More Threepenny thoughts

[leefowler]

Posted: 3/27/06 at 11:35am

Some random thoughts:

This is the first show I've ever seen to dispense entirely with bows. I'm not sure what the point of this is except for Scott Elliott to show everyone what an iconoclast he is.

A lot of the actors wear this sort of wierd eye-make-up thing, which the ushers are also forced to wear. This is the worst abuse of ushers I've seen since those awful outfits they had to wear for Dance Of The Vampires.

Although most of the performers received tepid applause, Jim Dale's applause was very enthusiastic, in appreciation, I think, for giving a wonderful performance in the midst of some very trying circumstances.

The performer playing Lucy showing her (his) penis to the audience may be the low point of my theatre-going life.

For a show that pretends to be a scathing lampoon of middle-class mores, you can still purchase t-shirts in the lobby, along with (really!) perfume.

These are my own opinions, and their existence are not meant to represent a put down of those whose who have different opinions.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 3/27/06 at 11:37am

Wait...is it Alan's cologne?

If so, he probably worked that out in his contract as most singers do when they sell their solo CDs at the merchandise booth.

He probably just wants to market it.

[Calvin]

Posted: 3/27/06 at 11:41am

Ah, come on now, Lee. Don't you think a certain earlier production would have been improved if Bea Arthur had flashed her penis to the audience?

[leefowler]

Posted: 3/27/06 at 11:42am

It is indeed Alan's cologne. Nothing against Alan Cummings, but do people really want to smell like him? Especially after seeing a production in which he plays such an unsavory character...

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 3/27/06 at 11:42am

Only one person has ever seen Bea's penis.








...Me.

[SweetOscar]

Posted: 3/27/06 at 1:17pm

Cool. they're selling t-shirts. What do they look like?

[toomeytwopiece]

Posted: 3/27/06 at 6:58pm

Again, seeing as how I was there, I would like to respond, because this post seems full of fallacies:

>This is the first show I've ever seen to dispense entirely >with bows. I'm not sure what the point of this is except for >Scott Elliott to show everyone what an iconoclast he is.

dispensing with the bow is a Brechtian device. the actors having just finished a 3 hour diatribe on how the world hasn't changed and men are pigs, leave the stage without a curtain call for a reason. It would be inappropriate to have one after such a play.

>A lot of the actors wear this sort of wierd eye-make-up thing, >which the ushers are also forced to wear. This is the worst >abuse of ushers I've seen since those awful outfits they had >to wear for Dance Of The Vampires.

abuse of ushers? how could you not see that the "ushers" were the entire ensemble?? again, to stress the fact that the audience, in fact mankind, is a part of this story... the more Elliott is able to make the audience relate to the play, by updating the trappings of the production, by 'introducing' the ensemble to the audience as 'ushers,' etc., the more the audience will have to relate to the show... and it seems to have worked for you - your response is so passionate, and that is only a good thing... it's not important that your response is negative or positive... just that you have one! :)

>Although most of the performers received tepid applause, Jim >Dale's applause was very enthusiastic, in appreciation, I >think, for giving a wonderful performance in the midst of some >very trying circumstances.

tepid applause? Lauper's 'Solomon Song' received more applause, as did Rooney's 'Lucy's Aria.' Gasteyer's 'Ballad of the Overwhelming Power of Sex,' and McKay's 'Pirate Jenny' did as well. These actually received quite joyfully rousing responses, which was nice to feel. Again, I don't understand how you can say what you have said.

>The performer playing Lucy showing her (his) penis to the >audience may be the low point of my theatre-going life.

Ok, again, a Brechtian device. However, I sense a personally injurious tone to this comment, which only paints you as a shill or just plain mean. First, he isn't completely 'bare,' so it's a kind of 'see what you want to see without seeing all of it' thing... in showing the audience what they already know to be true, Elliott, I believe, makes the choice to offer the audience an opportunity to experience Polly's shock, and then either react as Polly does, or not.

>For a show that pretends to be a scathing lampoon of middle->class mores, you can still purchase t-shirts in the lobby, >along with (really!) perfume.

uhm, the Roundabout has to pay its bills, and people want to buy that stuff.

>These are my own opinions, and their existence are not meant >to represent a put down of those whose who have different >opinions.

no, not at all, just to put down the people who have to show their penis in a show.

please stop being a shill. it's tacky. your opinions would be entirely respected if they had not been rife with bold face fallacies

[kitkatgirl54]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 12:09am

i haven't even seen the show yet (so i can't tell if this is a matter of poor direction or a matter of poor understanding of the material on the audience's part), but i really wish people would start reading up on brechtian theater before seeing (or at least reviewing!) this show and critiquing the elements that need to be in the piece to remain true to brecht's style.

