Life After Tomorrow (Annie Orphans Documentary) Airs on Showtime- Page 4

[TomMonster]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 7:34pm

I'd buy that!!

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 7:48pm

I am STILL waiting for an explanation on why Little CoCo Cohen did not participate in the doc.

[TT]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 8:54pm

Updated On: 12/30/06 at 08:54 PM

[Phantom2]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 9:07pm

Fake Chanel

[TT]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 9:13pm

Updated On: 12/30/06 at 09:13 PM

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 9:19pm

I'm watching it again right now on my tivo....just a fun fact! :)

[TomMonster]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 9:21pm

NLS--It's a wonderful documentary. I found it very entertaining and moving.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 9:55pm

It's disturbing to me. haha. But it is entertaining!

[Phantom2]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 12:16am

He said, she said...

[ILUVTOMG]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 9:40am

i thought the whole thing was sad. SJP came off best mostly because she really had nothing negative to say. The only part that creeped me out was the middle-aged male 'annie fan.' when he pulled those orphan dresses out of his closet i crawled under the covers and hummed 'tomorrow' until he went away.

[Flippancy]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 11:48am

Well, Good Lord. This is a brouhaha over nothin'.

I saw LIFE AFTER TOMORROW over the holidays, and didn't think it offensive at all. I thought it was a look at child performers on B'way (and on tours) that presented all sides of the coin. Julie Stevens and Gil Cates, in my opinion, didn't present a slanted view at all: some people's experiences were good, some were bad, some enjoyed it at the time but questioned the wisdom of entering the business at an early age, etc. The stories/opinions expressed in the film are as multi-faceted as people themselves.

And to those ex-orphans that, for whatever reason, didn't like it, stop whining and posting nasty comments on message boards, go out and pursue financing, and make your own damn documentary.

[Shirley Hemphill]

Posted: 1/2/07 at 12:34pm

I Tivo'd the documentary over the holidays & finally watched it last night and thought it was really quite entertaining. I loved hearing all the behind the scenes stories and even the darker stuff didn't cloud my opinion or memories of the show.

[jennamajig]

Posted: 6/15/09 at 9:13am

Bumping this thread after finding it through another recent thread.

Out of curiosity, I looked up this documentary on Netflix and was surprised to see it is currently available to watch instantly. I found it interesting, but very one-sided about all the negative effects being in Annie had on those in documentary. Certainly a very thought provoking angle that made it worth viewing, but I wish it had been balanced by those that had some more positive experiences. It felt like every girl had her parents get divorced while she was in Annie. Perhaps, I suppose, though that was the truth.

Nice to hear Sarah Jessica Parker reflect on her Annie days, though. And Bill Berloni as well (I'd just read his book about training animals in show business and this documentary was interesting to compare with his perspective on working with Annie).

Posted: 1/6/11 at 3:33pm

Just got a copy of this and find it rather sad even with its lighter moments. I can not believe those kids made a swing out of the water pipes on the ceiling , causing thme to burst open. Geez! Anyways I was wondering why some of other broadway Annie's were missing too, like Andrea McArdle, Allyson Kirk and Shelley Bruce. Then I came across an article titled "The Day After Tomorrow , Annie at 45." By Gerald Nachman. In this three part interview with Andrea I found this quote from her:

McArdle says, “The woman who did the film, Julie Stephens, was in a road company ‘Annie’ and never did anything after that. I knew what she was going to do--that it was going to be a bitch fest, about how ‘Annie’ wrecked their careers and now look at how bad off they all are. As if one show would owe anyone a career. It was so insane. I said to `em, Can’t be bought, can’t be tempted--no, sorry. Aileen Quinn didn’t do it because I didn’t, and for the same reason, I would assume. My friend Shelley Bruce, who took over the show from me, isn’t in it either. All the girls who had good experiences were going to be edited out.” McArdle didn’t want to be dumped into the same discard bin as other unhappy ex-orphans. No hard-knock life for her.


Sounds to me like some of the orphans did not see it as a positive project. Also sounds like Andrea and the director are not as friendly as the director claimed up thread. What do you guys think?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/6/11 at 3:39pm

Here's the article in question.
http://www.thecolumnists.com/nachman/nachman144.html

[B3TA07]

Posted: 1/6/11 at 3:42pm

Wait. Andrea McArdle was the inspiration for Annie?

Posted: 1/6/11 at 3:54pm

I don't think so. She wasn't even the first one cast. I did not know you could post a link here. That's why I didn't. Guess Andrea did not like the documentry idea.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/6/11 at 5:17pm

I did not know you could post a link here.

What...?! How...? But I...

