Sondheim and Prince dissed Chorus Line?

Posted: 4/24/07 at 2:28am

*edit* Sorry Foster, I thought people on here were already catching on to my crap laziness with typos--I typed this out as quickly as I could at about 3am from the book just cuz I wanted to hear others reactions--wasn't sure what to think. But no excuse I know, I know

Just reading Kevin Kelly's Michael Bennett memoir and came across an interesting comment about Hal and Steve being green with jealousy over Chorus Line (I have to say the book in general isn't all too pro Hal or Steve--commenting at length about how bad Sondheim's singing was so bad that no one realized how good his score for Follies was till rehearsals, Michael Bennett included--etc which from hearing demos by Steve seems an exageration...)

Anyway the part in question was:

[re chorus line]
start quote:
Even off-Broadway though, the show's success didn't suit everybody. "The funniest remark made in 1975," Michael Bennett said, "came from Steven Sondheim who saw Chorus Line and said 'How can you care about THOSE PEOPLE?'" Hal Prince was equally contemptuous. "They were both real ****ty," Avian says. Prince has now changed his opinion, although the show he first saw was close enough to its final refinement as to be almost interchangeable.

"Chorus Line is a major work," Prince says.

"Major," he repeats, the repetition a forced gift, generosity fueled by envy and driven by guilt. "But, again, Michael got trapped in its metaphor. Show business as the microcosm. And he was trapped by a combination of success and competitiveness. I don't think the money had much effect on him. He had an acute sense about money, acute and funny. He once said to me, 'Do you know how much moeny I made this week?' I think it was $70,000. I said 'Gee! Wow! Gee!' Then he said, "and how much did you make?" and, y'know, fine, I think that's all fun. But I don't think he was trapped by the money because I don't think he got any fun out of it."

According to Prince, Bennett restricted his life to theater, that was "the real trap." With the exception of Company, all the shows were "almost exclusively about show biz, which means... you don't have to research the Jewish shtetl, the German Cabaret in the 19830s, Sweeney Todd in London in the Victoria era, women in Ibsen's day." Pondering his own importance Prince adds, "What I meant when I gave Michael the dictionary [after the opening of Company Prince gave Bennett a deluxe anotated dictionary, Bennett took it as a well meaning joke which apparantly wasn't the implication] was: here's a book, explore it. He had a very inquisitive mind but not a very long attention span, my guess is.

[and from 2 pages later--why does Liz Smith always have so much say in theatre books?]

Liz Smith: " Michael was hurt by a lot of the stuff Hal and Steve said about the show. They were very very snide at first--snide doesn't even do it! They were just plain ****in' awful! Jealous. Envious. Spiteful!

Hal and Steve are these hopelessly elitist Anglophile guys and they love to shut us other people out. They shut Michael out. When Steve sang and was overcome at Michael's memorial service, that was nothign but pure, unadulterated GUILT! I thought Hal and Steve were TERRIBLE to him. Michael came along as this tough little kid who was a gypsy,
then all of a sudden he's this force to be reckoned with! A lot of people on Broadway had a real hard time with that"

Updated On: 4/24/07 at 02:28 AM

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:56am

And I realize I posted all that without ever asking a question or making a point :P I just wondered if anyone had more direct quotes than the Liz Smith thing (the Hal Prince half praise half not praise does sound like Hal to me although I do think he has/had a bit of a point when it comes to Bennett's big hits, Promises Promises and Company aside. Of course reading this book makes me wish we coulda seen or even heard something of his sex musical Scandal which woulda changed that--as would Chess.

As for Sondheim I know he was much more outspoken in the 70s than afterwards (after his heart attacks, etc and cutting back on some of his partying lifestyle--of course his drug use pales compared to Bennett's, I gather from reading this) but it seems odd to me--since then he's been pretty good at not picking fights--ie when compared to Lloyd Webber he seems to be a good spirit about it and choose his words carefully--or with the whole Sunday vs Cage aux Folles thing.

(there is, in the book, a great bit about how difficult Elaine Stritch was with the VERY young- I think he was 26--Bennett with Company and how she didn't even understand many of the words--apparantly the line in Ladies who Lunch "Perhaps a piece of Mahler's" she thought refered to a specific bakery's piece of bread... Also I never had heard before that when Bennett was so worried about FOllies after previews his options he presented to Hal, which were both turned down, was either bring in Neil Simon to punch up the libretto, which I knew about, or to have Sondheim fill in the full show to make it a sung thru "operatic" production which is actually an interesting idea...)