[QMAN03]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 12:31am

Ok, that merchandise comment is so stupid. Roundabout is a not for profit organization, so they need to sell whatever it takes for them to put on shows. Or would you prefer they don't sell stuff and just not put on shows?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 12:46am

i applaud no bows
well I don't really have to
so Brecht would have approved
Make the Audience Mad or Confused
i Like that

[kitkatgirl54]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 12:47am

right, lets not forget that this is broadway, and sad but true, money is what it's all about.

[etoile]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 12:53am

"...or a matter of poor understanding of the material on the audience's part), but i really wish people would start reading up on brechtian theater before seeing..."

Please! No audience should have to have any prior knowledge before setting foot in a theatre. It's the responsibility of the production to effectively convey their intended message.

[kitkatgirl54]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 12:55am

i can only read "what's with the scene titles" so many times. if you want to have an informed discussion about a show, i say be informed.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 2:25am

So...the morals and message put through in a show should be maintained and adopted by the producers?

Because of THREEPENNY's take on humanity and "morality," they should not sell posters or t-shirts?

Should SWEENEY TODD only sell meat pies (with real human meat) and razor blades?

Should RENT sell heroin?

Please.

[leefowler]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 8:39am

Scott Elliott's production of Threepenny is about as Brechtian as a high school production of Cabaret.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 10:51am

This may sound like a silly question, but wouldn't a curtain call add to the Brechtian effect? If the the purpose is to alienate the audience and continously remind them they are watching a play, wouldn't a curtain call do just that? It's also possible that I'm totally off-base.

[kitkatgirl54]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 11:18am

"Scott Elliott's production of Threepenny is about as Brechtian as a high school production of Cabaret."

Good to know, that's why I made sure to preface what I said with 'i'm not sure if it's poor direction'. Regardless, I'm sick of hearing the major critiques to the show being the Brechtian elements that have a right to be there. I'll give you my thoughts after I see it, I realize it's ridiculous to argue it if I haven't seen it. Speaking of which, does Elliott borrow anything more from Mendes's Cabaret besides Alan Cumming, Studio 54, the attendants being part of the show (in Cabaret they were dressed as Kit Kat Girls and served food/drinks), and gender-blurring? These combined with the play seemed a little too coincidental for me.

"wouldn't a curtain call add to the Brechtian effect?"

Because most plays traditionally did have a curtain call during Brecht's time (and enough of them still do now, I still anticipate one in most shows), it was considered controversial to not have one because it was what the audience was expecting.

But another thing Brecht wanted was for the audience be able to smoke during the performance and clearly that's not being done.. haha.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 11:35am

Coincidental? Not really. Since Cabaret is sorta from the tradition of Brecht/Weil type stuff. Was it a coincidence when they cast Lotte Lenya and a neon sign and songs that comment on the action in the original Cabaret production? Come on. Just because the same actor is playing in a show in the same theater is not any kind of coincidence. The few times I saw Cabaret at Studio 54 the waitresses were not dressed as Kit Kat Girls and made no attempt to try to pretend to be part of the show.

kmc

[kitkatgirl54]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 11:44am

okay, thanks

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 2:08pm

"Should RENT sell heroin?"

The mark up's pretty good.

[Calvin]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 2:11pm

But the syringes were signed by the whole cast! That's no small feat. And in honor of BCEFA, they were acquired as part of a needle-sharing program.

[Brennan88]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 4:45pm

"Please! No audience should have to have any prior knowledge before setting foot in a theatre. It's the responsibility of the production to effectively convey their intended message."

You have a point, but we're nearly seventy years beyond the writing of this show, which satires a society very few of us actually remember, and several hundred years past the writing of the originial source material. Additionally, it's written in a style that a lot of modern American theatregoers may not be overly familiar with.

I don't think there's any harm in asking, or challangeing an audience to meet you half way, to come in at least a little bit educated about what you're going to see.

[toomeytwopiece]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 1:22am

the point of the play, in the modern world, sadly, is that things haven't changed... and that is what Elliott points out by modernizing the piece... it is satirizing a society WE live in

it's actually rather sad.

[leefowler]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 8:45am

So, Scott Elliott's point in updating Threepenny Opera, is that society hasn't changed?

Wow, stop the presses!

Updated On: 3/30/06 at 08:45 AM

[mint0621]

Posted: 3/30/06 at 8:55am

I didn't read anything about Brecht or Brechtian theater and thoroughly enjoyed the show. I loved all his techniques (announcing each scene, etc) and I think if you're willing to be open for a unique theater experience, anyone can enjoy a "Brecht" musical without reading about it beforehand.