#26
Posted: 8/26/10 at 12:47am
Omg! I knew I was missing one. Thank you for answering. Is WSS second?
John Doyle's take on KISS ME KATE — Page 2
#27
Posted: 8/26/10 at 10:47am
"Yeah, I hated his Company too. His gimmick of actors playing musical instruments created a huge disconnect between the actors and the material."
And yet, that's not what I was getting at. You asked if Doyle EVER trusted the material he directed, and I cited Company as an example of when he did. Regardless of whether you liked the production (which was hardly gimmick-y at all).
I find it hilarious that people say that the instrument thing didn't work because the actors had SO much to do at once (play, sing, and ACT), they couldn't possibly do it all well. Just like when actors have to sing, dance, and act all at once, I imagine?
And yet, that's not what I was getting at. You asked if Doyle EVER trusted the material he directed, and I cited Company as an example of when he did. Regardless of whether you liked the production (which was hardly gimmick-y at all).
I find it hilarious that people say that the instrument thing didn't work because the actors had SO much to do at once (play, sing, and ACT), they couldn't possibly do it all well. Just like when actors have to sing, dance, and act all at once, I imagine?
#28
Posted: 8/26/10 at 5:24pm
Just to update the other two shows I caught at Stratford this week (neither of which was directed by Doyle):
PETER PAN - an amazing production of Barrie's play - a children's story written for adults played by adults acting as children. A beautifully done show with a new ending that is even more devastating than the original. (Still I miss "I'm Flying!")
EVITA - Three excellent leads (Chilina Kennedy, Juan Chioran and especially Josh Young as Che)in a production that is in some ways better than the Broadway original. While I miss some of Hal Prince's touches n(notably the use of newsreel film clips and photos, the musical chairs game) the director Gary Griffin has come up with some brilliant innovations. "The Art of the Possible" is now done as a poker game. Che is now more than just an outsider, he becomes a number of characters within the show.
Seeing this show for the umpteenth time reminded me that the big number "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" is in the wrong place. It should be sung in full in Eva's last broadcast (where there is a brief reprise) making it the ultimate 11:00 number, and for the scene on the balcony of the Casa Rosada interpolate the film's "You Must Love Me" which would be more appropriate a speech for Eva to make at that point. EVITA as a show works fine the way it is but I wonder if this change would make both songs more effective.
PETER PAN - an amazing production of Barrie's play - a children's story written for adults played by adults acting as children. A beautifully done show with a new ending that is even more devastating than the original. (Still I miss "I'm Flying!")
EVITA - Three excellent leads (Chilina Kennedy, Juan Chioran and especially Josh Young as Che)in a production that is in some ways better than the Broadway original. While I miss some of Hal Prince's touches n(notably the use of newsreel film clips and photos, the musical chairs game) the director Gary Griffin has come up with some brilliant innovations. "The Art of the Possible" is now done as a poker game. Che is now more than just an outsider, he becomes a number of characters within the show.
Seeing this show for the umpteenth time reminded me that the big number "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" is in the wrong place. It should be sung in full in Eva's last broadcast (where there is a brief reprise) making it the ultimate 11:00 number, and for the scene on the balcony of the Casa Rosada interpolate the film's "You Must Love Me" which would be more appropriate a speech for Eva to make at that point. EVITA as a show works fine the way it is but I wonder if this change would make both songs more effective.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
#29
Posted: 8/26/10 at 5:37pm
I find it hilarious that people say that the instrument thing didn't work because the actors had SO much to do at once (play, sing, and ACT), they couldn't possibly do it all well. Just like when actors have to sing, dance, and act all at once, I imagine?
I don't think that was the point, at least not for me. I wasn't questioning whether the performers could do the playing, singing and acting well all at once. I just felt that for a show like COMPANY it was just so unnecessary.
I don't think that was the point, at least not for me. I wasn't questioning whether the performers could do the playing, singing and acting well all at once. I just felt that for a show like COMPANY it was just so unnecessary.
#30
Posted: 8/26/10 at 6:33pm
I've seen community college productions of Company that worked better than Doyle's version.
#31
Posted: 8/26/10 at 6:50pm
No, not confusing regional with community. I still argue that Stratford is not "regional". In Canada, it could be argued that Stratford (and to some extent The Shaw Festival), with all due respect to other fine Canadian theatres is our Broadway. Commercial Theatre in Toronto is dominated by Mirvish and DanCap and for the most part present tours or Canadian versions of popular Broadway and West End productions. Jersey Boys, Rock of Ages, Dirty Dancing, Sound of Music, and So on. Every once in a while there is a Lord of the Rings (arg) or a Jane Eyre or Ragtime which truly starts in Toronto but even those are developmental orout of towns for Broadway or West End. The truth is that the large budget new productions are being done at Stratford. Canadiens grow up dreaming of treading the boards at Stratford. So, for the most part to call it "regional" is, I feel and others seem to agree, incorrect. I do not believe there is an equivalent inthe US. The RSC is the closest match and I wouldn't call them regional either.
