Not a Bare Purist
Not a Bare Purist
Steveno23
Swing Joined: 1/7/11
#1Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/7/12 at 11:30pm
Most of the Purist opinion I've read or heard thus far doesn't hold very much legitimacy - lyric changes weren't necessary, that the show didn't need fixing, that its wrong to cut some songs and add new ones, and blah, blah, blah...I have to say that this new and improved rendition of Bare is FAR MORE RELEVANT NOW than the original. Bare:the original boasted more cliche's than this revisal. The lyrics of Bare: The Musical are just as good (if better), the structure is better than the original, and the new songs (lyrically even) vastly improve the arc of each relationship within the play. Having listened to Bare:the original many many times, I do not feel that Purists have all the answers as it relates to this new Bare. So, I would encourage everyone to SEE THE SHOW FIRST BEFORE YOU PASS JUDGEMENT or POST YOUR OPINION ON THIS WEBSITE.
FindingNamo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
#2Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/7/12 at 11:35pmThe Purists is a great name for the original fanbase, now what will the fans of the new version call themselves? The Bares?
#2Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/7/12 at 11:57pm
We wouldn't have a message board if people didn't post opinions without seeing things first! But I definitely agree with you - people need to stop reviewing, with extreme bias, this show based on secondhand knowledge of the current production in previews and comparing it to YouTube clips.
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
dramamama611
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
#3Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/8/12 at 3:20am
I thought the original was far from perfect, but it had heart and it moved me. I saw the revival last week. Didn't think the changes worked. I DID think it was for the worse. It didn't move me at all, sadly. There were a few changes that I did think worked, which I talked about in the other Bare thread, but this was just contrived.
I went with two others -- one tha had only seen the you tube available bootleg of the entire show -- and really liked this version; the other? Didn't know anything about it except the basic premise, and while he liked it more than I, still didn't think it was too good.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion -- whether they agree with yours or mine. But to assume those that disagree with your opinion are WRONG, or that they haven't seen the show is just ridiculous. MOST of the posters here see a huge percentage of shows that open in NY, and a discussion needs to hear all sides of opinions, not just those that laude (or deride) a show.
#4Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/8/12 at 12:08pm
Firstly, it was such a p,easure to meet you dramamama!
I saw the original and like it although I am not crazy about the change they made with Peter and taking the mother out of the story. I do have to say I think I li,e the new song that replaced 911 better. It is hysterical.
CurtainPullDowner
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/4/04
#5Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/8/12 at 12:21pm
If you didn't SEE the original NY Production, you have no idea how moving it was and why it became a cult thing at all.
So, shut up.
There.
dramamama611
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
#6Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/8/12 at 12:58pm
Great to have finally met you as well, Uncageg!
There is no doubt most of the cast is talented and dedicated, the things that are wrong with this show are in the revisements and the direction.
#7Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/8/12 at 5:19pmI really don't have too much of a problem with the direction.
#8Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/9/12 at 8:42pm
As a Bare "Purist," nowhere was I saying it wasn't relevant or it wasn't a good production or that I had all the answers regarding the shortcomings of this "revisal."
When a show you love changes this drastically, I think it's perfectly fair to compare and constructively critique the changes. Not all the changes were bad. A good number of them were very very good, and brought the show up to date.
But when it comes to the new lyrics of "All Grown Up" or the replacement of the opening number... I think it's more than fair to say those were changes that hurt the show. Here's the original opening number (the 2007 version)... I'd be more than happy to hear a rational as to why this song needed to be replaced.
Epiphany (other opening number)
#9Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/9/12 at 9:41pmWell it opened tonight. Will be interesting to see the reviews. With the threads going, I am surprised there is no review thread.
#10Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/9/12 at 10:05pmI haven't seen the new version and have no plans to, but I'm trying to figure out what about the previously produced version would be considered "irrelevant" now by the OP.
CurtainPullDowner
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/4/04
#12Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 3:23am
I can't speak for the OP about his use of relevance, but I have been saying the show is relevant now because of the recent stories of gay teens in the news and how the show fits in with that (as well as the It Gets Better movement). The only irrelevance I can think of that would even need to be brought up would be how some of the original references and things were dated, but that's perhaps stretching it.
Again, this is just me trying to understand the usage of the word and how I use the word to relay how I feel about this show. I think it's important and relevant in times like this, and I believe back when the original ran that it was important and relevant as well, but things have changed and times have (in some ways) changed.
#13Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 3:46am
A purist who cares about the integrity of a piece is a good, and much needed supporter of the art form. An art form that, in my opinion, may not be dying a quick and messy death, but a slow and very painful one.
