SONDHEIM lied

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 4:23pm

Okay, he didn't actually lie...but he sorta did.

In "Finishing the Hat" when speaking of "Merrily We Roll Along" he lists reasons he was unhappy with the original Broadway production (like he does) and then talks at length at how he and Furth tried fixing it again and again until in a 1992 production in Leicester, England they "finally succeeded in fixing the show to [their] satisfaction, and when years later it was produced in London, others agreed; it won the Laurence Olivier Award as Best Musical of the Year."

That is SO freaking disingenuous of him, as it wasn't the "fixed" Leicester production that won the Olivier, it was the version HE reviles, the original version--the "Hills of Tomorrow" version. A version the Donmar (the producing theatre) had to trick the rights-holders into doing (Michael Grandage never said he WASN'T going to do the original...). In addition, modern legend has it when the Donmar wanted to move the show to the West End, a pissed off (and honestly, somewhat rightly so)Sondheim and Furth said no. They said they could do it if they changed to the revised version and Grandage said no.

Who did he think was going to read this book? We who love Sondheim know things. Or didn't he care, as this book, as the only biography the great Stephen Sondheim will ever write, will outlive us all and everyone will eventually forget this revision of the truth?

Plus, why is he so petty about that original version of the show? Were they so burned by the 1981 original they look at the Prince "Merrily" as a vampire views garlic??? Compared to the mess at Encores, the competent-but-dull York and the merely okay DC/Sondheim celebration, that Donmar production was easily, by far, the best version of the show I've ever seen. And not just because it was cast wonderfully (it was) but because its a better show. Easily a better show.

And what upset me most is I used to think when Sondheim dies (sorry, but eventually he's gonna) then people can start doing the good version again (there were a few tiny elements of the revised in the Donmar's that deepened the original). Now I fear, after reading this, even though he says he cares little about posterity, and after he made his feelings clear about the new "Porgy and Bess", he will make sure there is some legal codicil to the MTI contract that makes sure the revised version will forever be the only version. And that stinks.


Updated On: 7/5/12 at 04:23 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 4:58pm

Is it possible he remembered the controversy and forgot the outcome? He is 82.

It seems odd that he would think he could rewrite history and not be challenged on it, given that there's an entire journal devoted to his every movement.

(BTW, I'm taking your word on the actual events. I don't know them.)

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:02pm

Sondheim lied!






People died!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:05pm

Whenever Sondheim lies, an angel gets it's wings ripped off and God shlts down their wing holes.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:07pm

No, no, not lied at all.
No, he never lied.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:09pm

And there's worse yet to come, poor thing.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:09pm

SONDHEIM LIED!
PEOPLE DIED!

[Idiot]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:34pm

Owen -- this post requires that we take your word over his.

I'm sure you're probably a wonderful person, but -- no.

Can you prove your assertions?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:35pm

So his lie was about what the production that won the Olivier was? (I thought it still did have elements of therevised version--adding Hills of Tomorrow as a framing device with the high school being the main 1981 element placed back?) Anyway, if that was the only bit of mis-info, than both his books are riddled with similar examples. He probably should have had a better fact checker or something, but I hardly expect him to remember every change, and every time it was made as obsessively as many of us fans. Meh. I get your annoyance to some degree, but to call it disingenuous I think gives it a lot more weight than it really deserves. It was simply, IMHO, something that an editor should have caught--but certainly the other books *about* Sondheim, and not by him, are filled with similar errors.

However, I really really doubt Sondheim will make some legal deal about which versions of his musicals can be done after his death--though the people who lease the rights sure as Hell will. In the past, almost invariably, it's been his collaborators (or *ahem* certain widows of those collaborators) who have had any real concern about any of that, not him.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:40pm

"Can you prove your assertions?"

Yes, Idiot, I can confirm Owen's assertions.

They have also been discussed on this board in other threads where others who saw the Donmar production have also confirmed them.

