Should there be a Showboat revival anytime soon? — Page 3

metropolis10111 wrote:
I’m charmed that felt so strongly to my post several months back on a different thread.

Don't flatter yourself. I didn't feel particularly strongly about your post. I generally have a good memory for what I've read and I asked a simple question asking you to expand upon your statement (from several weeks ago, though that's a great attempt at hyperbole in an attempt to compromise the legitimacy of my question) in relation to what you were saying here. Frankly, your choice to respond in such a defensive and sarcastic manner is rather disappointing.

metropolis10111 wrote:
I never in that thread stated my distaste for nor that I abhor opera. So to surmise that I have no ear for that was an incorrect assumption on your part. I merely stated that that song performance was a vocal abomination to both my speakers and my animals both of which are still in therapy.

I made no such conclusive assumption. If I had, I would have not asked you to expand upon your thoughts. Your original post is unclear: you seem to be criticizing the singer, although you never explain why you think Rosalind Elias's performance is a 'vocal abomination'; however, you also seem to be criticizing the song, also without any real explanation. In fact, the only objection you articulated was that the song was 'gods awful strange "opera"', so any assumptions that anyone might make about your ear for opera are due to your own lack of clarity.

metropolis10111 wrote:
Nothing in Follies, to me, will ever meet up to the majesty and magnificent splendor of Showboat.

I wasn't directly comparing FOLLIES and SHOW BOAT; neither was I asking you to compare the two shows either. I was asking about your dislike of the use of pastiche in the former in the light that you seemed to truly enjoy the style that is being imitated. Which show you prefer is your business, but that wasn't the topic under discussion.

metropolis10111 wrote:
I’m excited here because the show is not normally performed with the trained opera singers that the sore was written for. They were not writing a pastiche of opera they were writing songs for the operatic voice. There is a difference there.

I never claimed or even implied that Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II were writing a pastiche of opera. SHOW BOAT was written making use of the tenets of operetta, not opera, and it is operetta that Stephen Sondheim uses as the basis for his pastiche of "One More Kiss" in FOLLIES.

Furthermore, there is a world of difference between an ideal singer in operetta and opera, mainly dictated by the fact that operetta is musical theatre while opera is music theatre. There is a difference too between an operatic voice and a trained opera voice. How many of the original principle performers in the show were bona fide opera singers anyway? Howard Marsh was a tenor whose roots were in operetta. Helen Morgan was a torch singer who spent some time studying music at the Met. Norma Terris was known chiefly for her comic impersonations. Sammy White and Eva Puck came from the vaudeville circuit. Jules Bledsoe had the greatest link to the world of pure opera and probably developed the greatest opera pedigree of the original cast after his appearance in SHOW BOAT. So in that light how valid is it to claim that SHOW BOAT was written for trained opera voices? For me, the score has always worked the best with classically trained musical theatre voices: with opera singers, I find that too often drama is sacrificed in the pursuit of sound quality.

metropolis10111 wrote:Also remember a pastiche is just that and not the real thing, and just like Coke I prefer the real thing.

Fine, that's at least one reason that supports your opinion.

metropolis10111 wrote:This is not a thread about Follies so please don’t turn it into one. If you want to discuss Showboat and the opera voices in it feel free but the last thing we need here is another thread about Follies.

Please don't presume that you have the authority to instruct me on which topics I am allowed to discuss. I wasn't turning this into a thread about FOLLIES; I was asking one specific question about the relationship between two posts and the attitude that frames your response is closer to 'the last thing we need around here'.

metropolis10111 wrote:
Remember there IS more to the theater world then Follies or Sondheim.

Who said there isn't?

---

Zambello's production of Show Boat will also reportedly be presented by the Washington National Opera in the 2012-2013 season.
WNO article

The saddest thing about this thread is all the hope that Naya Rivera was a rising star... I really did like her but she repeatedly self-destructed.

Two greatest shows in history are Showboat and Porgy and Bess. If they do revive it, they'd better get the best singers in the country to sing every damn part. Anything less than that would be sacrilegious

Bishop is just flat-out wrong, as proven by the beautiful 2016 London revival. It's a shame it didn't transfer to Broadway. I would have gladly made a trip to NYC to see it again.

---

That’s extremely disappointing to hear from Bishop.

I love Show Boat. That said, it feels unnecessary. If there were qualms about My Fair Lady and Carousel (which were both flawed in their own ways, and actually not having to do with the source material but the lack of sophistication in presenting it) Show Boat is even worse. I think the issue is I don't see a way to do it that isn't just a straight revival. It's dated in the way South Pacific is dated. You can certainly do a revival... but why? It's already done enough in regional productions with short runs that banking on the success of a large-scale Broadway production seems foolhardy.

As it comes close to its 100th anniversary, I’d love to see a big, lavish revival. But I don’t know if it can or will happen. I’m not sure if anyone wants to take on the challenge associated with the work that comes with a work written in another era and how difficult presenting that can be. I’m also not sure if anyone wants to try after when people still have memories of the Hal Prince revival. As an adult, thinking back to seeing the show in middle school, it’s the first time I recall being moved beyond words with just openings scenes of a show.

Based on my memory, it just felt like there were multiple storylines that weren’t well integrated together and therefore about three too many endings in order to tie up all the loose ends.