Never mind.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/6/11 at 9:01pm

You know what I heard? I heard Andrea didn't want to do it because she heard the girl who made the movie was going to come at it with a negative perspective? Did anybody else hear that anywhere ever?

[Maverick]

Posted: 1/6/11 at 9:07pm

You guys are a little late to the party on these questions. They've already all been answered on the earlier posts to this very thread. Just page back on the posts to the beginning and you can read the filmmaker's posts on these very questions.

Posted: 1/6/11 at 11:13pm

You mean when she argued with that other former orphan from the Annie Tours? I saw that and besides I doubt she would tell if there was any negatives to the process , like people having issues with the documentry she is trying to sale a product. What I posted is the current from what I could find on Andrea. Apparently she felt it was a negative project and did not want to do it. As for the others who knows really. Andrea seems to think her opinion changed their minds as well. Who knows really. As for Joanna Pacitti being in it I seriously doubt she was part of her decission not to do the documentry. Exspecially sence Andrea boycotted the show when Joanna was fired.

[Sylar2]

Posted: 1/6/11 at 11:44pm

I'm sooooooo not excited for the revival of this next year. Every school and community theatre in the country does this show... why would I want to pay $100 to see it AGAIN?

[bryan2]

Posted: 1/7/11 at 2:20pm

I know Andrea did not do it because it wasnt a bad experience at all for her and it also wasnt the end all to her career.
I also wonder when they make these "documentaries" why only the person who own it makes money. Why should Andrea or anyother Annie not get paid when the film is making money...Just a thought
Andrea rules baby ...love to see her in MAMMA MIA
she would rock The Winner Takes it All
But I am biased as she is my favorite singer

[Maverick]

Posted: 1/7/11 at 3:25pm

You guys crack me up.

There are plenty of women featured in the documentary who do nothing but praise their time in the show as a fantastic experience. Sarah Jessica Parker is an obvious example. So what’s all this with the film being “negative?” Some of you guys talk about this project on this posting board as if you’re Dick Cheney talking about an expose into the war crimes at Abu Ghraib. Negative?…C’mon! You’re kidding right? The film has a point of view. Every documentary has this. Call me crazy, but if you like Broadway musicals, and you also liked Annie, in particular, I think you’d probably enjoy this documentary because it gives light to some great stories and sort of allows you to reminisce with the girls. Simple as that.

As for Andrea McArdle, I’m certain you’ll find this documentary isn’t the only Annie related project she hasn’t endorsed over the years. If you had to wait for Andrea’s endorsement of any and all Annie projects…well, where do you think we’d be on that? I think it’s great that she has loyal fans like some on this posting board. But she has no more or less ownership of the show than others who were in the cast. She’s entitled to her opinion, but I suppose she’d rather just provide it with snarky quotes in some online column by Gerald Nachman (the link posted on this thread), than do so on camera in a documentary. You think Aileen Quinn appreciates hearing that Andrea McArdle believes she was miscast as Annie in the film and that her voice has no vibrato? You think Kathie Lee Gifford would say it was a “positive” comment for Andrea to say that she was “insulted” by her casting in a revival? Help me understand the difference between Andrea’s ACTUAL negative comments about people involved in Annie in Mr. Nachman’s column, and Andrea’s SPECULATION that the Annie documentary would have been a negative leaning film? Can you say hypocrite? You guys have seen the documentary. There was nothing in the film as pointedly biting or personally insulting as even those two McArdle quotes taken from Mr. Nachman’s article. Maybe McArdle would have preferred that, like Mr. Nachman’s article, the documentary was just a puff piece on her? Maybe it bothered her to think that a documentary on the child stars of Annie wouldn’t simply start and end with a focus on her. But that would just be pure speculation. Instead, the film features dozens of the other women who performed in the musical (some who appeared in the show for longer than Andrea)…most who you’ve never heard from before. So in that regard, I think the film provided something new and interesting. We all would have liked to hear from Andrea McArdle (and some of the few other notable names that did not end up in the film) in a documentary like this. But the film is still a treat for any fan of Broadway and Annie, regardless. There should be more documentaries on Broadway subject matter, not fewer…right?!

Finally, to address the question about whether or not you’d PAY an interview subject in a documentary…ask a journalist why you don’t do that. It’s assumed the end product…whether a newspaper or a film or a TV news program…will, at some point, be sold. Would you suggest your local newspaper pay the people they interview? Do people get paid to be interviewed in a Michael Moore documentary? Of course not.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 1/7/11 at 3:42pm

"why would I want to pay $100 to see it AGAIN?"

I can't speak from experience, but many, many people who saw the original production will still rave about how wonderful it was. Yes, like many popular pieces that are overdone, there are many poor productions which completely bury the material. But with the right director at the helm this piece can indeed be a wonderful night at the theatre.