NYT: ‘Flower Drum Song,’ Once Overhauled, Returns Changed Again

I always resent a brand new book applied to existing Golden Age musicals. And Hwang's new Flower Drum Song is the worst representation of that. Not that the original is fantastic. It is obviously racially insensitive; Hammerstein took a fairly dramatic, realistic novel and turned it into a musical comedy. But Hwang didn't even use the novel's structure or plot, he created a new one out of whole cloth that isn't very good. I much prefer the original, cultural insensitivity and all!

In many ways, Flower Drum Song would be easier to deal with if it were just overtly and actively racist. The gems of the score would be stripped for revues and concerts and the show as a whole would be consigned to the dustbin of history. But it's not overtly and actively racist at all- it's clearly an empathetic and well-intended but dated and misguided piece (and has been considered so for decades). I understand why Hwang and others want to make Flower Drum Song work. It's got a great score and it's the rare musical to focus on Chinese-Americans exclusively and provide excellent opportunities for Asian performers and creatives. It's got too much going for it to just toss it, but it also simply can't really be performed as-is today. I do wonder if somebody other than Hwang should take a look at it. He seems too fixated on stuffing it with more weighted history than it can handle.

Updated On: 4/28/26 at 06:58 PM

I feel that unlike movies, tv, novels, even visual art- artistic works that are fixed and immutable- theatre and other performing arts are inherently living by virtue of the fact that they exist to be interpreted by currently living people. You'd be asking a company of modern Asian artists to be staging something that they could reasonably believe to be deeply demeaning toward their culture and heritage, in front of an audience that may or may not understand the context in which the piece was created. Performing arts are harder to contextualize than other art forms in that way; visual arts are displayed next to plaques or as part of curated exhibitions that put them in context, problematic films or novels can have prefaces that have to be acknowledged in some way before getting to the work. Program notes are great but are far more easily passed over by audiences.

The closest thing theater has would be a curated festival or something like Encores where the context is part of the mission, but that effectively does make the work a museum piece as joevitus says and limits its ability to be performed.

With Flower Drum Song, Hammerstein's goal overall seemed to be to show that Chinese-Americans largely "are just like every American" and deal with the same desires and issues. (I guess this is clear in I Enjoy Being a Girl, which is hard to perform unless you play it as satire--and even the original did do this a *bit*--but really was about "look, she's just like every other American "girl".) And I think it's important to point out that the movie version actually adds back in some jokes and other moments that, I think, do make the work seem more racially stereotyped than the play was. And I think some of Hwang's book is really misguided (and the tone is all over the place--it sounds like he's trying to fix this element?) But I also think when some of us say "why don't they just perform the original book?" it ignores the fact that virtually no one was licensing the show anymore, so it made complete sense for R&H (I think it was Ted Chapin's suggestion) to do a brand new version.

(It is worth pointing out that unlike in The King and I, Hammerstein especially was very keen on casting the show entirely with Asian actors, which proved difficult and of course they ended up with one white lead--who replaced another white actor--and one black lead, Larry Blyden and Juanita Hall. Of course less than twenty years later, Hal Prince had a hard time casting all Asians in Pacific Overtures, but his issue was with the union, who didn't care if the cast was Asian or not, but did want them all to be American.)

Just for fun - "I Enjoy Being A Girl" performed as satire:

Updated On: 4/29/26 at 08:56 AM

EricMontreal22 said: "With Flower Drum Song, Hammerstein's goal overall seemed to be to show that Chinese-Americans largely "are just like every American" and deal with the same desires and issues. (I guess this is clear in I Enjoy Being a Girl, which is hard to perform unless you play it as satire--and even the original did do this a *bit*--but really was about "look, she's just like every other American "girl".) And I think it's important to point out that the movie version actually adds back in some jokes and other moments that, I think, do make the work seem more racially stereotyped than the play was. And I think some of Hwang's book is really misguided (and the tone is all over the place--it sounds like he's trying to fix this element?) But I also think when some of us say "why don't they just perform the original book?" it ignores the fact that virtually no one was licensing the show anymore, so it made complete sense for R&H (I think it was Ted Chapin's suggestion) to do a brand new version.

