#26
Posted: 7/26/13 at 11:06am
Jules Fisher did the lights! (They were Tharon Musser-like, but they were Jules's!)
La Cage Aux Folles - Original Production — Page 2
#28
Posted: 7/26/13 at 11:38am
A friend of mine who is a good friend of Sondheim's told me that Jerry Herman knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and an interview where he claimed that sometime after he invited Sondheim, Carol Channing, and Angela Lansbury over for dinner, and a sing-a-long around the piano was complete bullsh*t. I used to think that Herman must have just made a poor choice of words and clearly admired Sondheim, but that got settled as soon as my friend told me the opposite.
And yes, Sondheim did not say "Rodgers sucks. I hate him. He'a an asshole and doesn't know how to write good music." He said he was a man of "infinite talent, and limited soul." Didn't criticize the work-- just the mean old guy behind it. And judging from what nearly everyone who worked with Rodgers has said (including his collaborators pre-Sondheim), it's not a remark pulled from thin air either. I think Rodgers is a brilliant composer, but gosh, he seems like an old sourpuss.
And yes, Sondheim did not say "Rodgers sucks. I hate him. He'a an asshole and doesn't know how to write good music." He said he was a man of "infinite talent, and limited soul." Didn't criticize the work-- just the mean old guy behind it. And judging from what nearly everyone who worked with Rodgers has said (including his collaborators pre-Sondheim), it's not a remark pulled from thin air either. I think Rodgers is a brilliant composer, but gosh, he seems like an old sourpuss.
#29
Barbara Walters interviews Harvey Fierstein (1983)
Posted: 7/26/13 at 1:13pm
Barbara Walters interviews Harvey Fierstein (1983)
"The gods who nurse this universe think little of mortals' cares. They sit in crowds on exclusive clouds and laugh at our love affairs. I might have had a real romance if they'd given me a chance. I loved him, but he didn't love me. I wanted him, but he didn't want me. Then the gods had a spree and indulged in another whim. Now he loves me, but I don't love him." - Cole Porter
#30
Posted: 7/26/13 at 7:51pm
Hushpuppy and best12bars, thank you for refreshing my memory of the staging. Of course you are right: I was confusing "I Put Some Make-Up On" with "I Am What I Am". (I'm talking about staging only; I didn't mix up the songs themselves.)
For the record, I've always thought the supposed Herman/Sondheim feud did a disservice to both. The basic premise undervalues Herman and turns Sondheim into some sort of pretentious snob, unfairly in both cases.
***
best12, did you see MARCH OF THE FALSETTOS in L.A.? I didn't, but it's always struck me as odd that MARCH closed quickly at the Doolittle (yes?), while a waiver production of IN TROUSERS ran for months and months. In NYC, the runs were almost exactly the opposite.
I'm asking because I don't understand how the characters could possibly be "cliché" for musicals. When had there ever been characters like them on a musical stage?
Even now, I still ponder at some of Finn's imagery and what it tells us about the people in the play.
***
Regardless, my opinion is my opinion. To me, the musical LA CAGE substituted American-style sentimentality for the original biting, European farce. In the process, the piece became both less funny and less moving, despite the lovely songs PJ was kind enough to list for us.
But I am well aware that mine is a minority opinion.
***
Oh and BTW, Sondheim's lyric about "they want a tune they can hum" is NOT a slam against Rodgers except in After Eight's tortured imagination. Sondheim is satirizing the many people who told him (Sondheim) that his music wasn't hummable.
The proof? The melody sung by the producer is exactly the same melody he has just heard in the boys' audition: "I like to live in New York..." So the "hummable" melody is the same as the allegedly unhummable melody. That's the joke and it has nothing to do with Rodgers.
For the record, I've always thought the supposed Herman/Sondheim feud did a disservice to both. The basic premise undervalues Herman and turns Sondheim into some sort of pretentious snob, unfairly in both cases.
***
best12, did you see MARCH OF THE FALSETTOS in L.A.? I didn't, but it's always struck me as odd that MARCH closed quickly at the Doolittle (yes?), while a waiver production of IN TROUSERS ran for months and months. In NYC, the runs were almost exactly the opposite.