Huh. I've never felt that way about the show, but I've been a fan for decades and have seen numerous stage productions as well as the films (the 1936 version is sublime). The subject of the female codependency on their male partner may seem dated, but it works due to the era of the setting, and still maintains relevance as we have all seen in rather recent volatile political discourse. What I find fascinating about Show Boat is not only its addressing of racism, but in so blatantly depicting codependency in three of its female characters with a different outcome for each.

I was so moved by the London revival, I could hardly speak at intermission (a first for me) and Rebecca Trehearn's performance of "Bill" brought me to tears. The best performance of that number I've ever seen or heard. I predicted her Olivier win as I left the theatre that evening.

---

Miles2Go2 said: "Based on my memory, it just felt like there were multiple storylines that weren’t well integrated together and therefore about three too many endings in order to tie up all the loose ends."


That's been a major cause for revisions over the years, and nobody can ever get it quite right.

Cap'n Andy/Parthy and Frank/Ellie are straight out of vaudeville and don't serve a ton of purpose to the plot. They provide the laughs, which was common in 1927. (I think Andy even has a vaudeville "bit" where he reenacts part of the plot in the show-within-the-show?) Joe's character purpose is to sing "Ol' Man River" 4 times, and any attempt to properly integrate him into the plot has never quite worked.

As for the structure of the show itself, Ravenal as the "hero with the troubled past" (he killed a man) is a precursor to South Pacific's Emile or Carousel's Billy. And as we meet teenage Louise in act 2 of Carousel, we meet teenage Kim in act 2 of Show Boat. I do find the Julie storyline somewhat problematic, as I said above. And Hammerstein always wrote the dialect into the book and lyrics, which here adds to the "cringiness" of the book. (I think John Doyle said in an interview that that's one of the things they revised in the recent Carmen Jones.)

I think the three shows that owe the most to Show Boat are R&H's Carousel and South Pacific, and Ragtime (another Garth Drabinsky show).

Updated On: 10/9/18 at 02:48 PM

I'm not a huge fan of SHOW BOAT. I find the show unwieldy. But...that said...

What is exactly 'problematic' with Julie's story? That has always seemed the most riveting, compelling, relevant and essential part of this sprawling epic. Seeing the concert at the Geffen Hall a few years ago, it still shocks and moves me...more than anything else in the show.

I tend to agree that exploring problematic musicals means we should deal with them head on. The dilution of Carousel really infuriated me. Julie's line about being hit and not having it hurt is probably the most important line in the show. Stage it in such a way that Louise leaves just before Julie admits this (giving Julie agency in not continuing the cycle of abuse) or leave Louise right there and have Billy understand the horror of his actions. But the last thing anyone should do is cut it. That's the coward's way out.

Hell...I even think Show Boat should open with its original lyric. I know I'm in the minority on that, but the world we are about to explore is very, very ugly, no matter how beautiful the trappings. Force the audience to confront that from the first moments.

greensgreens said: "Disclaimer: I haven't seen Showboat since the Prince revival and I was very young at the time and I am not familiar with all the different variations, revisions, etc.

I'm gonna mobbed for this one, but why can't "problematic" pieces be presented as they are? The times reflected in the piece were problematic. The people and choices in that time were problematic. Julie's story is problematic, but very real and I feel provides the most commentary and illuminating moments of the piece.

This is a great piece that can really confront an audience about their biases. Frankly, it was the first time I ever had to think about our nation's dark history and what's changed (or hasn't changed) since outside of a classroom assignment. It awakened me to the sociopolitical powerthe arts can have. And, having the chance at that time to read up on the history of the show was a very important study of a musical's longevity and how it can evolve over the years.

I would hate to see this show simply relegated to the shelf simply because people are afraid it's problematic. Honestly, I'm worried our entire culture is gonna purge everything before 2017 at some point here and all will be lost to time and fear of facing problematic works head-on."

I think there's a difference. It's not just that it's problematic. It's that there's no extra level. Unless you force everyone to stay for a talk back or you add in an unnecessary framing device. Simply presenting something problematic doesn't do any work. Otherwise we could just do Uncle Tom's Cabin. The discussion work that happens in a classroom for instance is something that needs to be brought to the production if it's not present in the text. You need a director with some vision. Again, I think Show Boat can totally be presented as it is but it begs the question "why" if you're not adding that extra critical layer.

I don't know if "Can't Help Lovin That Man" is as problematic as the way Julie just disappears and then helpfully gives up her job (yes, I know she had a drinking problem at that point) so Nola and her daughter could go on to have happy endings. It made me want to read the book to see if it made any more sense but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

^^^ I've read the book and Julie's "latter day" scene is almost exactly the same as in the novel EXCEPT that singing "Bill" necessarily makes Julie more romantic than she seems if one is simply reading "Julie sang her song" on the printed page. It has been 50 years since I read the book, but I sort of kind of recall some suggestion that the only, yet inevitable, lower rung for Julie is street prostitution.

For the life of me, I don't see the problem. Both novel and musical play are simply dramatizing the difficult life of one, mixed-race woman in a time when miscegenation was illegal. The racial constructions and legal problems are all explained in the first act. What happened to Frank is never mentioned in either version, IIRC, because it's beside the point.

And what's all this $hit about "the theme of codependency"?! It must be very sad and lonely to be a Millennial. Not to mention boring.