#32
Posted: 8/27/10 at 12:26am
Broadwaygirl, I think maybe the implication was that the very nature of having the actors playing their own instruments indicated Doyle didn't trust the material. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but that's just how I read it.
I ... liked... Doyle's Company, although like I always say, it's like watching the Art Museum's Board of Directions doing a singspiel in the Georgian Room. I never thought Company was the cold, soulless show everyone seems to think it is. I found warmth in what I've seen and heard of the original production, warmth not found in the revival. Is this the show where the actors were directed not to look at each other? Too much irony, too much overt smugness in Bobby and NOBODY was likable, except for Elizabeth Stanley and the girl who played Marta whose name escapes me.
I ... liked... Doyle's Company, although like I always say, it's like watching the Art Museum's Board of Directions doing a singspiel in the Georgian Room. I never thought Company was the cold, soulless show everyone seems to think it is. I found warmth in what I've seen and heard of the original production, warmth not found in the revival. Is this the show where the actors were directed not to look at each other? Too much irony, too much overt smugness in Bobby and NOBODY was likable, except for Elizabeth Stanley and the girl who played Marta whose name escapes me.
#33
Posted: 8/27/10 at 12:43am
"Is this the show where the actors were directed not to look at each other?"
It's been too long since I saw the DVD, but I remember when I saw the "Sweeney" tour the actors barely looked at each other there. Bugged the crap out of me there, though I guess I must have either not noticed or not cared if it was like that during "Company."
It's been too long since I saw the DVD, but I remember when I saw the "Sweeney" tour the actors barely looked at each other there. Bugged the crap out of me there, though I guess I must have either not noticed or not cared if it was like that during "Company."
"Your lyrics lack subtlety! You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!"
#34
Posted: 8/27/10 at 2:25am
Oh come now, everyone. It isn't all so black and white.
Some of his stuff I like, some not. Like most artists.
I loved his COMPANY, SWEENEY, ROAD SHOW, and a CAUCASIAN CHALK CIRCLE he did in San Francisco earlier this year. But A CATERED AFFAIR, not so much. Haven't seen this, though it does look pretty broad and tacky.
Some of his stuff I like, some not. Like most artists.
I loved his COMPANY, SWEENEY, ROAD SHOW, and a CAUCASIAN CHALK CIRCLE he did in San Francisco earlier this year. But A CATERED AFFAIR, not so much. Haven't seen this, though it does look pretty broad and tacky.
#35
Posted: 8/27/10 at 4:30am
Totally agree with justaguy2: Stratford is a theatre that transcends terms like regional, just as the RSC in Stratford, England, does. It's the largest and probably most prestigious theatre company in North America.
Really, isn't Broadway just regional theatre? New York is a region.
Really, isn't Broadway just regional theatre? New York is a region.
#36
Posted: 8/27/10 at 12:43pm
A Catered Affair was the only thing of his I've seen in which I didn't find something to love. I saw Road Show three times, Company and Sweeney each more than I care to admit, and planned a vacation to San Francisco to see The Caucasian Chalk Circle. Say what you will about his productions, I've accepted that they're either love it or hate it, but his work has taught me more about the theatre than I've ever learned in a classroom. It's one of the things I love most in the world, and I try to see as much of it as I can. It may not work for you, and time has taught me that that's okay; but I see magic in it.
You know, I never really saw the "overwhelming coldness" thing in his Company that so many people talk about. I saw coldness, certainly, but I didn't see it as being off-putting, or as standing in the way of engaging emotionally with what was going on. I did see warmth in those characters, too, but I saw that coldness factor as an idea that said something very, very powerful, if somewhat disturbing. But I found something kind of addictive behind that power, and kept going back for more.
And now I will get off my soapbox.
I just get a little upset at the implication that because I love his work, I have no taste.
ETA: BDrisch, There was not as much of that "out-front" staging in Company as there was in Sweeney, and I do know that was a very deliberate choice.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
You know, I never really saw the "overwhelming coldness" thing in his Company that so many people talk about. I saw coldness, certainly, but I didn't see it as being off-putting, or as standing in the way of engaging emotionally with what was going on. I did see warmth in those characters, too, but I saw that coldness factor as an idea that said something very, very powerful, if somewhat disturbing. But I found something kind of addictive behind that power, and kept going back for more.