I'm asking because I don't understand how the characters could possibly be "cliché" for musicals. When had there ever been characters like them on a musical stage?
Even now, I still ponder at some of Finn's imagery and what it tells us about the people in the play.
***
Regardless, my opinion is my opinion. To me, the musical LA CAGE substituted American-style sentimentality for the original biting, European farce. In the process, the piece became both less funny and less moving, despite the lovely songs PJ was kind enough to list for us.
But I am well aware that mine is a minority opinion.
***
Oh and BTW, Sondheim's lyric about "they want a tune they can hum" is NOT a slam against Rodgers except in After Eight's tortured imagination. Sondheim is satirizing the many people who told him (Sondheim) that his music wasn't hummable.
The proof? The melody sung by the producer is exactly the same melody he has just heard in the boys' audition: "I like to live in New York..." So the "hummable" melody is the same as the allegedly unhummable melody. That's the joke and it has nothing to do with Rodgers.
Updated On: 7/26/13 at 07:51 PM
#31
Posted: 7/27/13 at 12:36am
"Oh and BTW, Sondheim's lyric about "they want a tune they can hum" is NOT a slam against Rodgers except in After Eight's tortured imagination"
I don't need to make use of my imagination, tortured or otherwise. You see, unlike you, I actually look at and listen to what's going on on stage. When the producer goes into that "tune they can hum" bit, he mimics (off-key, of course) the melody to "Some Enchanted Evening." Since you are apparenly unfamiliar with that song, it was written by Richard Rodgers.
I don't need to make use of my imagination, tortured or otherwise. You see, unlike you, I actually look at and listen to what's going on on stage. When the producer goes into that "tune they can hum" bit, he mimics (off-key, of course) the melody to "Some Enchanted Evening." Since you are apparenly unfamiliar with that song, it was written by Richard Rodgers.
#32
Posted: 7/27/13 at 7:12am
The trouble is, you only see and hear what you want to.
The joke- just to explain what you overlook- is that the producer misquotes 'Some Enchanted Evening'- it is a joke at the expense of ignorant producers who want memorable tunes, but can't actually remember them correctly.
I'm sure if Sondheim wanted to criticize RR, he would have plenty of ammunition and could do a much better hatchet-job. To his credit, he resists the temptation.
The joke- just to explain what you overlook- is that the producer misquotes 'Some Enchanted Evening'- it is a joke at the expense of ignorant producers who want memorable tunes, but can't actually remember them correctly.
I'm sure if Sondheim wanted to criticize RR, he would have plenty of ammunition and could do a much better hatchet-job. To his credit, he resists the temptation.
#33
Posted: 7/27/13 at 8:13am
it is a joke at the expense of ignorant producers who want memorable tunes, but can't actually remember them correctly.
Huh?
Joe hums the first stanza of Some Enchanted Evening exactly as written in the show. So he remembers it correctly. That's the point, actually. He wants "memorable."
He isn't making fun of Rodgers, though. He's saying producers want songs like Some Enchanted Evening. He also adds that he'll "let you know when Stravinsky has a hit."
It's not a slam at Rodgers, it's a dig at producers who can't embrace anything new.
non sequitur ...
And Gav---I saw Falsettos in Los Angeles at the Dolittle with the full original NY cast. I didn't care for it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it much either.
Huh?
Joe hums the first stanza of Some Enchanted Evening exactly as written in the show. So he remembers it correctly. That's the point, actually. He wants "memorable."
He isn't making fun of Rodgers, though. He's saying producers want songs like Some Enchanted Evening. He also adds that he'll "let you know when Stravinsky has a hit."
It's not a slam at Rodgers, it's a dig at producers who can't embrace anything new.
non sequitur ...
And Gav---I saw Falsettos in Los Angeles at the Dolittle with the full original NY cast. I didn't care for it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it much either.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#34
Posted: 7/27/13 at 8:15am
"The trouble is, you only see and hear what you want to. "
Funny, since that's precisely what you're doing here.
