Posted: 12/3/15 at 5:26pm
ETA: ...for the Library at Lincoln Center. I posted before I read. Lesson learned there. Well, it's better than not being filmed at all.
Updated On: 12/3/15 at 05:26 PM
Posted: 12/3/15 at 5:27pm
Posted: 12/3/15 at 5:31pm
Anyone else feel like Playbill was deliberately misleading with that headline? They knew that people have been talking about a commercially-released film for this production. And I've never seen them post about a Lincoln Center filming before. They do it for most Broadway productions, for God's sake.
Posted: 12/3/15 at 5:38pm
I vaguely remember Playbill posting about a Lincoln Center recording of one or two other shows. Maybe If/Then? Anyway, I agree that at least it's preserved somehow though there's hoping they put in the effort to capture the signing. As was discussed when debating the possibility of a commercially-released film, it'll be difficult to capture everything that's going on here.
This stood out because like Daddy Long Legs, it's a Davenport production, so after the announcement of that livestream it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility for something similar to be happening with Spring Awakening. But it's not.
Posted: 12/3/15 at 5:48pm
How could you access said archives?
Posted: 12/3/15 at 5:51pm
You need to make an appointment with the Archives with a legitimate research reason for accessing.
Posted: 12/3/15 at 6:01pm
Thank you. I wish that there was an online archive wherd you could rent them but piracy runs rampant. New York is so far.
Posted: 12/3/15 at 6:16pm
KCW said: "New York is so far."
If you aren't in or can't get to New York, you don't exist or matter
Posted: 12/3/15 at 6:20pm
I can get there, have been there multiple times, but is tough to include in my budgets and time constraints.
Posted: 12/3/15 at 6:52pm
"Anyone else feel like Playbill was deliberately misleading with that headline?"
No. Playbill does this often, and the phrase "preserved on film" doesn't exactly scream to me high budget movie.
"They do it for most Broadway productions, for God's sake."
They really don't. If I had to guess, they film around 2/3rds. Someone still has to pay for it.
Posted: 12/3/15 at 6:52pm
Doublepost.
I tried to link to previous threads , but can't right now for some reason. Use the search engine for Lincoln Center Archives and you'll find more info on how to access them, but you do have to be in nyc for it.
Updated On: 12/3/15 at 06:52 PM
Posted: 12/3/15 at 7:35pm
:sexy design.... REALLY? lol
Posted: 12/3/15 at 7:54pm
Charley Kringas Inc said: "If you aren't in or can't get to New York, you don't exist or matter"
More people need to accept this truth.
Posted: 12/3/15 at 7:56pm
haterobics said: "Charley Kringas Inc said: "If you aren't in or can't get to New York, you don't exist or matter"
More people need to accept this truth.
"
Posted: 12/3/15 at 8:21pm
Kad said: "You need to make an appointment with the Archives with a legitimate research reason for accessing.
"
Legitimate *sounding* you mean. Seriously, I was so anxious when I was in NYC last month--and it had been my dream to see one of their earliest recordings--the B&W of the Hal Prince Company at the end of its tour in DC and from all Iw as told I thought it would be harder. I did apply for a temporary library card (you can do it online,) and I phoned last minute so there were no reservations left but the guy said to just show up right at noon on Tuesday and I'd find a walk in. And I did. They didn't even ask for my library card after all that (but I suppose it's good to have in case.) They also say you can never re-watch the same video, but as a friend I know who goes very often said, they keep ZERO record and that's not even a problem.
The only issue really is that certain titles are restricted (for various reasons--some because of course the show is still running, sometimes a producer or creator puts a hold on a title when they are working on a revival or whatever, or sometimes its an estate issue--I believe the infamous Widow Goldman says you need special permission to see any of the Follies tapes--they didn't film the original of course--and I've heard the Michael Bennett estate is the same on some of their titles, specifically Dreamgirls, but I haven't tried either.)
Seriously, I was blown away after a decade of wanting to watch that video with just how easy it was. (I mean I am a university student--in Canada--so could fall back on that, but like I said, they couldn't care less when I was there.)
Posted: 12/3/15 at 8:25pm
I always wondered the details of the filming. I've heard the producer (usually?) does have to shell out a large part of the cost, and of course some shows just close too early (sometimes they pick up a bootleg actually in that case--they have a better quality copy of the Merrily We Roll Along bootleg that's been floating around, ditto with Big Deal.) Speaking of Big Deal, Fosse never let them to film any of his shows (though the Sweet Charity revival may have been filmed--after he died. And of course they didn't really start recording a ton until the 80s.
Posted: 12/3/15 at 9:05pm
ghostlight2 said: "No. Playbill does this often, and the phrase "preserved on film" doesn't exactly scream to me high budget movie."
Playbill does what often? Posts about LC filmings? I really haven't found that to be true at all in my years of following Playbill on social media. If they WERE doing a professionally filmed release like RENT or Shrek or Into the Woods or whatever, I would actually think "preserved on film" would be a perfectly appropriate choice of words, but I guess we can agree to disagree there.
"They do it for most Broadway productions, for God's sake."
They really don't. If I had to guess, they film around 2/3rds. Someone still has to pay for it."
Ok first of all, if we're being nit-picky, 2/3rds is "most" like I said, but yes, I admit I did think it was more than that. But even if we use your estimate, why would Playbill find it necessary to make a post about ONE of the 66% of shows that get filmed? That, combined with the vague language (which is relatively standard for Playbill, yes), combined with the fact that there has been fan-buzz about a commercially released film -- that's what really makes me feel like it was deliberately misleading.
Posted: 12/3/15 at 9:36pm
I work at the Performing Arts Library, and am very familiar with TOFT (i.e. the Theatre on Film and Tape Archive) which is being discussed here. A couple of corrections: in most cases, the producers of the shows do not pay for the tapings. Some do, but most don't. If more of them did, more shows would wind up in the archive. As for how many B'way shows get taped, well, it varies from season to season. Right now I count 37 shows either currently running or opening soon. TOFT has 15 of them, including titles such as Phantom and Wicked, taped long ago. (But I'm not including shows that will be taped in the near future, so that number will rise.)
A couple of other things: unfortunately, TOFT does not have any versions of Sweet Charity in the archive, aside from a semi-staged benefit performance, and a few clips. And contrary to what someone said upthread, viewer records ARE retained. They're generally consulted only when someone egregiously abuses viewing privileges. We're aware that some people return for second viewings, but can't do much about it.
Posted: 12/3/15 at 9:40pm
cmorrow said: "They're generally consulted only when someone egregiously abuses viewing privileges."
Out of curiosity, what would be an example of that?
Posted: 12/3/15 at 10:07pm
There was a situation involving plagiarism, not of text but of directorial touches. It became an issue as to whether or not the person involved had viewed the TOFT tape. (This is the major reason why a lot of theater people want that one-viewing-only rule in place.)
