McKechnie's "Tick Tock" — Page 2

Well, as far as the importance of sex as an element in the show and the sort of sexless nature of the revival, I don't really think the revival is devoid of sex -- it's just not the point on which the show hinges. Sure, Bobby and April keep their clothes on, but I think you have to remember that this revival lives in a world of very heavy symbolism. Symbolically, the fact that they stay dressed during that scene is enormously important.

Further, though, I think you can argue that the show's focus has just shifted in a way that fits historically for the sake of being relevant to today's audiences -- and no, contemporary relevance may very well not jive with the original formulations. With the late 60s and early 70s, you're looking at a time in which ideas about sex were changing very rapidly, and it made sense to have a show that was greatly hinged on those ideas. Sex is definitely still an important part of our culture, but in a very different way than it was then. If the revival is supposed to be an updated (or timeless) version, then it makes sense for it to have shifted that way -- now, rather than looking at changing ideas about sex, you're dealing with a show whose focus is on more modern concepts like urban isolation, timeless ones like the fear of being alone, and stuff that carries over the decades since the show's first production, such as transitions in the way we view the "necessity" of marriage. I guess I'd argue that as opposed to being a show in which sex was a very necessary and important element due to the time in and about which it was written, it's become much more of a social and psychological exploration in which sex doesn't need to be as explicit. It's chosen to focus on different things. I'm not saying you have to like it that way -- I certainly understand that it's not everybody's cup of tea -- I'm saying that it isn't exactly "wrong" to have made that change.

I dunno, just a thought -- one perhaps too academic to be valid, at that. I think one of the most fascinating things about the piece is its sort of perpetual significance.

---

Updated On: 3/12/07 at 11:13 PM

If that was the whole point of the original, then I don't see why all of the disconnect in the revival is a problem. A lot of what this production exposes is the trouble people have connecting with one another, isn't it? You can certainly show that through sex, which is what Tick Tock did, yes -- the whole idea of the difference between lust and love, etc. The bottom line of what I'm saying is that this revival doesn't abandon those things -- it looks at them in a way that doesn't rely on sex.

I constantly bark up the wrong tree, it seems -- it's clear you and I both very much appreciate the piece, and yet every time I attempt to engage in a conversation based on that fact and the commonalities with differences aside, you put words in my mouth, twist points that I make to put them to your own use in proving things that you know I disagree with and revert back to old debates. I said nothing about what the instruments do to the script; we clearly disagree on that and the disagreement is well -established. I just don't get why that's necessary. I can only assume that it's all you've got to fall back on when defied.

---

Updated On: 3/12/07 at 11:31 PM

I never mean to put words in your mouth, but you seem to think this is the definitive production of this piece which I agree we both love.
But I feel both the origianl and the Roundabout revival had much better acting and no garbage to stray from the beauty of the script and score.
I know you did not see them, but the original was far superior, in my opinion.
With Sweeney I was able to enjoy both the original and the revival because it had guts.
Untill Raul sits down and sings BEING ALIVE i was totally uninvolved.

Ah, then it's unintentional.

And oh, no, I would never make the claim that this revival is the definitive production of the piece. Even if it will be to me as I get older (which I truly believe that it will -- I have never in my life been so in love with a work of art -- but isn't that a very personal notion anyway?), I know I don't have the grounds on which to make a claim like that on a scale any grander than my own. I know that the original, by virtue of being the first, will always be definitive -- it's hard for originals not to be. I think I'm pretty up front about the fact that my feelings on this production and how well I think it works stem very, very much from the fact that this production was the way I met the show and from the idea that because of that, I was probably much more willing to accept these things that are supposedly so radically different, you know? My personal feelings aside, on every other level, I'm sure the original was far superior -- how could you top that? I just really take issue with the notion that different is wrong; sure, there are limitations to the idea, but art is meant to be interpreted, yeah?

Sorry for the threadjack...

ETA -- the Doyle version has the "gay scene," and most (if not all) of the other updates/changes.

---

Updated On: 3/13/07 at 11:50 PM

The "gay" scene was added because most people didn't believe that Sondheim could write a "Staight" musical.
Even as a gay man i agree it stands out as odd.
I saw Bobby as an outsider who wants to connect but is just different from his friends.

Someone asked about Chess under Bennett--I think if anyone could make it work it coulda been him--as it was Trevor Nunn was stuck using the highly stylized designs and costumes Bennett had oked (which is parlty why Nunn went in such a different direction for the Broadway version, feeling the London one was just him making do with a production already started).

Yeah, that was me. I don't really like to dwell on what might have been, because who really knows?, but Chess is one of my favorite musicals and it's always seemed sort of tragic that Bennett's vision for it was left to be finished by someone who obviously had such different ideas about the piece. The sets from what I've seen of the London production were spectacular, and I can only imagine how the entire show under his direction would've looked. Chess is and maybe will always be plagued by book problems and stuck in its time period, but I'd imagine it would be more fondly remembered if Bennett had directed and there hadn't been the atrocity that was Nunn's revision for Broadway.