"The joke- just to explain what you overlook- is that the producer misquotes 'Some Enchanted Evening'-"
Uh, I wrote, "he mimics (off-key of course)." Do you even bother reading, or is it that you just can't pocess what you read?
To sum it up as plainly as day: this whole "tune they can hum" episode is an odious, self-centered swipe at people who dare criticize -- rightfully -- his failure to write a decent melody, at composers like Richard Rodgers who can and do, and at audiences who love said composers' work.
It's a triple dose of childish nastiness, all the more reprehensible because one of its very targets is the captive audience in the theatre, who have to swallow this guff in silence. Not a fair fight, since no audience member can stand up and say, "but hey, it's true, you CAN'T write a decent melody, we don't like what you're feeding us, and how dare you tell us off while we're sitting here watching this junk! Write as well as Richard Rodgers and then you won't hear any complaints!"
Funny, since that's precisely what you're doing here.
"The joke- just to explain what you overlook- is that the producer misquotes 'Some Enchanted Evening'-"
Uh, I wrote, "he mimics (off-key of course)." Do you even bother reading, or is it that you just can't pocess what you read?
To sum it up as plainly as day: this whole "tune they can hum" episode is an odious, self-centered swipe at people who dare criticize -- rightfully -- his failure to write a decent melody, at composers like Richard Rodgers who can and do, and at audiences who love said composers' work.
It's a triple dose of childish nastiness, all the more reprehensible because one of its very targets is the captive audience in the theatre, who have to swallow this guff in silence. Not a fair fight, since no audience member can stand up and say, "but hey, it's true, you CAN'T write a decent melody, we don't like what you're feeding us, and how dare you tell us off while we're sitting here watching this junk! Write as well as Richard Rodgers and then you won't hear any complaints!"
#35
Posted: 7/27/13 at 8:20am
"A friend of mine who is a good friend of Sondheim's told me that Jerry Herman knew EXACTLY what he was doing,"
Glad to see a non-partisan, unbiased, disinterested arbitor hand down the definitive word on the matter.
Glad to see a non-partisan, unbiased, disinterested arbitor hand down the definitive word on the matter.
#36
Posted: 7/27/13 at 8:58am
It's a dig at Stravinsky, if it's a dig at anyone all, but not at Rodgers.
As a matter of fact, in order for the joke to make any sense at all, the baseline supposition has to be that Rodgers writes the most tuneful melodies, Stravinsky writes the opposite and Frank (standing in for Sondheim) lies somewhere in the middle.
And, since Frank is attempting at that point in the plot to wrote revue songs, it's a dig a Frank. (Again, if you have to see it as being a dig at anyone at all.)
But in no way, shape or form is it a dig at Rodgers, let alone what you choose to dub, melodramatically, "a triple dose of childish nastiness."
As a matter of fact, in order for the joke to make any sense at all, the baseline supposition has to be that Rodgers writes the most tuneful melodies, Stravinsky writes the opposite and Frank (standing in for Sondheim) lies somewhere in the middle.
And, since Frank is attempting at that point in the plot to wrote revue songs, it's a dig a Frank. (Again, if you have to see it as being a dig at anyone at all.)
But in no way, shape or form is it a dig at Rodgers, let alone what you choose to dub, melodramatically, "a triple dose of childish nastiness."
#37
Posted: 7/27/13 at 9:36am
The misquoting is of the second phrase (since we can't write the musical notation here, it's "you might see a stranger").
After Eight, your ridiculously aggressive and dismissive swipes don't make you any more persuasive. Just because I choose the one "misquote" doesn't mean I misunderstood the term, "mimics". I had the courtesy to read, process and disagree with your point without casting aspersions on your level of literacy.
I might wonder why you are so persistently antagonistic on Sondheim threads- even where the discussion is not sycophantic but analytical. You give the impression that you have a monomaniacal hatred of this composer. I'll extend you the courtesy of assuming you, too, can process the comments here.