And now I will get off my soapbox.
I just get a little upset at the implication that because I love his work, I have no taste. ETA: BDrisch, There was not as much of that "out-front" staging in Company as there was in Sweeney, and I do know that was a very deliberate choice.
Updated On: 8/27/10 at 12:43 PM
#37
Posted: 8/27/10 at 6:09pm
"ETA: BDrisch, There was not as much of that "out-front" staging in Company as there was in Sweeney, and I do know that was a very deliberate choice."
Interesting. I'm glad he for whatever reason decided to go that route. It really bugged me how Sweeney and Antony kept looking off in different directions during "No Place Like London." I eventually assumed that Lord Voldemort had discovered a link to Antony's mind and Sweeney was afraid that if he kept looking at Antony Voldemort would use the link more. It made about as much sense as the baby coffin.
Interesting. I'm glad he for whatever reason decided to go that route. It really bugged me how Sweeney and Antony kept looking off in different directions during "No Place Like London." I eventually assumed that Lord Voldemort had discovered a link to Antony's mind and Sweeney was afraid that if he kept looking at Antony Voldemort would use the link more. It made about as much sense as the baby coffin.
"Your lyrics lack subtlety! You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!"
#39
Posted: 8/28/10 at 1:30pm
It just had to do with a difference in the way he wanted to approach telling the respective stories. Heh, if you didn't like the coffin, you would have hated the pillow baby in Chalk Circle.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
#40
Posted: 8/28/10 at 3:54pm
At risk of being shot down for this, I'm going to be the vast minority and say that I really enjoyed this production of Kiss Me Kate. I liked the changes that John Doyle made, and I think that it gives the material a fresh new take, which I enjoy. There is the approach of treating it as a museum piece and performing it always as it was originally done. I don't think that is the right approach to take, especially with material like this that can be so versatile.
I see your issues with the show, but a lot of the things you had issues with were things that I felt really made the show. The decision to make the show within the show really poor quality had great comic effect and brought a new meaning to some of the script. It made the stories of Fred and Lilli so much more interesting, as Fred took the production as a piece of art and it was clearly not. The costumes confused me as well at the beginning, but when it was the show within the show, I thought they made sense.
Also the changes they made in the songs, such as the opening and finale, and I really loved both. The opening gave me chills, it was a beautiful way to start off a great piece of traditional musical theatre. The way they tied that into the finale was beautiful.
Numbers such as "Bianca" which I've never been impressed with, were entertaining in this production, as well as "Tom, Dick or Harry". Chilina Kennedy, who is fabulous in anything she does, was a total star, annd the cast as a whole was very solid.
I agree with you about "Too Darn Hot", it was fantastic, but I also think numbers like "Another Opnin'...", "Always True to You", and "Brush Up Your Shakespeare" were equally as good.
I truly loved this production, as did my mother who I went with, who has been going to Stratford for almost 20 years and said that this might have been the best production she's seen there.
I respect your opinion, but I feel that this show deserves a defense, because it was a spectacular, different version of a beautiful musical.
I see your issues with the show, but a lot of the things you had issues with were things that I felt really made the show. The decision to make the show within the show really poor quality had great comic effect and brought a new meaning to some of the script. It made the stories of Fred and Lilli so much more interesting, as Fred took the production as a piece of art and it was clearly not. The costumes confused me as well at the beginning, but when it was the show within the show, I thought they made sense.
Also the changes they made in the songs, such as the opening and finale, and I really loved both. The opening gave me chills, it was a beautiful way to start off a great piece of traditional musical theatre. The way they tied that into the finale was beautiful.
Numbers such as "Bianca" which I've never been impressed with, were entertaining in this production, as well as "Tom, Dick or Harry". Chilina Kennedy, who is fabulous in anything she does, was a total star, annd the cast as a whole was very solid.
I agree with you about "Too Darn Hot", it was fantastic, but I also think numbers like "Another Opnin'...", "Always True to You", and "Brush Up Your Shakespeare" were equally as good.
I truly loved this production, as did my mother who I went with, who has been going to Stratford for almost 20 years and said that this might have been the best production she's seen there.
I respect your opinion, but I feel that this show deserves a defense, because it was a spectacular, different version of a beautiful musical.
Give me a bottle of bourbon and half a chicken and I'll conquer the world!
#41
Posted: 8/28/10 at 8:03pm
I like you. Thanks for writing that.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Thanks for writing that.
.gif?width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $101
