RADIANT BABY at Cap21

Bump.

I'd like to see if someone can answer the above Q; I'm considering seeing this.

- Gil

There was very little changed from what I could tell. I saw Radiant Baby at the Public twice...I don't remember "Slut for Art" in the original. And for some reason Cap 21 took the opening scene at Keith's workshop and split it into two scenes. Other than that there were no other major changes in text. The George Wolff production was stunning to view and its truly one of my favorite theatrical experiences in my twenty-plus years of NYC playgoing...

Oh lord! I haven't gone on here in forever. I think I made this ridiculous name for my account freshman year...if anyone knows how to change it let me know. Lord!

Someone at the cast party last night said that the show was on the message boards so when i recovered from my hangover I went and checked. I'm so thrilled people enjoyed it.

So. When the show was originally written, it was written to be performed in a small space a la, the loft of keith harring. All of a sudden there was a lot of money and it became a large scale production. So when they worked on it at the Public they had to adapt it to fit that space and with so much money it turned into something else. When Stuart and Debra brought it to CAP they were excited to take it back to it's original concept and make a few changes.

"Slut for Art" was written for the show in the beginning, but cut from the Public's production and replaced with "Art Attack" (which did not feature Kwong as much) When they found out Chris Shin was a fierce singer, they cut "Art Attack" and replaced it with "Slut for Art" which is not only an amazing song, but it further developed Kwong and Keith's relationship. Wow. I'm going on and on. I'll try to wrap this up. The show at the Public also had those kids running around, and the creative team wanted to try the show without them, hence the changes in the opening and other parts of the show. Another goal in this production was to develop the characters and their relationships more, hence the additional scenes and reworking of dialogue.

I have no idea why it was never recorded, though.

I'm so honored to have been allowed to tell his/their stories. I had the really special/akward/thrilling honor of meeting the woman my character was based on which really changed my perception of Amanda, the script, the people, the relationships, and the purpose of the piece. We had no idea what we were getting into when we began and we didn't know what it was until it opened.

Jeff, the night I was there one of the kids in the prologue made a quick sad comment to Frank Ventura before the show started: "I'm sorry this is almost over". "We have two more shows!" said Frank. During the show, it was obvious that the show deeply resonated with all the actors involved.

On another board a poster noted that the score captured the early 80s club music era to perfection: "Draw & Move" was cool techno while "Paradise/Instant Gratification" was a shout out to classic disco (and the lead diva, Chasten Harmon, was seriously channelling Loleeta Holloway!)

My only teensy weensy complaint was with the book - it seemed that it took a very long time for Amanda to figure out that Keith could be sick. But I guess it's possible, if ones head is busy arranging and cancelling comissions and appointments of a very sucessful painter. Kudos to the Haring foundation for allowing Keith to be shown in a not always-flattering light.

On Deb Barsha's site there are photos of the original lush production (which made me even more sorry to have missed this), but I wonder if an happy medium could be found between that and the Cap21 staging for RADIANT BABY to glow again...or at least get the score recorded!!!


RADIANT BABY in 2003

---

Updated On: 3/11/06 at 04:19 PM

I hate to disagree with the popular opinion, but the problem of this particular production is that it ignored everything that really worked about the previous one. The visual component, which is pretty integral to the storytelling and honestly, is the most interesting part of the entire piece, was completely eradicated. And as much as we can get all Kumbaya about honoring someone's life, the point here is that biographical musicals are oftentimes unsucessful because of the manipulative way in which they are written. Really amazing theatre works to earn your sympathy and tears, and doesn't force them onto the audience member.

And furthermore, I felt the actors really got sucked into this trap. Clearly of college age, they seemed to be playing the idea of what things should be rather than really dropping into the reality fully. Chris Norwood transcended this, and to a smaller extent Chris Shin, but the rest of the cast were definitely caught in the idea rather than the experience. NOT TO SAY that they weren't as good as other actors from theatre schools I've seen... but I expect more of the training at NYU.

This is just a problem piece. That's why it didn't transfer. That's why it wasn't recorded. Even with the rewrites done for this production, the fact still remains that the musical only exists in its own world.

I understand that when you create a musical based on historical characters that playing with facts and scenarios is a necessity. It wouldn't have dramatic focus and journey otherwise. But it's interesting that you say:

Anyone who has ever created a role that is based on a real person knows the feeling of anxiety over whether or not they will do that person justice on stage. Especially when the plot of the play diverges from the timeline of that person's life.

I feel like that anxiety and worry is unneccesary, due to the fact that as you said, the play is reconstructed and not true to life. Of course these people really lived, and as an actor you can work with the "container" - the physical aspects of the real person, ie. the way they talked, the way they moved - which is highly based in reality (though not always entirely necessary to give a great performance.) It's challenging and exciting for the actor to master and utilize these things. But to worry about doing justice to a life that for all intents is NOT real, as it only exists on paper and serves to fill a dramatic arch, is actually hindering a performer with this "anxiety" and not allowing the freedom from which to develop and have interesting stage relationships. (For an excellent example of this, aside from the text, please head to Playwrights Horizons for Grey Gardens and watch the magnificent character work of Christine Ebersole and Mary Louise Wilson.)

That's where I felt this production and show sitting the most. When I say some works of theatre are unjustly manipulative, I mean that the way in which they are written veers more into purposefully writing songs and lyrics that are meant to ensnare an audience member into feeling what they're "supposed" to be feeling, rather than the audience reaching an emotional plateau on their own time from seeing the events unfold one by one on the stage. I'll give an example of a work that's also about an artist: Sunday in the Park with George. Every word and musical phrase in this show has been created to show in action the conflicts and themes of the work. There is never a moment of emoting that's not based in action and thought. Because of the way it's been put together, the audience is devastated and really feels for Dot, et al. and also for George in his triumph and despair. But it's all done carefully, and not imposing. I believe that unspecificity and manipulation on the creative end only shows 2 things: 1) the lack of craft involved in the creation, 2) a general diss of the audience member's ability to think on her own. (The most blatent example I can think of on the opposite end of this, is from Taboo, when the fashion designer Leigh Bowery dies. His wife proceeds to sing a pop ballad gut wrenching dirge about great he was to a video projection of him being happy. Blatently manipulating, rather than artfully crafting lyrics and scenes where this emotional response is organically felt.)

Now, I realize I am trying to equate Sunday in the Park with George to Radiant Baby, which is perposterous. But personally, as an audience member and artist, I expect no less than creative, brilliant, thought provoking, and innovative work every time I see a new production. It's easy to achieve, with talent, dedication, and craft. The writers of Radiant Baby did an excellent job at integrating the era's music into dramatic, theatrical music, and creating at the least solid characters and relationships. But elements alone do not create magic.

Obviously, the work is interesting because I would have liked it to be more than it was. It has major potential. Maybe a regional production, adding back in some of the tech and reworking the text even further would be in order.

As far as CAP21 student productions are concerned, I would definitely go back and see one again. I will echo what people over on TalkinBroadway said in that the actors really need to learn to project and use their voices correctly (some were inaudible, some esp. Amanda were nasal and hard to listen to.) And for the actors to really live in the reality of the moment onstage rather than act ideas. (BTW: Michigan kids are phenomenal at this - you should see their showcase coming up!)

I can't believe I typed for this long, but I guess I just wanted to explain where I was standing a little better, Reno.

Updated On: 3/12/06 at 04:50 PM