After Eight, your ridiculously aggressive and dismissive swipes don't make you any more persuasive. Just because I choose the one "misquote" doesn't mean I misunderstood the term, "mimics". I had the courtesy to read, process and disagree with your point without casting aspersions on your level of literacy.
I might wonder why you are so persistently antagonistic on Sondheim threads- even where the discussion is not sycophantic but analytical. You give the impression that you have a monomaniacal hatred of this composer. I'll extend you the courtesy of assuming you, too, can process the comments here.
#38
Posted: 7/27/13 at 10:00am
^
I have no hatred of the composer; I have a visceral dislike of his work, of the attitudes emanating from his shows, and most importantly, of what they wrought upon our beloved musical theatre, aided and abetted by their fawning adulators.
And then, of course, the absurd deification and the shoving of his work down our throats by the perfidious elitist cadre.
As for my posts on the subject, I'm just trying to provide balance, and more importantly, to set the record straight ---- since no one else seems to be willing to do it. And frankly, I don't blame them.
I have no hatred of the composer; I have a visceral dislike of his work, of the attitudes emanating from his shows, and most importantly, of what they wrought upon our beloved musical theatre, aided and abetted by their fawning adulators.
And then, of course, the absurd deification and the shoving of his work down our throats by the perfidious elitist cadre.
As for my posts on the subject, I'm just trying to provide balance, and more importantly, to set the record straight ---- since no one else seems to be willing to do it. And frankly, I don't blame them.
#39
Posted: 7/27/13 at 11:10am
Well that's more interesting.
In what way do you think Sondheim's shows have damaged musical theatre? Surely, his success has not precluded the production of mainstream commercial entertainment? We still get everything from 'The Producers' to 'Wicked' to 'Avenue Q', not to mention regular revivals of R&H, Adler & Ross and Herman. It's a little like when people bemoan modern dress Shakespeare; modern dress does not mean original conditions can't exist any longer. Personally, I wish producers showed a little more intellectual rigour before staging really dumb shows, but Sondheim's contributions don't seem to have deterred dull, banal and uninspired pieces clogging up theatres.
I hate elitist audience- often I can't bear setting foot in the National Theatre in London- but just because a bunch of phonies spout platitudes at a gallery opening does not undermine the true value of a Picasso.
I once did a Q&A for the Sondheim Society here in the UK and suggested to them that the reverse narrative of 'Merrily' was an obstacle to spontaneous emotional response- the gasps and hisses were audible. I certainly don't worship Sondheim without question, but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the material that really does work.
In what way do you think Sondheim's shows have damaged musical theatre? Surely, his success has not precluded the production of mainstream commercial entertainment? We still get everything from 'The Producers' to 'Wicked' to 'Avenue Q', not to mention regular revivals of R&H, Adler & Ross and Herman. It's a little like when people bemoan modern dress Shakespeare; modern dress does not mean original conditions can't exist any longer. Personally, I wish producers showed a little more intellectual rigour before staging really dumb shows, but Sondheim's contributions don't seem to have deterred dull, banal and uninspired pieces clogging up theatres.
I hate elitist audience- often I can't bear setting foot in the National Theatre in London- but just because a bunch of phonies spout platitudes at a gallery opening does not undermine the true value of a Picasso.
I once did a Q&A for the Sondheim Society here in the UK and suggested to them that the reverse narrative of 'Merrily' was an obstacle to spontaneous emotional response- the gasps and hisses were audible. I certainly don't worship Sondheim without question, but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the material that really does work.
#40
Posted: 7/27/13 at 11:29am
So about that original production of La Cage...
Fascinating to see this thread, and lovely to read the recollections of so many posters on here for whom the original production meant so much. I'm biased as can be, having been David Mitchell's first assistant on the original show in Boston and NY, and spending much of the 80's kicking off the 1st national tour, 2nd national tour and bus and truck.
I read these posts and memories flood my synapses. Surviving tirades from Arthur, weathering crushes on one Cagelle after another, enduring a God-awful number for Dindon before it was thrown out in Boston along with its massive set, following the sure leadership of Fritz Holt who steered the show safely passed the shoals, receiving opening night gifts from Alan Carr in the shape of giant chocolate ladies' legs!
