Posted: 11/5/18 at 3:45pm
I recently saw a production of How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying, and it's more apparent than ever that this show, despite its fine score, needs to be either stowed away forever or drastically updated to get with the times. There were several painful "jokes", and portrays women in the most helpless way. Any other shows fall into this category?
Posted: 11/5/18 at 3:54pm
Always nice to hear from the PC Police (aka The Censorship Squad)..
Posted: 11/5/18 at 3:56pm
Just wait twenty years when some of your favorite shows of today have people like you telling everyone to stow them away. Time is funny that way. Guess what? Art is art - you don't stow it away, you find a way to do the show so that it works. And it can. And has. You don't need to change anything, you just need to do it in the period in which it was written because - now wait for it - that's how it was back then and even though you'd like to erase history, you can't. But it's funny that every time there's a revival of a classic that is in any way dated through 2018 eyes, this is what we get - from a handful of people. Over and over again.
Posted: 11/5/18 at 4:05pm
Some shows hold up over time, others do not. The same goes for movies, tv, etc. Is that such a hard thing to comprehend?
Posted: 11/5/18 at 4:15pm
I recently saw a production of How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying, and it's more apparent than ever that this show, despite its fine score, needs to be either stowed away forever or drastically updated to get with the times.
The show is a satire and very much a product of its time, which is why it's preserved that way. If it were to "get with the times", it really wouldn't have any reason to exist.
Posted: 11/5/18 at 4:17pm
That IS the way things were for women. How can one not understand that?
Posted: 11/5/18 at 4:21pm
Posted: 11/5/18 at 4:21pm
Posted: 11/5/18 at 4:25pm
dramamama611 said: "That IS the way things were for women. How can one not understand that?"
I understand that 100%. But given the world we live in today, there were at least 10 groan inducing moments. Why is it so hard to admit that some things don't age well?
Posted: 11/5/18 at 5:17pm
I don't necessarily think it needs to be updated, but some of the lyrics in The Producers would have a very different meaning. The Chorus Girls sequence in I Wanna Be A Producer immediately comes to mind.
Posted: 11/5/18 at 5:23pm
There's a big difference between "should never be performed" and "needs an update." I can't think of many major musicals from the 1940s and beyond that should never be performed. With the right director/production or facelift, most shows can be elevated and made to work.
Pre-1940s is a different story –– for PC reasons, and because the structure of some books are so flimsy, as we've seen with some ENCORES shows.
Posted: 11/5/18 at 5:45pm
But given the world we live in today, there were at least 10 groan inducing moments.
Like what? "Groan inducing" could be a result of bad delivery or bad direction (or just a bad audience, depending where it's being performed) and an entirely subjective descriptor. It's true that some shows do not age well (I don't think Dear Evan Hansen will age well at all) and others simply weren't great to begin with (the aforementioned Camelot). But I'd take a good hard look at how I could leverage a Pulitzer prize-winning book with direction and staging before deciding the text needs to be changed.
Pre-1940s is a different story –– for PC reasons, and because the structure of some books are so flimsy, as we've seen with some ENCORES shows.
I'll admit, I'd love to see some of those with their original books and scores intact. Especially Of Thee I Sing, Girl Crazy, Good News and Anything Goes.
Updated On: 11/5/18 at 05:45 PM
Posted: 11/5/18 at 6:01pm
bwayobsessed said: "To answer the question, I’d say Camelot. I think there’s something there but it needs major rewrites."
Frasier creator David Lee rewrote CAMELOT to make it more of a chamber musical. It was done at Two River Theatre and Westport Country Playhouse and it is now being licensed as an alternative. The Shakespeare Theatre Co. in DC also did a version of CAMELOT this summer that was supposed to be great, though I think they just trimmed the book there and kept it on a grand scale.
Posted: 11/5/18 at 6:13pm
Cats and Phantom x
Posted: 11/5/18 at 6:16pm
Posted: 11/5/18 at 6:16pm
Posted: 11/5/18 at 7:09pm
I think some musicals are dated in the sense that they just aren't that enjoyable anymore (and probably weren't great to begin with) but I'm so tired of people putting 2018 eyes on works from the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. If you don't want to see or be in a show from that era then don't. There are plenty of shows that may have a "troubling" element from their time period but they are too good overall to be ignored or rejected.
Posted: 11/5/18 at 7:54pm
JSquared2 said: "Always nice to hear from the PC Police (aka The Censorship Squad)..
"
Most theater people ARE the PC Police. I’m surprised by the rather conservative response to the OP.
I wouldn’t say any piece of theater should never be performed again, but many, MANY plays and musicals may have been brilliant by the standards of the time they were written, but do not hold up well for various reasons, i.e. it contains humor too specific to the time it was written (see: most of Shakespeare’s comedies), it’s too cheesy by modern standards (see: just about every musical written prior to around the 1960’s), it was shocking in its day but is now pretty tame (Cabaret, Hair). It’s not like we can’t do these shows, but...sometimes it’s better to just do something else.
Posted: 11/5/18 at 8:59pm
Posted: 11/5/18 at 9:58pm
To answer your question:
1) Chicago. It could be incredible if it was redone. They should take away that giant on-stage orchestra band that takes up 70% of stage space and have real scene changes, costume changes, and elaborate sets and props. It's very monochromatic and dated as it is now.
2) The Phantom of the Opera. Yes, it's a classic, but it suffers from several flaws. The Broadway version feels dated and has basically been the same since it opened. I've seen the production over ten times, and each time, I notice how overdue it is for a fresher look. The US tour sort of tries to steer it into this direction, but, the tour is plagued with cheap looking sets, costumes, and questionable blocking / acting choices. The photos of the newly re-imagined version in Norway look incredible and it would be nice to have something like that here.
Updated On: 11/5/18 at 09:58 PM
Posted: 11/5/18 at 9:59pm
Posted: 11/5/18 at 10:04pm
For the sake of my own sanity, I'm not going to get too wrapped up in this debate, but just a couple of small things:
BroadwayMan said: "I'm so tired of people putting 2018 eyes on works from the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc."
"2018 eyes" tend to be pretty unavoidable when you produce a show in 2018, and sell tickets to people with eyes that are also in 2018.
Mister Matt said: "Well, it is a shame that Shakespeare plays just couldn't hold up for more than 400 years."
Shakespeare's plays are very rarely performed without major cuts and/or alterations. Some of these changes are cosmetic, or length-based, but many of them (such as in Merchant of Venice, Othello, or Taming of the Shrew to name the most common examples) are designed to refocus the play's problematic politics.
Updated On: 11/5/18 at 10:04 PM
Posted: 11/5/18 at 10:16pm
Posted: 11/5/18 at 10:26pm
Um... what? I find Memphis way more cringey than H2$. Let's not pretend that when a show was written is the only factor in whether it reads as problematic.
Posted: 11/5/18 at 10:34pm
