Musicals that have aged poorly with time? — Page 5

Patash said: "I'd add Little Abner. Why do some high schools and community theatres still do this (other than whoever picks the shows happens to love it, probably because they once played in it)? First of all, no one under the age of about 40 even knows who these characters are.



Shows like Fiorello and Call Me Madam fall flat because the characters are no longer really well known, but shows like Guys and Dolls and Gypsy still play beautifully.



"

Well, a couple of years ago I finally got to direct my dream show - and I fixed some of the problems (Michael Kidd added so much stuff that it ran almost two hours and forty minutes on B'way) - we were a very tight two hours and while I'm not divulging what I did to make the show work, I can only tell you we got love letter reviews here in Los Angeles and the audiences were screaming with laughter - because we a) had an excellent cast, b) I understand the jokes, which most directors don't have a clue about, and c) made sure the actors never put quote marks around their characters. And sorry, don't understand the argument about no one knowing who these characters are today. It's no different than someone of today's generation not knowing who the characters are in ANY musical of that era. Who knows who Ella Peterson is today - if someone knows who she is then there's no reason they don't know of Abner is or Daisy Mae is - and you learn who they are in the show, so, just doesn't wash, that argument. Oh, and the show is not called Little Abner - it's called Li'l Abner.

It's interesting to think about how 'dateness' is difficult to define consistently, and may in fact lessen over time. For example:



I think Rent already sounded dated when it premiered, so I guess it hasn't got worse over time. Maybe it should be rewritten by some modern 'visionary' to be sent in the 70s, or whenever it was that that score would have sounded like modern pop/rock. But in another 100 years no one will notice/care that the music isn't quite period-accurate, so the show will become less dated over time!



My Fair Lady may not have been any more sexist than certain contemporaneous shows, but the creators adapted an ahead-of-its-time play and added a sexist ending, which makes the musical seem dated when held up in comparison to its source material, IMO.



Kismet arguably seems dated now, given the rather blithe approach taken by its Western creators in depicting an Islam-influenced culture, but maybe that's a passing phase. Perhaps in fifty years when Islamic-Western relations have improved (we can hope), we can all laugh at/with this show together. (I'm not basing this on any concerns raised about specific modern productions of Kismet, but I imagine they would be inevitable if the show were given a major revival today.)



As to what (if anything) should be done about dated shows when putting them in front of modern audiences, I'm in two minds about all this. I can come up with many reasons for editing shows, but as soon as I imagine a self-important director taking the knife to one of the shows I love, I become cranky and feel as though they "just don't get it". The ideal approach would probably be pluralistic: let companies put on edited/adapted versions (if they obtain permission from the rights holders), but also license the original versions for companies which wish to produce them, and don't automatically demonise companies who choose to do so.



Editing a show may not always be about making modern audiences feel comfortable; it might be about ensuring that they focus on and get the full effect of certain worthwhile aspects of the show, rather than being distracted by "Wow, social attitudes were wacky back in those days" as the main takeaway of every other revival (unless that is indeed the point of a particular show). There's a place for replica productions of shows for anthropological reasons, but not every revival of a 'dated' show should be relegated to that purpose IMO. Many of us here are so familiar with classic shows that it's perhaps relatively easy for us to take the bad with the good, and to appreciate the 'anthropological' aspects of watching a dated show; but audience members who have paid substantial money to imbibe a show for the first and last time may find the dated aspects more distracting than we would predict. Theatre is about, among other things, communicating to the audience that you have in front of you here and now IMO.



OTOH, no doubt many a director has used similar arguments to completely desecrate great shows. There certainly is an argument for instead trusting audiences to weather the shock of the dated aspects of a show while simultaneously appreciating the show for what it was (and still is). People do seem to manage that for films such as Breakfast at Tiffany's and Gone With The Wind. Maybe people are more accustomed to seeing variant adaptations and other creative liberties in live stage works, so they're more inclined to wonder why dated lines aren't just cut or changed for the stage. Or maybe they feel more 'complicit' in viewing something offensive being portrayed onstage as compared to watching a period film, given that there's a real actor onstage seemingly asking for a laugh from the audience for a racist joke or whatever.



TBH it probably comes down to this for me: when I like changes to 'dated' shows, they're artistically justified, and when I don't like them, they're a betrayal of the original piece

"I think Hammerstein's intent in Carousel is to show us how love can blind you to realities you don't want to acknowledge."

This how I've always perceived Carousel.

Put On Your Sunday Clothes is second only to the title number as the most envigorating of the show!!

bk said: "
Well, a couple of years ago I finally got to direct my dream show - and I fixed some of the problems (Michael Kidd added so much stuff that it ran almost two hours and forty minutes on B'way) - we were a very tight two hours and while I'm not divulging what I did to make the show work, I can only tell you we got love letter reviews here in Los Angeles and the audiences were screaming with laughter - because we a) had an excellent cast, b) I understand the jokes, which most directors don't have a clue about, and c) made sure the actors never put quote marks around their characters. And sorry, don't understand the argument about no one knowing who these characters are today. It's no different than someone of today's generation not knowing who the characters are in ANY musical of that era. Who knows who Ella Peterson is today - if someone knows who she is then there's no reason they don't know of Abner is or Daisy Mae is - and you learn who they are in the show, so, just doesn't wash, that argument. Oh, and the show is not called Little Abner - it's called Li'l Abner.