E

Updated On: 4/24/07 at 03:56 AM

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 9:33am

You have typos up the wazoo in there. Read through it and fix them. It's difficult to get through because of that.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 9:44am

"Hal and Steve are these hopelessly elitist Anglophile guys and they love to shut us other people out. They shut Michael out. When Steve sang and was overcome at Michael's memorial service, that was nothign but pure, unadulterated GUILT!"

Meow. Sondheim is still my man, so oh well.

[jbdc]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 9:54am

I think Prince makes an intersting point about Bennett creating in the microcosm of Show Business, but he could have been more tactful about it.

I DO feel the most of Sondheim's disconnect between his reviews and his commerical success are because general audiences don't care about HIS characters. But everyone oves a Chorus Line, for the very reason that the characters are relatable. So to say, "Why do we care about THOSE PEOPLE" is idiotic.

One word for Prince and Sondheim: "Bounce."

[C is for Company]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 10:22am

Something in me doubts that Sondheim made that comment about caring for those people based off some of the material he has dealt with so frequently. Oh well, someone can tell me that Sondheim is an underground agent for terrorism and I'd still like him and his music.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 10:28am

Isn't much of this language a quote from Liz Smith? And Liz Smith is a major sophisticated intelligent critic of the musical theater, right? Or is she just a gossip columnist who has made her career from saying inflammatory things to get people to buy muckraking newspapers? Consider the source.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 11:57am

Its totally believeable that Sondheim would say that. Almost all of his characters are white middle class people, or at least espouse those values. Chorus Line features basically what amounts to working class people with multicultural identities. Sondheim Im sure doesn't have a clue about these people.

Its fairly understandable, given how Sondheim is.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 12:00pm

Oh well, someone can tell me that Sondheim is an underground agent for terrorism and I'd still like him and his music.

Sadly enough I feel the same way about Mr.Sondheim...

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 12:42pm

I wouldn't be surprised if Sondheim were jealous at the time; ACL not only made a profit but became the longest running show on Broadway.

As for the detailed comments and quotes, I don't trust the source enough to give that much credit.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 2:17pm

"I thought Giancarlo Menotti must be a saint since his music was so beautiful. I thought that until he came on to me in the most disgusting way..."

Actually, I can totally relate to that. Not with Menotti, but a prominent Broadway figure. It becomes very difficult to separate the work from the individual when you've had a very personal experience like that.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 2:48pm

Hey, I'm all up for whatever sexual inventory you've got, but when you start breaking people's arms...

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 2:53pm

Is it really his fault something went terribly wrong with the dismount?

[keen on kean]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 2:59pm

Hey, Fenchurch - if you are going to diss Sondheim, you can't use my quote in your signature! I find it far more likely that people are jealous of Sondheim than he is of them. He is reportedly resigned to the fact that his work is never going to be wildly popular - and I am content with the fact that his name will be known and his works produced far longer than some of the current dreck that makes money regardless of its quality.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:02pm

Oh, well then. You soooo right then. I bow to your intellectual prowess.

Talking about someone's sexuality is not appropriate on this board, especially when it's idle and/or vicious gossip. I don't care what your point is. I care that your maligning a person who, theoretically, isn't here to defend himself to accusations that may or may not be true. Keep your vitriol to yourself and be confident in your knowledge that everyone on Broadway wants you because nobody on BroadwayWorld does.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:02pm

Let me be VERY clear, I am not dissing Sondheim as a songwriter, he's probably one of the top five American Songwriters of the 20th century along with people like Ned Rorem, Maury Yeston and Billy Joel to name just a few.

That doesn't mean I have to like him or what he stands for (or doesn't stand for). As a gay man and a celebrity, I feel he has an obligation to the LGBT community that he has not fulfilled, but that's just one of the reasons I think he and a lot of the ideas espoused in his work are elitist.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:08pm

"As a gay man and a celebrity, I feel he has an obligation to the LGBT community that he has not fulfilled..."

