New Private Reading of Revised bare Set for 11/1

[Rob]

Posted: 10/27/10 at 2:37pm

Click Here to Read New Private Reading of Revised bare Set for 11/1

[newintown]

Posted: 10/27/10 at 2:45pm

I wonder why producers don't try to revive every failure from the past, not just pop ones like Carrie and Bare?

Why not Kelly, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Bonanza Bound, In My Life, The Vamp, Home Sweet Homer, and on and on and on and on...

[provocation]

Posted: 10/27/10 at 9:52pm

I'd love to hear Carrie Manolakos sing Ivy's songs.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/27/10 at 10:03pm

I wouldn't call BARE a failure. It did quite well in NYC.

Updated On: 10/28/10 at 10:03 PM

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 10/27/10 at 10:11pm

I completely agree with New in Town. Why just these flops?

This show has been revised, looked at, and oddly obsessed over almost as much as JEKYLL AND HYDE.

[snowskittle]

Posted: 10/28/10 at 12:59am

Sounds like the script has been revised. Anyone know whether this might be heading for a new production? Broadway? Off-Broadway?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/28/10 at 6:24am

They need to find out if anyone actually wants to put money into the show...and THEN worry about where it goes.

BARE never had a try at B'way....only off B'way.

They aren't going to try to bring back a flop that no one has any interest in. People still talk about Carrie and Bare, which proves there is INTEREST and therefore, a probably audience.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[newintown]

Posted: 10/28/10 at 10:20am

Come on, now, uncageg: "I wouldn't call BARE a failure. I [sic] did quite well in NYC." What kind of revisionism is that? It played a short run in a barely Off-Broadway rat trap, and then couldn't even make it to a commercial Off-Broadway run because no one liked it enough to invest in it. No one sane would call that doing "quite well."

It's a DOA turkey, let it stay buried, learn the lesson, move on, and create something new. Quit trying to play Frankenstein with deadly dead theatre.

Posted: 10/28/10 at 10:31am

Hey New, get the money together and you can produce a revival of anything you want.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/28/10 at 10:40am

newintown, from what I remember, it pretty much sold out that rat trap. I saw it and can remember people trying to get tickets to see it and couldn't. So it played off-off-B'Way. There was a lot of buzz about it. (Even here in Denver) Who knows whay the backing fell through for the off-B'way run? I was talking about the run that it had. I wouldn'y consider it a "flop" run. It didn't open and close in 2 days.

[greensgreens]

Posted: 10/28/10 at 11:02am

A lot has changed since the original production(s) of this and I think the show has some very important things to say to our culture as of this very moment, so a revival/revisal seems timely and certainly more interesting than another retrod of Gypsy.

As someone with high school experiences that had a direct parallel to Bare, I would have been over the moon to have seen (or even been exposed to) the show in high school. If a B'way production does come about b/c of this reading, I'm sure there are many in high school (and beyond) that will appreciate having this work of art well-represented either on B'way or off.

[newintown]

Posted: 10/28/10 at 11:22am

Thanks, Joe - if I were to spend anything, it wouldn't be on a revival. I like new work in NY. I can always go out of town if I want to see a revival.

Posted: 10/28/10 at 11:39am

And that's what great about this business of show- Someone can see unrealized potential in a show, workshop it extensively, and attempt a Broadway run. Like any show, the odds against it are high.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 10/28/10 at 5:15pm

LEAH HOCKING AS CLAIRE AND CAPATHIA JENKINS AS SISTER CHANTELLE?!?!?!? I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 10/28/10 at 6:37pm

I'm doubtful than anyone would bother chancing this show.

Thought last time it had RENT to comptete with. What does it have now in terms of rock musicals?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 10/29/10 at 4:35am

I would hardly call "bare" a flop in regard to the new york run. It was a staged at ATA as a workshop production to test the viability of the piece and it was found, at the time, to be in demand and sellable in a larger market at the off-broadway run was set into motion, with the show undergoing recasting and revisions in the interim.