We opened in NY in the dead of August, 1983. Everyone seemed quite sanguine about our chances for Tony glory in '84 until SUNDAY IN THE PARK... started previewing at the Booth that spring. I have a vivid memory of catching an early preview and then being at Fritz and Barry's apartment that evening when Fritz handed me the phone-- it was Arthur at the other end of the line, dying to know how good SUNDAY was. (I'm sure I reassured him feebly that it was no competition for LA CAGE, but I later realized the SUNDAY I saw was still missing 2 Act II numbers!)
Come the Tonys that June, we were all gathered in a hotel in Los Angeles where the LA sitdown company was just getting going. I adored my company and adored what La Cage tried to be, but God help me, I was silently praying SUNDAY would sweep the top awards. When Jerry won and spoke those awkward words in defense of old-school melody-making, that hotel room let out whoops and hollers, but silently I watched a page turn in the saga of the American Musical.
Fascinating to see this thread, and lovely to read the recollections of so many posters on here for whom the original production meant so much. I'm biased as can be, having been David Mitchell's first assistant on the original show in Boston and NY, and spending much of the 80's kicking off the 1st national tour, 2nd national tour and bus and truck.
I read these posts and memories flood my synapses. Surviving tirades from Arthur, weathering crushes on one Cagelle after another, enduring a God-awful number for Dindon before it was thrown out in Boston along with its massive set, following the sure leadership of Fritz Holt who steered the show safely passed the shoals, receiving opening night gifts from Alan Carr in the shape of giant chocolate ladies' legs!
We opened in NY in the dead of August, 1983. Everyone seemed quite sanguine about our chances for Tony glory in '84 until SUNDAY IN THE PARK... started previewing at the Booth that spring. I have a vivid memory of catching an early preview and then being at Fritz and Barry's apartment that evening when Fritz handed me the phone-- it was Arthur at the other end of the line, dying to know how good SUNDAY was. (I'm sure I reassured him feebly that it was no competition for LA CAGE, but I later realized the SUNDAY I saw was still missing 2 Act II numbers!)
Come the Tonys that June, we were all gathered in a hotel in Los Angeles where the LA sitdown company was just getting going. I adored my company and adored what La Cage tried to be, but God help me, I was silently praying SUNDAY would sweep the top awards. When Jerry won and spoke those awkward words in defense of old-school melody-making, that hotel room let out whoops and hollers, but silently I watched a page turn in the saga of the American Musical.
#41
Posted: 7/27/13 at 11:32am
Never mind.
What's the point?
EDIT: Love those memories, Someone in a Tree.
What's the point?
EDIT: Love those memories, Someone in a Tree.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 7/27/13 at 11:32 AM
#42
Posted: 7/27/13 at 12:45pm
While the original production elements were as glorious as everyone has reported, I felt then, and still do, like it was a musical about gay people for tourists from Utah. I never for a moment believed Hearn as a drag artist (I *did* believe Hodge) nor did I believe his relationship with Barry. They never so much as exchanged a kiss on the cheek. Just safe, safe, safe throughout. The score is great but in terms of storytelling, the book doesn't come close to the emotional tug of the original play or the wonderful movie.
#43
Posted: 7/27/13 at 12:49pm
Morosco's storyboards match my memories perfectly- the opening of the show set the tone for what was to follow: bold, extravagant and full of energy.
The move from exterior to interior was beautifully achieved and then the opening number began with a club setting with ensemble in huge marabou concoctions, then arches flew in on which the Cagelles stood; the arches then flew out, taking the Cagelles' costumes with them! St Tropez bathing suits were under the floor length capes. There was then the incredible dance break with the Cagelles leaping through slits in the cloth- and costumes changed again to the Pierrot-influenced black and white leotards and tights.
It was the most incredible opening number!
In London we had the wonderful Dennis Quilley who was the most charming Georges. George Hearn did the whole London run- I sometimes wished a Brit actor could have taken over before the end of the run to see a new interpretation.
i was at the closing night in London- only the last night of Rent has come close but it is still the most incredible last night I have ever seen! The applause went on forever- though I don't recall any speeches from the creatives.