And the song listing in the Donmar's programme is also evidential proof.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:54pm

He also lied to my friend Walter back in 1979.
But Walter got away safely.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 5:57pm

I assumed Idiot meant all the rest of it--that this was some sort of agenda on Sondheim's part. But to be fair to the original poster, he made it really clear that that was speculation and gossip--most of which I don't think, personally, was done deliberate on Sondheim's part. (I think his trouble with the Donmar production--which I believe he largely was full of praise for--was due in large part, as stated, by the fact that neither author knew that they were doing that version).

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 6:05pm

I mean, big surprise:
People love you and tell you lies.
Bricks can fall out of clear blue skies.
Put your dimple down,
Now you know.

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 6:43pm

Well, as I stated at the beginning of my post, it really wasn't a lie or even a mistake (yes, I've noticed other mistakes in both books, that I do add up to misremembering and a bad fact-checker). And I obviously don't know for sure if he meant it disingenuously. But I'm willing to bet he did. When thinking of Merrily, that Donmar production MUST have made an impact on his memory, as it was the ONLY production of the original since the reworked version was licensed. It had to have stuck in his memory that the version that won the Olivier was not the approved one, certainly not the Leicester version where he thought they had cracked it.

[binau]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 6:55pm

I think you'd be surprised....there are so many shows, so many awards, so much time past. It seems easy to think he might misremember that the production that 'worked' won an Olivier award. He also has no real reason to lie..and other mistakes suggest that he is prone to occasionally misremember.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 7:03pm

I agree with qolbinau. I can't believe Sondheim didn't know his mistakes would be corrected, and publicly corrected at that.

While a Tony or Olivier would certainly be a highlight of MY career, Sondheim has shelves full of them.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 7:05pm

Gaveston beat me to it. In reviewing a long and prolific career, he's bound to get something wrong. If this is the most inaccurate thing one can find in the books, he's done pretty well.

Updated On: 7/5/12 at 07:05 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 7:34pm

My issue with the thought that he did so on purpose and it was, here's that word again, disingenuous, is it genuinely doesn't add up to how he's behaved in the past. If he was so against the production and didn't want anyone to consider it a success, I suspect he simply wouldn't have mentioned it, Olivier or no Olivier. He's always been remarkably open to trying new takes on his work--when the creators are involved anyway--even if, like with London's Follies, he thought they were counter-intuitive. The only two times I can remember him being outspoken against productions was when they essentially re-wrote the material against the original intentions--ie that gay/lesbian version of Company in Seattle (?), and of course the production of Merrily which was done chronologically forward.

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 7:40pm

Again, it wasn't a mistake about winning the Olivier. It was the bold faced insinuation that the version he had just referenced had won the Olivier when it was the version he had, pages before, basically disowned. He had already, in the whole Merrily section, given a blow by blow, theatre by theatre recreation of where each version was created and a remembrance of where each version of each song came from.

When something sticks in your craw, as the Donmar misleadingly doing the incorrect version of your show, don't you think THAT you might remember..?

Updated On: 7/5/12 at 07:40 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 7:43pm

Considering the book closes with a section of stuff he forgot about or left out of his first book, no.

[Idiot]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 7:48pm

Hey Owen -- what page is the offending reference on?

I think I need to go read it in context.

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 7:55pm

The Merrily section begins on Page 379 and the offending section is about 2/3rds of the way down on the right hand column on page 381.

Updated On: 7/5/12 at 07:55 PM

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 7:58pm

I also don't think he'd be as forgetful and/or blase about winning one of theatre's greatest awards for a show that was so reviled the first time around. That's almost a career highlight...

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 8:04pm

Dude, seriously? Let it go. He's in his eighties. He remembered Merrily won an award in close proximity to a production that he felt nailed it. At his age, it's a wonder he's merely forgetful and not senile. To ascribe ulterior motives to Grandpa is like assuming a cat is scratching you because it knows scratching hurts you.

I repeat: Let. It. Go. (Namo, how's this for ironic?)

Updated On: 7/5/12 at 08:04 PM

[Idiot]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 8:05pm

Thanks Owen. I read it, and if the Donmar production didn't contain the changes from the Leicester production, it's a definite oops.