Martin Charnin and Annie

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:46pm

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

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:00am

Don't forget that Arthur Laurents was also very angry at what Sam Mendes did with Gypsy.

Stephen Sondheim also champions new takes on his work as well.

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 12:00 AM

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:07am

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."

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:10am

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. 

[smallvillefan16]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:39am

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

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:51am

The "dream" ending Annie was at Trinity Rep back in 2003 and directed by Amanda Dehnert.

 

I maintain that Mike Nichols, as one of the lead producers, had a much stronger hand in the shaping of that original production than Mr. Charnin has ever been willing to admit.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 1:04am

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 Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 1:13am

I'd argue that messing with the plays of Shakespeare, who has been dead for 400 years and was never concerned about the future of his plays to begin with is way different than messing with a 20th century play under copyright.

Also, Kander and Ebb (and Isherwood I think) were directly involved in Sam Mendes' new version of Cabaret.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 8:48am

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.  

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:22am

In regards to the Dehnert production, she did make changes to the script to make her framing device work. So it wasn't even whether she was honoring Charnin's intent on the piece, she literally broke the licensing agreement and made unauthorized changes to the text.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:43am

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.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:10pm

Personally, I really don't know where I fall with all this. 

Having seen the original 1977 Broadway production and continued to revisit each new cast change until the show closed in 1983, I still have fond memories of the original staging and still find it sensational - all the scene transitions happening before your eyes: the treadmill gliding new set and set pieces flying up into the rafters and sliding down into the stage, etc.  The curtain was never lowered at any time - only to end Act 1 and the end of the show.  

It's quite obvious how much the show was tinkered and polished after the legendary Mike Nichols came on board as a main producer after the show's pre-Broadway incarnation at the Goodspeed Opera House.  He's responsible for bringing in Dorothy Loudon, a close friend of his from his days doing comedy in Greenwich Village.  

Charnin just wants to keep the original staging intact.  The 1982 film was a huge hit but had no semblance to the original Broadway production.  I mean, the poignant Christmas time finale of the Broadway show was switched to Fourth of July for the 1982 film simply because it was in production during summer.  Really?  I didn't mind honoring the original comic strip and adding characters only seen there like Punjab, but boy did they really change it up tremendously.  

 

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:47pm

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).

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 7:28pm

That original 1970s staging sounds fantastic. I wish I had seen it! I'm only familiar with the films but from reading the original play - I like it so much better than the 1982 film. The inclusion of fivemediocre songs and relegating the show's signature song to the opening credits and an embarrassing little reprise between President, First Lady, Annie and Warbucks was just dreadful

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 8:42pm

I personally loved the most recent revival.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 9:29pm

I've heard cast members of the Mendes Gypsy say they rehearsed a very different show than what opened on Broadway. Arthur came in to rehearsals and threw a fit and made them change many things. Mendes originally directed Bernadette to have a full-blown mental breakdown in  "Rose's Turn" and that angered Laurents, but he basically had Patti do that in his. 

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:04pm

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

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

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:30pm

I too enjoyed the recent revival. It reminds me of the 2004 revival of Fiddler on the Roof that was widely debated that took the show out of "happy peasant land".

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:47pm

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

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 5:29pm

So, now my question turns to with his dislike of so many movies and the recent revival, if he is such a champion of the original material, how and why does he allow people to change his work and alter the piece?

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 6:39pm

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). 

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 8:27pm

In a 1996 article, Charnin mentioned "The movie distorted what this musical was, and we were culpable for the reason that we did not exercise any kind of creative control because we sold the rights for a considerable amount of money."

[Jarethan]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 8:30pm

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.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/7/17 at 12:13am

Well, that leaves Charles Strauss to break the tie, doesn't it? IIRC, in his autobiography of a few years ago, Strauss says the idea that Nichols "really" directed ANNIE was always a myth. He says Nichols was usually busy doing producer stuff while Charnin directed the show.

Yes, I LOVE MY WIFE has four true characters, but the orchestra is onstage and plays a small chorus of moving men. The men (they were all male in the original) have two songs of their own, including the one showstopper: "Hey, There, Good Times". It was all a very clever way of making a very small show fit into a medium-size Broadway house.

The original ANNIE struck me as erratic in style and narrative. It began with a realistically shabby "Hooverville" then wandered until Annie came down the stairs in her famous red dress during the title number--you know, like that OTHER show where the heroine comes down the stairs in a red dress during the title number. To me it was never sure whether it was social commentary, comic book farce, or parody.

Both shows were and are trifles, IMO, but had I been a Tony voter, I might well have voted for Gene Saks as Best Director of a Musical.

[BwayDreamer00]

Posted: 8/7/17 at 1:06am

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