"

So glad to hear it and heartsick I didn't see your production. I LOVE that show!

To turn the subject around, I think Fiddler on the Roof has become MORE relevant, especially in NYC or Israel. The gulf between ultra-Orthodox Jews who want to maintain all "traditions" and "reform" Jews who identify as Jewish but lead a secular life is widening. I happen to know some Hasidim who view marrying outside their sect as equal to marrying a Gentile. The night I went to Fiddler most of the audience was ultra-Orthodox and I could see how emotionally engaged they were in the show because the issues that Tevye faces are issues that their communities have to grapple with on a daily basis.

HogansHero said: ""I understand what Gone With the Wind and Birth of a Nation are - shall we ban them? Act as if they never existed?"

First of all, no one is banning anything. Secondly, comparing a movie to a play is nonsensical. No one has to lift a finger for those 2 movies to exist. A revival, on the other hand, requires a huge investment of capital that in turn depends on there being an audience for the effort. This flawed film analogy misapprehends the distinction. Audiences are not interested in seeing show the creepiness of which requires processing through some context filter to tolerate. It is no different, really, than the reason most shows with outdated (even if totally inoffensive) stories, or songs, for that matter, are not produced without an attempted re-engineering. If you want to promote offensive attitudes and situations as hunky dory, go right ahead. (Isn't that precisely what diatribes against political correctness are doing in a not-especially-subtle way?) "

Thank you! Again, this is not out of a desire to screw my eyes shut and pretend the world is perfect. I love seeing theatre that is uncomfortable. For example, one of my favorite plays last year was An Octoroon- which samples liberally from the mid-1800s (and very racist) play The Octoroon, and also features performers in blackface and redface, just as a production of The Octoroon would have. While the play deliberately made me uncomfortable, it didn't do so in the same way that seeing a production of the older play would have. Seeing a traditonal production of The Octoroon would have made me uncomfortable because I would be watching a racist piece of art trying to pass for entertainment, whereas An Octoroon made me uncomfortable because it challenged my perceptions on race and cause me to think about them deeply. Again, my desire is not to be free from things that make me uncomfortable, but to not engage with art that has an offensive viewpoint. If you want to trot out the hoary critique of political correctness, you're welcome to do it, but it's absurd to say not wanting to see a production of a racist play means that one is trying to pretend the world is something that it isn't.

GavestonPS said: "You're right, Hogan, but I think BK was merely pointing to a couple of historical works that are considered particularly egregious. And he was merely asking if they should be "burned"; he wasn't agitating for high profile revivals.

I suppose a more apt analogy would be found if we asked whether BIRTH OF A NATION and GONE WITH THE WIND should be re-made today. I, for one, would say no. But even this analogy isn't perfect because the originals still exist, which isn't true of the original production of PORGY AND BESS.

***

BK, I wasn't thinking the Al Capp characters are dated (though there are plenty who argue that stereotypes of Appalachians are just as offensive and obsolete as stereotypes of racial minorities).

I was thinking that the targets of satire (General Motors, above-ground nuclear testing, technical progress as a panacea for all social ills) must seem a tad odd to audiences under the age of, say, 40. Did you do anything special to make these issues clear?



"

All I can tell you is there was no aspect of my production that seemed dated in a way that the audience didn't understand. I fixed all of that. Obviously it was firmly set in its time period, but I knew what to do (again, I'm not going to reveal this stuff, because the goal is to get the author's estates to agree that the solutions I came up with not only worked, but should be used for any major revival - that's my personal end game, to get a first-class revival my way :) I can only tell you the laughs were so loud and so long it was like watching The Book of Mormon. And no, there weren't the usual types whooping and hollering it up - just really hones audience reaction. It's a great show and genuinely funny, but there are real problems to overcome if it's going to work today, and we overcame them.

@wonderfulwizard11-yes, of course, exactly.

@gaveston, when I remake GWTW you will be REQUIRED to not only watch it but like it. And you will not be allowed to comment on my decision to cast a white gay man as Prissy

Gaveston, I think you are being generous when you give 40 as the cut off age for getting the references in LIL ABNER. I think you would have to have been alive in the 1950s for any of that to resonate. Someone who is 40 would barely remember John Hughes films.

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 12:34 AM

If you haven't noticed any fascists lately you haven't been watching the GOP debates. Or Putin in Russia. Or the so-called "Islamic State". (Please note I wrote fascist with a small "f".)

The real fascists murdered millions of innocents. Some might think that you are using that label in a way that cheapens it when you use it to describe a clown and a would-be dictator forced to observe the trappings of democracy.

I have read that Oklahoma was a big favorite of servicemen during the war because it reminded them of what they were risking their lives to protect.

For me the Jud character makes Oklahoma my least favorite of the big five. I empathize with his lonely pining for the goddess that he can never have, and his envy of all those whose lives are superior to his. I regret that his tormentors leave the stage as hero and heroine, while he leaves as a corpse.

When I think dated musical, the first thought that comes into mind is the 2009 revival of BYE, BYE, BIRDIE. Does that book creak--and it's so bleh. The music is what saves it.