Why? Why does a gay man, any gay man, not just Sondheim, owe you and the community anything? As a feminist, I question Kristin Chenoweth's decision to pose practically nude in magazines, but I don't think she owes it to anyone to explain herself or hold herself up as some sort of standard for women. She's a person who happens to be in the public eye, as is Sondheim. Nothing more. If you're so concerned about the LGBT community, do something for it yourself. Don't expect a composer to do it for you just because people know who he is.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:08pm

But let us both be very clear. Unless you happen to be a personal friend of his, neither of us knows the man. He lives his life by his own best lights and so do we all. You may be disappointed in him, but his celebrity does not mean that he owes any one of us anything. If you want to express your own feelings that's one thing but to attribute anything to Mr. Sondheim's character is character assassination and not very pretty.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:10pm

Frankly, this is all beside the point that I am making. You do not have the right to talk about someone's sexuality on this board. It's inappropriate and none of anyone's business.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:21pm

Mr. Sondheim's sexuality is not a secret.
His sexual proclivities may be a secret, but if Mr. Sondheim decides to create a situation with an activity partner and that partner happens to tell me the story, especially since it was a dangerous story that threatened the health of my very best friend, I have no qualsm about airing a situation that Mr. Sondheim initiated.

As to how I feel about LGBT celebrities? I, along with people like Michelangelo Signorile and other people concerned with LGBT issues, feel that LGBT celebrities have a social obligation to the LGBT community, as a person with the opportunity to speak out for LGBT people all over the world, it is your duty to take that opportunity. This, of course, is just my opinion and many many people don't agree with, but many many people do.

That's where I stand, sorry if it's unpleasant for many of you, but I'm just as entitled to say how I feel about these issues as the next person, and nothing I say about Mr. Sondheim on this board could really do damage as character assassination.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:26pm

"His sexual proclivities may be a secret, but if Mr. Sondheim decides to create a situation with an activity partner and that partner happens to tell me the story, especially since it was a dangerous story that threatened the health of my very best friend, I have no qualsm about airing a situation that Mr. Sondheim initiated."

What about "IT"S NOBODY'S BUSINESS" don't you get? I don't care if you know everything about Sondheim's sex life. It doesn't belong here. Grow the hell up. I'm sure most of the people around here who are living in and around NYC could share secrets of the people onstage, but they choose not to because the secrets are not theirs to share. It's called DISCRETION. Get some.

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:26pm

Posted On: 4/24/07 at 03:21 PM

Mr. Sondheim's sexuality is not a secret.
His sexual proclivities may be a secret, but if Mr. Sondheim decides to create a situation with an activity partner and that partner happens to tell me the story, especially since it was a dangerous story that threatened the health of my very best friend, I have no qualsm about airing a situation that Mr. Sondheim initiated.

This paragraph confused the hell out of me. Sondheim threatened the health of your friend - or are you saying WHAT IF?

[jv92]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:28pm

Sondheim was not at all green with envy over Chorus Line. He remained Michael Bennett's good friend until Bennett's unfortunate passing. He criticized, though mildly, if anyone, the critics for hailing Bennett as a genius. He said something like (per an article I remember quite vividly from the time of Pacific Overtues, which was early 1976) Elia Kazan has been doing the sort of thing Bennett is doing now and that it's nothing special. He seemed more green, well not green, miffed with the composer of Chorus Line, Marvin Hamlisch, who apparantly spoke about his work (I guess not possitively) in the press, which pissed Sondheim off. He prefered (and prefers still) not to talk about living composers and critique their work. I believe in that article he states that besides his own show, The Wiz is the best show on Broadway. (Sondheim's brilliant, but what?? I walked out at intermission on The Wiz. I suppose it was a little biased since I was a huge Mack and Mabel fan, but still...)
In all honesty, both men had a reason to be envious (if they were) over A Chorus Line. Pacific Overtures was much more of a breakthrough (in my opinion) musically and directorally and got thoughtful reviews, not raves, was not a popular hit and closed in a few months.
If anyone was open about their envy of A Chorus Line, it was Bob Fosse. And he had A DAMNED GOOD REASON to be envious.

Re: Sondheim's emotional performance of Move On at Michael Bennett's memorial being over guilt
Puhleez. How did he shut him out? He could have slammed the doors of the Booth theatre in his face durring Sunday... previews. He could have not performed at the memorial. Bennett and Hal Prince has some issues on Follies. And Michael Bennett also wanted to direct. Do you honestly think he would have staged a few little waltzes in Night Music? Updated On: 4/24/07 at 03:28 PM

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:31pm

Sondheim decided to forego discretion when he broke my friend's arm.

That's not what I wanted to get into here, but I'm sure as hell not going to apologize for making public something that he did wrong.

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:32pm

f anyone was open about their envy of A Chorus Line, it was Bob Fosse. And he had A DAMNED GOOD REASON to be envious.

- AMEN! Took the words right out of my mouth.

Fenchurch, How did he "break" your friends arm?