La Cage, I think, is the most spectacular show I've ever seen in London and could only have played the Palladium! If I could re-see just one production, it would be the original La Cage.
The move from exterior to interior was beautifully achieved and then the opening number began with a club setting with ensemble in huge marabou concoctions, then arches flew in on which the Cagelles stood; the arches then flew out, taking the Cagelles' costumes with them! St Tropez bathing suits were under the floor length capes. There was then the incredible dance break with the Cagelles leaping through slits in the cloth- and costumes changed again to the Pierrot-influenced black and white leotards and tights.
It was the most incredible opening number!
In London we had the wonderful Dennis Quilley who was the most charming Georges. George Hearn did the whole London run- I sometimes wished a Brit actor could have taken over before the end of the run to see a new interpretation.
i was at the closing night in London- only the last night of Rent has come close but it is still the most incredible last night I have ever seen! The applause went on forever- though I don't recall any speeches from the creatives.
La Cage, I think, is the most spectacular show I've ever seen in London and could only have played the Palladium! If I could re-see just one production, it would be the original La Cage.
#44
Posted: 7/27/13 at 1:31pm
"In what way do you think Sondheim's shows have damaged musical theatre?"
Notice how After Death hasn't answered the question.
"Glad to see a non-partisan, unbiased, disinterested arbitor hand down the definitive word on the matter."
He's a friend of Sondheim's, but he doesn't hate Jerry Herman either.
Seriously, After Death is a massive turd. Why do we keep arguing with him, when arguing with him is like arguing with Michele Bachmann on gay rights and whether or not John Quincy Adams was a founding father?
Notice how After Death hasn't answered the question.
"Glad to see a non-partisan, unbiased, disinterested arbitor hand down the definitive word on the matter."
He's a friend of Sondheim's, but he doesn't hate Jerry Herman either.
Seriously, After Death is a massive turd. Why do we keep arguing with him, when arguing with him is like arguing with Michele Bachmann on gay rights and whether or not John Quincy Adams was a founding father?
#45
Posted: 7/27/13 at 1:57pm
I don't think Sondheim has damaged musical theatre at all- I'm a fan of his (well, at least of his major work- some of his minor works leave me cold). But I will admit that Sondheim DID change musical theatre by writing lyrics in a style that we may call, for lack of a better word, literary.
You have shows in the traditional lyrical mold- Rodgers and Hammerstein, Jerry Herman, with the lyrical and musical tropes that define the assumed "show tune" genre that so many have pegged all Broadway as falling into. Then you have people like Sondheim, who write songs with lyrics that are as much dialogue as lyric. Deep, twisty, sometimes convoluted lyrics that dig deep into character and situation, occasionally at the expense of melodic or lyrical "hook."
You have shows in the traditional lyrical mold- Rodgers and Hammerstein, Jerry Herman, with the lyrical and musical tropes that define the assumed "show tune" genre that so many have pegged all Broadway as falling into. Then you have people like Sondheim, who write songs with lyrics that are as much dialogue as lyric. Deep, twisty, sometimes convoluted lyrics that dig deep into character and situation, occasionally at the expense of melodic or lyrical "hook."
#46
Posted: 7/27/13 at 2:04pm
I suspect Sondheim would say his style developed from Hammerstein who also created characterisation through lyrics. Fred Ebb and Sheldon Harnick were doing much the same thing as contemporaries of Sondheim.
And Sondheim certainly uses lyrical hooks in virtually all his works in just the same way as Hammerstein.
Tim Minchin's recent Matilda lyrics owe as much to WS Gilbert as Sondheim. Sure Stephen Sondheim has a distinctive voice but I think people who try to emulate him tend to fall down big bear traps.
And Sondheim certainly uses lyrical hooks in virtually all his works in just the same way as Hammerstein.
Tim Minchin's recent Matilda lyrics owe as much to WS Gilbert as Sondheim. Sure Stephen Sondheim has a distinctive voice but I think people who try to emulate him tend to fall down big bear traps.