(It is worth pointing out that unlike in The King and I, Hammerstein especially was very keen on casting the show entirely with Asian actors, which proved difficult and of course they ended up with one white lead--who replaced another white actor--and one black lead, Larry Blyden and Juanita Hall. Of course less than twenty years later, Hal Prince had a hard time casting all Asians in Pacific Overtures, but his issue was with the union, who didn't care if the cast was Asian or not, but did want them all to be American.)"

I think you make the best argument I've heard for revising the book--that the show simply isn't being licensed and so the organization did something to make it more appealing. I honestly don't know if that's an effort worth taking though. Unlike Kad, I think the score is rather weak. "Love, Look Away" is a stone cold classic, and "I Enjoy Being A Girl" is silly fun, but most of the score is pretty mundane. I also just don't think re-writing the book solves the issue of commercial interest. I don't think audiences are particularly attracted to this piece in any way, even just on the basis of a collection of songs.

EvanstonDad said: "Add me to the list of people who don't have a strong appetite for a revised version of "Flower Drum Song." I will say that I really like the cast recording of the revival though. However, what I really want is a complete recording of the original score like we've recently gotten for "Oklahoma!", "Carousel," and "My Fair Lady.""

Yes please! I've only heard the "dream ballet" music for FDS one time and would love it to be recorded (the movie has a completely different "dream ballet.") Of course, unlike Oklahoma and Carousel anyway (less true of My Fair Lady) the OBCR of Flower Drum Song is pretty terrific, sounds great, and contains a large chunk of the music (honestly, it may be the 1950s cast album that I have played the most since getting it as a teen.)

Well I was just going to reply to John Adams' longer reply to my earlier post, where I will kinda get to that ;) Although, wasn't Love Look Away a radio hit for... someone? Certainly my mom grew up not knowing the show, cast album, or movie (in Edmonton, Alberta) but the song had made a big impression on her from the radio and I remember when I was a teen she was happy when I found out what it was from, but of course that would have probably been the early 1960s (the website secondhandsongs, lists a fair number of recordings:)

I do stand by my statement that I get why Ted Chapin and all (I think Mary Rodgers was keen on the idea) decided for a new book. They were always looking for new ways to present (some might say exploit) the R&H legacy, and this also meant in the 1990 finally allowing for productions that tried to dig deeper into the classics (which led to the Hytner Carousel, the Nunn Oklahoma, the Renshaw King and I.) As well as allowing various revised Allegro's (Chapin said when I spoke to him that there were of course no assumptions it would ever find mainstream success but he also felt it was important to get a complete recording out there.) And out of the lesser R&H shows that weren't being done, FDS seemed the one that they could revitalize the best. So, despite not exactly loving the new book, I think it makes sense to try it when you have a show that simply hasn;'t even been licensed in years (and of course they did--or maybe still do--allow you the option of what to license.)

I do think it's a good score overall though. I think one thing about FDS is it was R&H trying to do a musical more in the manner of what was happening on Broadway in the 1950s (something they also tried with Me and Juliet and Pipe Dream to varying degrees--and not much success.) Despite West Side Story and My Fair Lady, that was when there were a lot of smaller hits (and some big hits) with musical comedies in a contemporary urban setting (Wonderful Town, Pajama Game, Damn Yankees, Bells are Ringing, etc.) But, what people now go to for R&Hammerstein, and maybe always have done, have been the more epic stories and a style that owes something more to operetta (even South Pacific in a way, the only one of their big hits to have a basically contemporary setting.)

John Adams said: " EricMontreal22 said: "With Flower Drum Song, Hammerstein's goal overall seemed to be to show that Chinese-Americans largely "are just like every American" and deal with the same desires and issues. "

I agree - and maybe (?) a somewhat noble intention coming a decade after what the US did to Japanese Americans re: the internment camps. "

Oh, I think for the time it was a noble intention, actually. I guess from a modern perspective many might not think it was, but in the 1950s?

Satire might have been the wrong word for how I said I Enjoy Being a Girl should be performed, but it's definitely performed with a wink (not all that far removed from How Lovely to be a Woman from Birdie--another song that gets some flack from modern audiences who seem to think it's written completely straightforward.)

