermill- Page 2

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 3/31/11 at 2:58pm

ooh thats rough....and it's kinda tough to screw up Forum...

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/31/11 at 3:29pm

i love how based on a singular experience, there is only one way to "rehearse" a show. How creative. Perhaps your version is on video for us all to enjoy and emulate.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/31/11 at 6:41pm

That's not what I meant, but no, it's not on video. I didn't direct it. I played Hysterium and I've seen MANY productions of the show (including a wonderful TUTS production and the Lane revival). I'm sure there are many fine approaches for direction. I was speaking from my viewpoint and experience as a director and a performer and being very familiar with the material. Certainly didn't mean to offend.

[Overkill]

Posted: 3/31/11 at 7:28pm

I love Forum. One of my favorite shows. The worst looking thing about this production, to me, is Vogt. It looks like they said "Okay, he's fat, gay, funny and loud. Nathan Lane!" That role can be played differently. Nathan is the best Pseudolus IMO, but then there are other ways to play it. Like Whoopi. Carol Burnett wanted to play the role. That would have been fantastic. But it doesn't always have to be Zero Mostel or Nathan Lane.

Posted: 3/31/11 at 9:47pm

"I've come to the realization that Papermill isn't Broadway, and I shouldn't expect it to be. If it's a show you want to see anyway, and you go in with tempered expectations, you'll have a good time."

And yet their revival of Follies (which was recorded on CD) was, while I had some problems, light years better than the subsequent Broadway production. (And Papermill wisely kept Michael Bennett's brilliant Who's That Woman routine).

That said I think in the photos the cartoony sets for this Forum look fine...

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/31/11 at 10:51pm

u didn't really offend. It's just when pronouncements are made about how things "should" or "must" be, it kinda rankles truly creative people. Sorta like saying that a performance is good because you end up soaked in sweat from running around...what was it Olivier said to Hoffman during the filming of MARATHON MAN when Dustin stayed up all night in order to look frazzled? i may be paraphrasing but i think it was something like "try acting my boy, it's so much easier."

i just think there are various approaches, and directors and actors should rehearse the way that works best for them, in the moment, in THIS production, not the one that already happened. That's for novelists and filmmakers...moments frozen in time, which quite frankly, might also be caught within rose-colored glasses. If you saw the PMP FORUM and preferred the others, that's fine...your choice. But to say they got it wrong cuz they didn't rehearse the way you did as an actor...not so kosher.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/1/11 at 2:11pm

I was just putting my point of view out there based on my own experience with the show. My amount of sweat had nothing to do with the quality of the production I didn't direct. It was just indicative of the full-blown physicality the show can demand from a performer (other shows do as well, while some are relatively benign). I had no idea how much stamina the show required until I was in it. I actually discussed this point with Mark Lynn Baker after a performance of the revival and I have a photo of him covered in sweat as well. We actually laughed about it because he didn't think I'd want a picture of him like that. And I enjoyed that production, though I thought the TUTS production was funnier. I think TUTS was in 1990 or 1991. I don't remember the exact year, but it was at Miller. It was my first experience with the show and I absolutely fell in love with it, which is why I was thrilled to have the opportunity later to play my favorite role in the show and why I may have strong opinions about it. I'm NOT a fan of the film, however.

I have not seen this production, I was only making assumptions based on what was mentioned by those who saw the performance in this thread. I would never attempt to creatively stifle anyone, but I would certainly have an opinion, especially if I had personal experience with the property in question. And I'm very open to alternative approaches and methods. As a director, I'd gladly take advice from anyone who might see my rehearsals and offer up their opinions if they feel something does or does not work. I embrace collaboration. And I didn't address the variables of rehearsal time, music rehearsal, cast diversity, choreography production budget and design because those factors are obviously crucial to a director's approach (which has to be fine-tuned from actor to actor within the same cast). I was speaking stylistically only and when I read comments about slow pacing and jokes falling flat as well as layered mannerisms and ad-libs, I immediately turn to the source material from a directorial approach. The show is essentially a farce, and for me, farce is about 1) pacing 2) timing 3) characterization. With a strong script, I would concentrate on nailing those first and then finesse and tweak. And Forum has a rock-solid script.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 4/6/11 at 8:52pm

i know the TUTS version of FORUM had Lenny Wolpe who is a genius cuz he told me he was in it. i really didn't mean to make you so defensive. You said there was one way to rehearse a certain script, and if my interpretation of that statement was not your intention, you have made that clear. Your perspective might change if you see the production in question and not rely on other's interpretations of its viability (both those who saw it firsthand and those who judge it without having done so). i love FORUM too, have been in it, have directed it, have seen good and better productions of it, and have no idea how best to rehearse without all the variables in place you so painstakingly outlined.

There is a strong school of thought (old-fashioned) out there that farce as a form and musical theatre as a form are a hard marriage...that farce does indeed depend on pace and that most musical theatre almost has to slow down for conventional ballads or dance features that may or may not extend the farcical plot. As such, i'd say FORUM from that perspective is a hybrid...a farcical book living in sin with a satirical burlesque score.

Perhaps DROWSY re-set that thinking, but do recall it is short compared to traditional musicals....even with a farcical plot and mucho music. The DROWSY ballads are so satirical and lyrically precise that though is SEEMS the screwball plot slows down for them, it is actually another kind of humor taking stage briefly. And it has the commentary frame going for contrast...something some modern directors try, with varying results, to put onto FORUM (as in the all male version Sondheim reportedly loved recently). At first glance, a show with one major drag joke that is now surrounded by constant drag might not seem possible...but he thought it was, and he's as close to the origin and intent of the original piece as we can get now that Gelbart and Abbott have shuffled off to Buffalo from this mortal coil.

Updated On: 4/6/11 at 08:52 PM

Posted: 4/7/11 at 2:55am

Sondheim said that Forum worked because the songs were written NOT to advance book or character, but as little respite's from the manic action.

Did they keep Pretty Little Picture? Hated that it was cut from the revival (albeit it was recorded...)

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 4/7/11 at 4:55am

PICTURE was in. i love that chart. They DID NOT use "Echo Song" which at least the all male version did....and i enjoy that chart too a lot.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 4/7/11 at 4:58am

and for the record, i see DROWSY as a neo-farce and URINETOWN, for instance, as a neo-satire in contrast (despite Kaufman---George S not Andy) that didn't close on Saturday night.