Phantom to change to "re-staged" production in flagship productions? — Page 8

>If she was so insulted, then why did she agree to let her choreo be used at all in the 2016 revival?

Because she knew the integrity of the show kind of depended on it. They would re-stage regardless of whether she gave them her permission, it would just be completely without her iconic choreography. Which is what the plan originally was. When their chosen choreographer told them that he couldn't do that they strong armed her into just taking a check and give them free reign to take out whatever they wanted as opposed to letting her negotiate what parts of the show must stay like any prolific choreographer is afforded. Frankly at 90 I would have told them to **** off, I have more than enough money and they can go embarrass themselves. I'm sure she was staring down from above when the Cats movie came out just cackling at their hubris. A movie she didn't even get a credit on for as little of the original choreography they did include...

Updated On: 8/2/20 at 03:25 PM

Loopin’theloop said: "joevitus said: "Fair points, but in fact is is often opined that if ACL does get another revival, it should employ entirelynew choreography. Obviously, there's plenty of room for debate on this. But what I'm still not getting is how new choreography, in whole or in part is "insulting," which is the word I'm seeing used repeatedly. Bad choice aesthetically? Yeah, I get that argument. But I don't see how it's insulting.



To use a different Sondheim collaborator to illustrate the point,Hal Prince's concepts and stagingswere essential to all their shows together (generally dictating what kinds of songs would be written,and even determining the structureof thebook), but again, no one says Prince is being insulted if any of these shows are revived with entirely new stagings, and these shows always do get entirely new stagings."



The Cats situation was very different.


The theatre owners had no desire to see a revival of the show, without some kind of significant change arguing that even West Side Story had been reimagined with the Spanglish and the changes to the choreography. ALW wasn’t about to mess around with the music, the set and costumes from London were all ready to be shipped so the obvious choice was choreography (which is the obvious choice anyway if you want to reinvent a dance show) so they quickly approachedAndy Blankenbuehler. ALW never thinks through any of his decisions beyond ‘who is the flavour of the month who might make me relevant?’ his entire reason for wanting to revive the show was to see several of his shows on Broadway, at the same time once again.

Andy Blankenbuehler is hired.Andy Blankenbuehler then states that he categorically cannot stage Cats from scratch, as it’s not his skill set. Well, then they had a problem.

They had to approach Gillian Lynne, whom they hadn’t given evena courtesy phone call to so that she knew that the show was no longer transferring from the Palladium to New York but was being revamped and she would not be needed. Of course now she was needed.

Unfortunately for ALW and Cam Mac, they no longer had the rights to the original choreography - an oversight had meant they hadn’t been re optioned. So they had to renegotiateterms withGillian Lynne. However, they didn’t want to do that. They wanted to buy the choreography and have freedom to do whatever they wanted with it. Like any self respecting creative she wanted to discuss how the existing choreography might work alongside the new work and negotiate which sections she felt she would be unwilling to lose (the same way the Jerome Robbins estate works, the same as the Gershwin’s, the same as Cole Porters and so on and so on)

Her British male comrades did not want this. They wanted the choreography and no discussion. They didn’t want to have a phone call. They didn’t want to write a letter. They certainly didn’t want to have a production meeting. And they didn’t. They gave the woman who created that show for them nothing but the option of handing over her work for it to be changed in any way they chose.

They then begged her to come to the first day of rehearsals so that she could be photographed because she was ‘so important’ to publicity...








"

This was the missing piece. Now I understand. Thanks.

The Scorpion said: "That video is full of infuriatingly meaningless PR guff. What exactly do they mean about "bringing the original production into today"? It's a period piece set in the 19th century, not Marianne Elliott's revival of Company. And then Cameron stands there saying it is "even better" than it was in 1986, when the set model makes clear that is not the case (cheap-looking flat instead of the red drapes that close Act 1, no chandelier rise or fall, no Angel, no statues on the proscenium...)."

Literally none of the set design shown in that video mirrors the original (proscenium is new, chandelier is new, drapes are new). IMHO, it should be illegal to market the show as "The Brilliant Original" when it has so clearly been redesigned.

CATSNYrevival said: "While we're at it, can we make it illegal for Cameron to advertise Les Mis as the longest running musical in the world? It has never been true. The Fantasticks still has 15 years on Les Mis."

He's completely wrong on all levels.

Not sure why I randomly thought of this, but I think someone in this thread lamented the fact that the London production wasn't filmed for posterity or commercial release. But wasn't there a pro-shot filmed on September 4, 2004 with John Owen-Jones as the Phantom, Katie Knight-Adams as Christine and Ramin Karimloo as Raoul? Multiple clips were used on the "Behind The Mask" documentary included on the bonus features of the film's DVD release... This documentary was expanded upon for the BBC a year or so later. The credits of the documentary on the DVD lists the date and entire company of the pro-shot.

Is it possible that pro-shot might someday, somehow be released?

Then of course the Broadway production was filmed for the TOFT archive with the original cast, so even though that recording will never see the light of day, at least it exists as a filmed record of the staging in NYC, if it should change.

VIDEO: Andrew Lloyd Webber Plays 'The Music of the Night' and Promises PHANTOM Will Be Back

I'll still only believe it when I actually see it, but it's nonetheless encouraging to hear.

I will settle for them not touching the NY production - loudly rumbling casters even, if they just make the front of house feel less like a run down arm pit.

Phantom4ever said: "I'm hoping there are some eagle eyes on the Majestic Theater to watch out for any set load-out."

I think a pair of sleepy marmoset eyes would suffice.

In that case, I am available for the duration.

imeldasturn said: "In his latest interview for The Telegraph, Cameron Mackintosh has confirmed that it will be the new UK tour that will re-open in the West End: "Before lockdown we opened a fabulous new production in Leicester, which Andrew came to see - and it's going to go into Her Majesty's".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/cameron-mackintosh-interview-predicted-disaster-theatre-have/"

Why are they contradicting each other? What’s going on there?

Ben Crawford goes live on IG a lot, I'll try keep an eye out for the next one and ask.

I still don't think it will be purely the new tour. I'm willing to bet elements of it that were deemed 'difficult' to travel will be added back in, like the angel and the proscenium (the orchestra, unfortunately, is a goner)