I take it a show, or excuse me...revisal, at a time; however, I sound like a crabby old geezer who is spooked by change for no other reason other than, "it's not what I'm used to!!" these days. Either I'm a crabby, jaded old goat or these 'revisals' were head-scratchingly...revised.
No offense to the crabby old geezers and old goats of the world, btw.
I'm willing to bet the OP is involved in the production in some way, because the same, oddly familiar marketing words appear in his/her post, that I've seen in most every piece of literature hyping up these watered down revisals:
Relevant. New. Improved. Arc. Purist.
It's a miracle the OP didn't use GLORIOUS and MODERN.
#14Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 11:57am
My point was the OP is suggesting that the older version would now be irrelevant.
And a few dated references doesn't negate the relevance of an entire show. To assume (just by way of example, again, I haven't seen the new one) that you need to stick in 500 references to Facebook and Twitter and more contemporary whatevers is insulting to the strength of a piece and to its audience. It assumes they can't connect the dots.
#15Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 3:03pm
The extreme paucity of comment on Bare here suggests that no one is seeing it; friends saw it this weekend and said the house (during press week) was far from full and the audience reaction merely polite. Those two facts would hint that perhaps this tired old cobbled-together show is less than relevant (not that "relevance" is an essential ingredient for a good show).
However, having seen the unbearably humorless, witless, and adolescent original, and having seen other examples of Arrima's output, wild horses couldn't drag me to New World Stages to witness this.
#16Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 3:43pm
To be fair, I'm not seeing it because I'm out of town and have about three days to visit and too many other things I'd like to see more. If I was there full-time I would probably go just to satisfy the curiosity.
I think people just give too narrow a definition to "relevance," to mean in this particular shoe-horned way with a, like I said, insulting level of specificity. You have to be willing to take something in on the level of a bigger picture.
#17Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 3:57pmAnd sometimes, people think "relevance" is all that's needed to justify a show, suggesting that Bare is worth seeing merely because gay teenagers are bullied "in real life!," omitting any question of good writing.
#18Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 4:03pmThe expectation for good (even decent) writing should go without saying, but yes. Forgive my idealism, ha.
#19Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 4:36pm
First of all, it's not about being bullied. Never has been. It's about accepting who you are in spite of what religious doctrine might tell you.
Plus, relevance allows people to relate to something. When you share in someone's pain or someone can see their pain dramatized, that sounds like justification to me. Simply because you don't relate to it and think it's bad doesn't mean its relevance doesn't touch someone else.
#20Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 9:50pm
I just want to know how you can possibly be on board with the lyric changes to "All Grown Up." The 2004 Off-broadway lyrics actually fit the music. The 2007 concept cast lyric change made the song sound hokey and laughable. Seriously, what teenager says "Dream a dream/Then DASH another?" Now they've changed again, not fitting the music well at all and growing increasingly hokey. Oh, and Jason singing about himself in 1st and 3rd person on a song that was never his to begin with works like a pure revelation of theatrical genius, I'm so sure.
OP, I think you just need to accept the fact that the revisal of BARE went against what MOST of the "Purists" like about it. Also, the show has been so altered that it really doesn't resemble ANYTHING that we came to love. So, just face the fact that we don't like this new tune. Also, it's probably better that we DON'T see it because then we'll bash it more than we already are. What kind of word of mouth business can you expect that to earn the show?
#21Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 9:57pm
First of all, it's not about being bullied. Never has been. It's about accepting who you are in spite of what religious doctrine might tell you.
That's not true. Even in the original version of the show, Jason is afraid to come out because he fears how he'll be treated by his peers if they knew he was gay. His search for validation of his identity in a religious context doesn't come until the very end of the show. That's largely unchanged in this revisal of the piece.
Tony Kushner: You can sing it at my funeral.
dramamama611
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
#22Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 10:00pmFear of reaction isn't necessarily the same thing as bullying. At all. Jason's fear always seems to be more about his father's reaction, anyway.
#23Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 10:02pm
If you're afraid that you'll be treated in a volatile way by your peers if you revealed something about yourself, I think that's pretty clearly relevant to bullying.
We can argue back and forth about this, but my point is simply that it's not as if bullying isn't addressed in the original version, and it's also not that it's made a critical aspect of this version. People should actually see the changes before commenting on their effectiveness.
Tony Kushner: You can sing it at my funeral.
#24Not a Bare Purist
Posted: 12/10/12 at 10:09pm
The mistreatment of gay people in the United States has always had its basis in religious doctrine.
If it was for religious law, where else would the fear to come out manifest?
The main theme of the show was always the effect religion has on young people. The juxtaposition between Peter's story and Jason's story is what the show is about.
Videos