On another note, Scandals sounds really fascinating. I suppose nothing ever became of it?

So as for this not to be a complete threadjack, I agree that the video of Pamela Myers' "Another Hundred People" must be seen. I don't think that anyone has matched her performance of the song (although I did think that Marcy Harriell did a nice job with the song at the Kennedy Center).

Updated On: 3/13/07 at 12:03 AM

I think that you’re focused the realism element. For me personally, it was easier to wrap my mind around this being not exactly existent, and therefore, the instruments seemed just a part of that alternate reality. Company is also a piece where the instruments combined with the actors become walking talking metaphors for the isolation Bobby feels, adding more to the production than anything else.

Yes, I’m aware who was in the Roundabout revival, and I still generally disliked it. One of the reasons I think this production is magnificent is because it’s not stuck in the seventies, and so many of the themes that seemed irrelevant in 1995 are now so apparent more than ten years later. I’ve always loved the piece, and Doyle’s interpretation allows you to dig deeper – beyond a story about marriage and isolation in New York City to a comment on humanity and the way loners function. The Roundabout staging, again, my opinion, did not even touch these themes.

On another topic entirely

Chess under Bennett would have been magnificent. Chess is my #3 beautiful disaster (after Merrily and Carrie) and to see it done well, even with that headache of a book... well, one of my many theater dreams come true.

Also the Myers version that is SO TOTALLY NOT on the sight that can not be named… god, why is my site that can not be named ripper not working? That performance needs to be saved for eternity.

---

They leave out Joanne flirting and turning down other Males and there is stuff missing in the Birthday scenes which were always abstract but now just confusing to me.

How does carrying a clarinet around the stage make you more isolated?

It's the human condition of the characters and the time that do that for me.

And I love MARRY ME A LITTLE, but since it was an alternative for BEING ALIVE it makes Bobby's arc a little less interesting, but again I love that song and i am glad it is in the show.

I think MARRY ME A LITTLE actually makes BEING ALIVE stronger. MARRY is let's get married and pretend we are really attached when we are being polite and going through the motions. BEING is go ahead, slug me with affection and demands and impositions on my time and privacy because now I understand that's what I need to grow up. I think MARRY would have been a weak final song because Bobby hadn't changed if that was all he was ready for - but it is definitely one of my favorite Sondheim songs, period. I will probably go back and read the book again before I see the play next week. Thanks for the help -

You could argue that "Marry Me a Little" is an alternative for "Being Alive" only in the version of the show where Bobby proposed to Amy at the end of the show, and since they moved that scene and went with a different resolution for Bobby, it makes sense as sort of a halfway point in his arc. He thinks what's described in "Marry Me" is marriage and that's what he wants, but he obviously has so much more to learn about letting himself actually open up to someone.

Updated On: 3/13/07 at 12:33 AM

well Joanne isn't really playing an instrument either.
I mean i can play the triangle.
What I meant about MARRY ME A LITTLE is that it was originally in the BEING ALIVE spot till they came up with a stronger statement.
hard to believe that they wanted a better song than MARRY ME A LITTLE
But sweet siren has a point about the placement.
and there is another song caleed HAPPILY EVER AFTER that was also in that spot.
and don't get me started about the cut AMY song.
Genious will bring about debates
Now let's get back to TICK TOCK.

well Joanne isn't really playing an instrument either.
I mean i can play the triangle.

Exactly. Doesn't that make sense, since Joanne is the least engaged and most jaded of the characters aside from Bobby (in Doyle's production)?

Yes, that does make sense, SondheimGeek. I actually think that he thinks that "Marry Me a Little" represents an emotionally vacant but stable marriage, and he'd rather have that and avoid the question than face the terrifying possibility of having to let someone in. He thinks that if you can avoid the emotional investment, you will thus be able to avoid the other problems that he's seen in with his friends' marriages. You don't have the good things, true, but you also in some sense escape the hurtful ones that way.

I'm pasting this from my earlier post because I think I might've waited too long to edit:
On the subject (how many different subjects can this thread sustain?), I've been so curious lately to know what changes must've been made in changing the resolution from the bitterly cynical "Happily Ever After" to "Being Alive." Was the scene with Joanne still similar to the way it is now, or did something happen that was the nail in the coffin for him on the subject of relationships? If you haven't heard the song, some of the lyrics are:
"Someone to need you too much.
Someone to know you too well
Someone to bleed you of all the things you don't want to tell.
That's happily ever after.
Ever, ever, ever after
In hell.
....
So why should you sweat? What do you get?
One day of grateful for six of regret.
With someone to hold you too close
Someone to hurt you too deep..."

Updated On: 3/13/07 at 12:51 AM

I was about to make the same point as sweetestsiren, in response to Joanne and her triangle.

As was I! Great minds.

---