The problem was that just as the show was set to go back into rehearsal, Doger Theatricals and their major partner Joop Van Den Ende parted ways and the Dodgers had to save their tails. Since off-broadway is less likely to turn a profit than Broadway (not that it is very likely either), the Dodgers pulled the financial plug on "bare", hoping to find additional backers in a VERY quick turn around and they put what assets they had into the doomed "Dracula." However, it's nearly impossible to fund a show in several weeks (unless you are Hairspray...), and it is even more difficult to raise funds when you are a volitile and uncertain organization undergoing such major, unexpected change.

So, really, "bare" is not at all a flop since it's never had an actual (commercial OR non-profit) run here in the city. It's legs are from a hugley successful original staging in LA and a NYC workshop that gave the show significant revison and potential for improvement and a legion of new fans.

Sadly, "bare" fell into the turmoil of rights holders and bitter creatives feuding, and when hands went back into the pot, changes were made not out of the desire for improvement, but with the desire to spite and erase a HUGE milestone and leap in the show's development and that version was never really workshopped, staged or given legs, but rather preserved and packaged for sale and license with fatal flaws that wouldn't have been given the light of day uner cooler heads and better reason.

I truly hope that this workshop marks a new phase in the show's life and that it can finally give the show a true a life. the cast for this workshop is almost across the board phenominal - though I do have my doubts about a few people involved. Fresh eyes and a disconnect to the past incarnations seem to be just the medicine in order.

[americanboy99]

Posted: 10/29/10 at 8:22pm

I'd kill for the chance to attend this reading.

[snowskittle]

Posted: 10/29/10 at 8:49pm

Broadwayguy, what are the major changes in the current revision, if you know?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 10/30/10 at 12:35am

The only stuff I can say that I know for certain is that the cast has been workshopping all week and that everything is very tight lipped.. to the point of confidentiality contracts.

[snowskittle]

Posted: 10/31/10 at 6:52pm

Ooh....intrigue!

Anybody know more?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 10/31/10 at 7:00pm

I cherish the BARE album I have, though I've never actually listened to it.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 10/31/10 at 11:38pm

The story I heard several years ago almost exactly matches broadwayguy2's version of events. It was hardly the flop newintown has made it out to be.
I really enjoy Bare, and see it as a piece that has a lot of potential. In order for this to succeed though, the creators need to recognize that there is indeed room for improvement, and that the licensed version is not the best that the show can be.

[newintown]

Posted: 11/1/10 at 10:14am

Fans can turn mental backflips to explain the failure of Bare, but you should also acknowledge that Dodger Stages was able to produce several other shows in the same time period during which they could not raise sufficient interest/money for Bare.

If there were sufficient interest in this glum, banal, naval-gazing piece of adolescent whining, it would have succeeded long before now. However, as with other wildly mediocre failures (Carrie), the flop-obsessed few beget sufficient chat to create an illusion that there is enough interest to warrant disinterring the corpse, slapping some mortuary make-up on it, and ghoulishly parading it in front of a carnival audience.

[darquegk]

Posted: 11/1/10 at 10:27am

There are two ways to respond to a show's failure.

1. Leave it dead.

2. Analyze why it failed, check it for any untapped potential, and revise it until it reaches the point of success.

What's wrong with taking the second route? It sounds more artistically rewarding, as it forces the creators to develop their craft more. Besides, it's what the two preeminent names in theatre do. Sondheim, the god of legit theatre, tinkers forever with his two major flops Merrily and Gold/Bounce/Road Show. Stephen Schwartz, the god of pop theatre, has never yet released a show that he didn't go back and fix later. It's just how the game works.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 11/1/10 at 11:22am

newintown-

I wouldn't really say that the Dodgers managed to produce much during that time period. A quick search on IBDB produces the following:
Good Vibrations (early 2005, which means money was probably invested already)
Dracula (late 2004, where the money for bare went)
Jersey Boys (late 2005, after they had decided not to do bare, and then kept it in a holding pattern)

The IOBDB is down, so I can't check off-Broadway.

I am not the show's biggest fan. I think, like Carrie, it has the makings of a good show, but it needs a lot of work.

I also think that you are just determined to hate it no matter what, so any one trying to debate with you is really just debating with dead air.