" It is not impossible to improve the show's book based on the original source material. It's just easier (and lazier) to disrespectfully scrap it entirely in favor of potentially making more money. "

I mean this obviously was one of the goals--to get people to license a property that was simply no longer being licensed. But, for all the book's faults, Hwang has made it clear that he did do his book with a lot of genuine affection for the original show. As for if a show with a new book is still even the same show I... don't know. I guess it's all relative (but certainly I don't think the recent attempts at a new Pal Joey seem like the same show--although in that case it also used MANY songs not from the original production.)

" Casting may be the area where compromise might be most palatable. Is it better to provide opportunity to as many as are qualified? Has the talent landscape changed since Pacific Overtures? (I do understand the union's prerequisite that actors be American.) "

Oh, surely it has. I've never heard of any major Pacific Overtures production (not that there are many, but there have been enough) have had trouble with casting. Or, for that matter, revivals of King and I.






https://secondhandsongs.com/work/114557/versions

So, I watched the movie version on Amazon this afternoon and enjoyed it. As FightTheDragon wrote, I did feel its lengthiness. I was very ready for it to be wrapped up about 20 minutes before the wedding began.

Probably more than plot or score, I have a sense of nostalgia for the movie's cast. I was most familiar with them from TV: Jack Soo on Hawaii Five-0 and Barney Miller, Benson Fong from the Charlie Chan movies every Sunday on WGN's "Family Classics" w/Frazier Thomas, and Miyoshi Umeki as Mrs. Livingston on The Courtship of Eddie's Father.

I didn't connect Patrick Adiarte as being on M*A*S*H until after I'd seen him in FDS. His dancing made a much bigger impression on me.

Thanks, all for the great discussion! I feel like I learned something, and it's always a pleasure to to engage in threads like this one.

EricMontreal22 said: "John Adams, I'm sure you've seen it, but the extended Ed Sullivan performance from FDS is charming (and shows some of Carol Haney's stage choreography.)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYQaNHl2K8"

Thanks for that link! You're right, I had seen it, but it's been a looong time and I'm so happy to revisit any of the Ed Sullivan Broadway performances.

I really love Pat Suzuki's brassy vocals on "I Enjoy Being A Girl". I wonder if both her's and Arabella Hong's vocals (Helen's "Love Look Away" was dubbed by Marilyn Horne in the movie) surprised some late 50s-era audience members who wouldn't think that such Western musical theater/operaticly styled vocals could emanate from Asian actors.

As for the movie being overproduced, I can't lie... I have no idea what that adjective means in a professionally applied context. I mean, I've read the definition, but in my case, I don't think I cold use it accurately, or be able to confidently defend why I'd used it.

I DO know that I found the studio-built sets meant to portray San Francisco exteriors look extremely artificial, and in one situation - comical. In the "Don't Marry Me" scene, Soo and Umeki are hitching a ride on the back of a horse-drawn dairy wagon. They step off as the wagon turns to go into an arched alleyway. As soon as their weight is removed from the wagon, its rear wheels stop rotating and the cart get dragged by the horse into the alley. DOH!

I gotta say this, too:

Although I have great respect for the thoughts and opinions of both you and joevitus, I've been thinking about your categorizations of the song, "I Enjoy Being A Girl" and I feel a need to say that I both disagree, and find them to be a bit (unintentionally?) misogynistic.

I believe Nancy's motive for singing the song is completely earnest in expressing both her pride and the personal power she claims in unabashedly being "strictly a female female" (the counterpoint to being "a man's man").

Outside of expressing the joy it brings her to be in control of utilizing her femininity to her advantage, the only aspiration she (repeatedly) states is to one day marry a man - not a provider, or even an emotional support - but a guy who appreciates ('enjoys') who she is as a woman who knows exactly who she is.

I think that's extremely powerful, especially for its time.

Happy to say we had a mostly great time last night at the East West production of FDS. This was a show with really big swings for this intimate company-- big sets, big costumes, big cast, big band, and a voracious everything-and-the-kitchen-sink script, and I'm cheered to say by the end of the night, the company somehow made this crazy quilt come to full life.

Act I starts now with a gorgeously staged "A Hundred Million Miracles" taking our lead Mei Li from her start in China, through the Cultural Revolution, and step by step across the ocean to her arrival in San Francisco in the late-1960's. Magnificent start and very true to the spirit of R&H.

