Martin Charnin and Annie

I'm currently watching the original film on AMC right now, and was reading that Martin Charnin didn't like any of the 3 film versions or the 2012 Broadway revival. He supposedly didn't like the changes made to each version. I have hear interviews with him, and I know didn't like the revival.

My question is, what do you think about Charnin only liking the production he has directed, and do you think it's "fair" for a artisit/creator to only like their version of a piece, in an art form that is about collaboration, and unlimited creativity?

I also think of Mary Rodgers who was such a guardian of her father's work, but would always champion new takes on the material.

Updated On: 8/4/17 at 11:46 PM

I remember hearing some theatre out in the country actually tried to approach Annie where she falls asleep after 'Maybe' and then wakes up at the end back in the orphanage and the whole thing with Warbucks was a dream. When Martin Charnin heard about that, he was very unhappy. The director argued with him that people do it with Shakespeare all the time, and Charnin responded with "But the difference is that Shakespeare's dead, and I'm not."

He's obsessed with the past. He doesn't realize that changing things up is okay, after the 20th anniversary run all his productions felt stale. The 2013 had an amazing Annie and Warbucks but the accents completely ruined it along with giving it a more "grown-up" tone. I think the London revival figured out the right way to do an Annie revival [except lose the anne of green gables and use the wig from 2013]



Annie 2017 London Revival

fashionguru_23 said: "Jeffrey! I totally forgot about the "dream Annie" story! And, yes: Arthur Laurents and Gypsy. I know David Burka said Dam Mendes wanted to do with Gypsy what he did to Cabaret. I would have loved that.



"

Yeah, it's always been my dream to have "Rose's Turn" screamed at me on one note, off-key.

The "it was all a dream" ANNIE, however, sounds pretty cool, since the story makes more sense (and is more poignant) as a child's fantasy.

The film versions DID suck. (OK, the Kathy Bates version didn't suck entirely) But even so, he's entitled to his opinion.



I have a problem when an "interpretation" changes the intent of the author.. It all being a dream, is NOT what was invisioned.

Just to be clear: I was merely saying the "dream Annie" sounded poignant and effective to me. I wasn't defending a violation of the author's copyright; I'm a member of the Dramatists' Guild myself.

Actually, the John Huston-directed film adaptation from 1982 was not a hit as it grossed about $57,000,000 at the box office on a $50,000,000 budget. It also earned 5 Razzie Award nominations (including Worst Picture of the Year).

I personally loved the most recent revival.

bwayphreak234 said: "I personally loved the most recent revival."

I did too, I thought it was very under-appreciated.

I think the most recent revival was pretty terrible. I remember sitting front row and that's about it.

It's a great show, but very dated, so just keep it dated. It's very happy-go-lucky. I don't really think updating it or anything is going to somehow make it more relevant. It is what it is.

I mean, I'd love to see a NEW "A Chorus Line" or "Cats," but people tend to just give out the same thing.

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 11:47 PM

In regards to the films, when the film rights were sold it doesn't necessarily include the right of approval. That all depends on what is in the contract the studio agreed to with him. Plus he's only 1/3 of the creative team.



With the recent revival again he doesn't necessarily need to be consulted or approve directorial choices (again, it depends on what's in the contract), especially if they did not change any of the text (I didn't see it, nor am I overly familiar with the script that I would have known if they had unless it was a major change).

I looked at Martin Charnin's profile in ibdb. It validated what I have always assumed: one of the luckiest people alive. Heck, he is even married to Shelly Burch, from the original cast of Nine.

Why luckiest:

1. Annie is the only thing i his resume that is in any way impressive IMO

2. When Annie opened, there were articles that essentially stated that Mike Nichols was responsible for the success of the show; that he came in, tore it apart, etc. Nichols, always a class act, never responded to inquiries; despite Annie being the monster hit of the season, come Tony time, Charnin lost for director to Gene Saks, who directed I Love My Wife, a delightful and straightforward show that was never a big hit. To this day, I recall it having a cast of four, although that was probably not the case. Big extravaganza, huge hit, vs. little show...for direction??? After the Tony's, there was some reporting that he lost because voters did not actually believe he directed it based on the gossip of the day.

So iMO -- and i am definitely being snarky, but I have never liked him from anything i have read or seen on an occasional TV show -- he was sort of a one-hit wonder who views Annie as his place in theatre history.

I loved the most recent revival of Annie as well.....I loved the lavish sets and very realistic costumes...also Lila Crawford has a beautiful voice and Katie Finneran was a great Miss Hannigan as well. The one thing I didn't like was the choreography as I found it very flat and didn't do the original any justice but other then that I thought it was a great revival