#47
Posted: 7/27/13 at 2:05pm
devonian: Your sweet memories have conflated 2 numbers together. The opening indeed featured the set shift from St Tropez street to club facade to chiffon curtain to onstage number "We Are What We Are", in which the Cagelles went from coats to pajamas to sailor tops. (How sad I am that the only record on youtube is the Tony performance that deleted the pajamas section).
But the slit elastic drop (painted as a Klimt-like birdcage) was part of the title number late in Act I: Zaza and the Cagelles started as exotic birds, segueed into Can-Can girls, and ended in those spectacular white tailcoats with marcelled black mens' wigs with one chandelier earring each-- Theoni Aldredge at her most brilliantly androgynous. Little wonder that her 1st assistant then was the equally brilliant Marty Pakledinaz. How we miss them both.
But the slit elastic drop (painted as a Klimt-like birdcage) was part of the title number late in Act I: Zaza and the Cagelles started as exotic birds, segueed into Can-Can girls, and ended in those spectacular white tailcoats with marcelled black mens' wigs with one chandelier earring each-- Theoni Aldredge at her most brilliantly androgynous. Little wonder that her 1st assistant then was the equally brilliant Marty Pakledinaz. How we miss them both.
#48
Posted: 7/27/13 at 2:11pm
Someone in a Tree2---do you have any photos of these numbers? I searched online and so few exist.
I have found a Merv Griffin Show clip, which includes most (if not all) of the opening number, including the pajama/tap section, but it's a much scaled-down version with about half of the cast (or less!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wF2i4o3P0
Then I found the West End version of the opening number, with a full cast of Les Cagelles and a full-scale set, but it also cuts the middle (pajama) section for an abridged version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEcb-T0vC44
I have found a Merv Griffin Show clip, which includes most (if not all) of the opening number, including the pajama/tap section, but it's a much scaled-down version with about half of the cast (or less!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wF2i4o3P0
Then I found the West End version of the opening number, with a full cast of Les Cagelles and a full-scale set, but it also cuts the middle (pajama) section for an abridged version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEcb-T0vC44
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#49
Posted: 7/27/13 at 2:20pm
Incidentally, London's Dindon was Brian Glover, a former professional wrestler turned actor. Naturally bald and with a strong northern accent, he was perfect in the role of the bigoted bull of a politician. And the reversal at the end was hilarious as he appeared as a novice Cagelle!
#50
Posted: 7/27/13 at 2:30pm
^ Sadly I have no shots of the shows I assisted on, to my great regret. Most of my own shots back then were actually on Ektachrome slide film!!
In fact most of the published photos I've seen of La Cage came from the Martha Swope photo call in Boston, before the apartment set underwent a radical decor change. (The old shots show a Katishaw mask in a frame, a rental David statue and decorative fans everywhere. An influx of cash and strong words from Jerry Herman got us the means to create the surreal giraffes, juggler statue and purple silk chaise longue that we opened with in NY.)
David Mitchell passed away 2 years ago, and last summer his family hosted a lovely tribute that many of us were at. Joining his family back in the brownstone on W 88th St where those sets had originally been drafted and modeled 30 years ago was unimaginably precious and bittersweet. I pray that the Lincoln Center Library or bootlegs out there will preserve those images of the original show long after our own (still perfect) memories will fade.
In fact most of the published photos I've seen of La Cage came from the Martha Swope photo call in Boston, before the apartment set underwent a radical decor change. (The old shots show a Katishaw mask in a frame, a rental David statue and decorative fans everywhere. An influx of cash and strong words from Jerry Herman got us the means to create the surreal giraffes, juggler statue and purple silk chaise longue that we opened with in NY.)
David Mitchell passed away 2 years ago, and last summer his family hosted a lovely tribute that many of us were at. Joining his family back in the brownstone on W 88th St where those sets had originally been drafted and modeled 30 years ago was unimaginably precious and bittersweet. I pray that the Lincoln Center Library or bootlegs out there will preserve those images of the original show long after our own (still perfect) memories will fade.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95