The rest of the very VERY long first act seems to take the central idea of Sondheim's "A Bowler Hat" and expand it into play form. We watch the very tradition-bound father, Wang, bit by bit exchange his core beliefs for the tinsel dream of Assimilation and the tackiness of a sequin-covered hyper-American Uncle Sam. Act II opens with his complete sellout in the number "Chop Suey", and you know what? It actually works, and it resonates in a stronger way than the old Generation Gap theme that dominated the original R&H script. (They've even tossed out the song "The Other Generation" in this script.) In the back and forth about assimilation, Madame Liang is now reconceived as a Westernized agent/manager, crassly making the wonders of Chinatown attractive to a Caucasian audience in "Grant Avenue". It's a rough fit, particularly when we need Madame Liang to stay charming enough to be a worthy romantic partner for Wang later on.

Worst of all tonally is the character of Harvard, the obnoxiously swishy costume designer at the club (stereotype much?), who's consistently directed to make the audience laugh at him and his affectations, which they faithfully did in rolling guffaws to our own embarrassment, pushing gay representation back at least 2 generations. REALLY?? I'm surprised to see David Henry Hwang write scenes this way, and doubly surprised to see East West Players present them when their whole history has been to revel in honest portrayals of diversity in all its colors. The fact that they give Harvard his own pandering coda to the cast bows in full drag only confused us even more-- "We've gone about as fer as we can go" from the progressive spirit of classic R&H.

Despite all these reservations, Act II turns out to hold many miracles of its own, not least of which is to make the inevitable wedding finale absolutely moving and meaningful. For that we have to look to some amazing performers who elevate even the more mundane or cringy material into high art. Grace Yoo's Mei Li is the gorgeous center to the show: nuanced and funny with a ravishing voice (wait till you hear her FURIOUS "Love Look Away")! Gedde Watanabe moved us to tears (he always does) in the minor part of Chin; he was in gorgeous voice for his Act II solo "My Best Love". Krista Marie Yu was a terrific stage presence as Linda Low (the club's very assimilated star dancer), with great dance moves if a shakier singing voice. Mark Oka did the impossible in making the nonsensical arc of Wang from traditionalist to tacky vaudevillian into something funny and dare I say it-- moving.

The sets were ambitious for this low-budget troop, but really filled the stage with scale and told the story with great style. The costumes were even better, encompassing haute couture or low comedy with equal skill-- brilliant work! Choreography was terrific across the board, especially in bringing the movement of Chinese Opera to this story. We loved the few times the full cast of 22 filled the stage with dance. And the band of 10 placed far upstage was pure magnificence!

Let's face it, FDS is a tough show to pull off, whichever script is used. East West Players is better equipped than most, and by and large they nailed the assignment with great love. The show plays through May 31, so don't miss your chance to see this rare treasure.

Someone in a Tree2 said: "Worst of all tonally is the character of Harvard, the obnoxiously swishy costume designer at the club (stereotype much?), who's consistently directed to make the audience laugh at him and his affectations, which they faithfully did in rolling guffaws to our own embarrassment, pushing gay representation back at least 2 generations. REALLY?? I'm surprised to see David Henry Hwang write scenes this way [...]"

If I have the facts correct, the character of Harvard was singularly created by Hwang for his 2001 revision. In other words, he does not appear in either C. Y. Lee's 1957 novel, and neither the original script of the Broadway musical, nor the movie's screenplay.

According to the NYT article linked in the original post for this thread, the character of Harvard was originally coded as gay, but not directly acknowledged so until Hwang "corrected" it in this latest revision:

"A character named Harvard, whom Hwang created for his version, was 'probably a gay character, although we were never specific about it,' he said. Harvard is definitely gay now. 'Part of that is acknowledging the degree to which San Francisco’s Chinatown played an important role in the development of what we now call L.G.B.T.Q.+ culture,' he said."

Talk about "adding insult to injury"... A completely invented character that was originally added to the script in a "veiled" fashion, only to be "outed" a quarter of a century later, by his inventor, for the purpose of... what, now? To serve solely as an object of humor and/or ridicule?

I don't get how that's "acknowledging the degree to which San Francisco’s Chinatown played an important role in the development of what we now call L.G.B.T.Q.+ culture".

Apparently, the revised book is overly long. The 'development of what we now call LGBTQ+ culture' is an unnecessary and unrelated aside to the original storyline's themes. Cut the character of Harvard. He was never meant to be there; not like this, anyway.