More Threepenny thoughts

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.

---

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?

Only one person has ever seen Bea's penis.








...Me.

---

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

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?

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

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.

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

---

"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.

okay, thanks

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.

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.

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.