#26
Posted: 6/20/14 at 4:42pm
You can still by tix to tonight's show on their website through the tickets link, although the front page of their site does not list the show.
TUTS "Hardbody" Unauthorized Changes — Page 2
#27
Posted: 6/20/14 at 5:33pm
Regardless of the controversy, the final product at TUTS Underground was a delightful evening of theater. I'm sad to see it shutdown this way. As a long time fan of the documentary, I felt that the vision given to the show at TUTS Underground paid a more than respectable homage to the true story behind the musical. It shared the heart of every character with us and touched the heart and soul of all who saw it.
BWW Reviews: TUTS Underground's Sterling HANDS ON A HARDBODY is a Winning Texas Treat
BWW Reviews: TUTS Underground's Sterling HANDS ON A HARDBODY is a Winning Texas Treat
#28
Posted: 6/20/14 at 6:16pm
What an idiot. The thing is, I bet he could have gotten the permission if he had asked "the correct way"-- meaning approaching it as an experiment, bla bla-- not saying ridiculous things about how this worked better etc. I think experimentation is great, and should actually happen more often, but this is so the wrong way to do it. And incredibly insulting to the artists who created the work.
#29
Posted: 6/20/14 at 6:18pm
DEClarke
How could you give any production that intentionally changes major parts of a script a good review?? The director and actors jobs are to bring the story that the AUTHOR(S) wrote. Day one of acting and directing classes. You can't just decide that what is written is wrong. You can make the argument that it was more true to the documentary, sure. But that's not the agreement you make when putting on a play. The story written is the story that should be performed. Moving songs from one act to another, and changing the order of when contestants lose (especially for a true story) is just wrong. If the show doesn't work the way it is written, then maybe they should have chosen a better show to produce. And if it is a good show the way is written, then maybe the director isn't as good as they think they are. A good one would make it work, not through changing the script, but through blocking, acting choices, lights, sound, etc.
How could you give any production that intentionally changes major parts of a script a good review?? The director and actors jobs are to bring the story that the AUTHOR(S) wrote. Day one of acting and directing classes. You can't just decide that what is written is wrong. You can make the argument that it was more true to the documentary, sure. But that's not the agreement you make when putting on a play. The story written is the story that should be performed. Moving songs from one act to another, and changing the order of when contestants lose (especially for a true story) is just wrong. If the show doesn't work the way it is written, then maybe they should have chosen a better show to produce. And if it is a good show the way is written, then maybe the director isn't as good as they think they are. A good one would make it work, not through changing the script, but through blocking, acting choices, lights, sound, etc.
Updated On: 8/23/14 at 06:18 PM
#30
Posted: 6/20/14 at 6:19pm
"I'm sad to see it shutdown this way."
Well, it sounds like this isn't the first time they've had a problem with this director since, the Dramatists Guild said in their letter to TUTS: "When caught in blatant breach of this contract, it has been reported that you still have only partially restored the play for its few final performances, with the cast having little time to rehearse the changes, and are still including some unauthorized alterations. And you have done all this begrudgingly and unapologetically, with a history of having done so before..."
So, I have to imagine this isn't his first warning, but rather something to finally get their attention that this isn't something that he can continue doing.
Hardbody dos give each character a backstory/song, so it would be easier to chop up and reorder than other plays while maintaining some semblance of the story, but doing that while also removing songs as a "surprise" to show the creators how you improved their show seems pretty delusional.
There is no reference to this show on their social media accounts anymore, all history wiped. But tickets can still be purchased. One can only wonder if he'll actually not do the last few shows, or just hope he doesn't get caught.
Well, it sounds like this isn't the first time they've had a problem with this director since, the Dramatists Guild said in their letter to TUTS: "When caught in blatant breach of this contract, it has been reported that you still have only partially restored the play for its few final performances, with the cast having little time to rehearse the changes, and are still including some unauthorized alterations. And you have done all this begrudgingly and unapologetically, with a history of having done so before..."
So, I have to imagine this isn't his first warning, but rather something to finally get their attention that this isn't something that he can continue doing.
Hardbody dos give each character a backstory/song, so it would be easier to chop up and reorder than other plays while maintaining some semblance of the story, but doing that while also removing songs as a "surprise" to show the creators how you improved their show seems pretty delusional.
There is no reference to this show on their social media accounts anymore, all history wiped. But tickets can still be purchased. One can only wonder if he'll actually not do the last few shows, or just hope he doesn't get caught.
#31
Posted: 6/20/14 at 6:27pm
"How about a bad title? That can kill a show pretty good!" - Little Sally
HANDS ON A HARD BODY always sounded like gay porn.
HANDS ON A HARD BODY always sounded like gay porn.
#32
Posted: 6/20/14 at 6:41pm
Disappointed. The reviews have all been positive; some ecstatic. My tickets are for tomorrow night. I'll let you know if/when I'm told it's not going to happen.
Shame it had to happen this way. Hopefully the right people will learn something from the experience, and the "TUTS Underground" brand will not suffer in the long run. This has been a great outlet for edgier, less family-focused material.
Shame it had to happen this way. Hopefully the right people will learn something from the experience, and the "TUTS Underground" brand will not suffer in the long run. This has been a great outlet for edgier, less family-focused material.
#33
Posted: 6/20/14 at 6:41pm
"The director and actors jobs are to bring the story that the AUTHOR(S) wrote. Day one of acting and directing classes. You can't just decide that what is written is wrong."
This statement describes perfectly why I cannot really buy into Billy Porter's performance in Kinky Boots in which he has specifically admitted in interviews that he intentionally plays Lola as a gay male, even though she/he is written in the script as liking women, and has been described as asexual and hetero-romantic by the show's book author, Harvey Fierstein in interviews. Yet Porter won a Tony for his performance and near-universal praise for his performance on this board. I wonder why people are okay with his changes and not with the ones made by TUTS' artistic director. I happen to think that both are disrespectful to the respective authors and not okay.
This statement describes perfectly why I cannot really buy into Billy Porter's performance in Kinky Boots in which he has specifically admitted in interviews that he intentionally plays Lola as a gay male, even though she/he is written in the script as liking women, and has been described as asexual and hetero-romantic by the show's book author, Harvey Fierstein in interviews. Yet Porter won a Tony for his performance and near-universal praise for his performance on this board. I wonder why people are okay with his changes and not with the ones made by TUTS' artistic director. I happen to think that both are disrespectful to the respective authors and not okay.
#34
Posted: 6/20/14 at 6:49pm
Someone posted in the comments section that they were going ahead with tonights performance. Supposedly, the union told them to perform. (Another poster claimed that was not true.)
What audacity this man has. Wow. I'd like to see where this goes. I'm always talking to my students about this....it'll be nice to have a recent story to back it up.
What audacity this man has. Wow. I'd like to see where this goes. I'm always talking to my students about this....it'll be nice to have a recent story to back it up.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#35
Posted: 6/20/14 at 6:51pm
Did Billy change any of the role/dialogue/scenes to ensure that perception, though? I think it is just his perception and how he prepares to play the role, at which point he says all of Harvey's words in all of Harvey's scenes, in the order Harvey wrote them. No?
#36
Posted: 6/20/14 at 6:58pm
Billy Porter's "changes" are a matter of interpretation, they are not a matter of changing the structure of the play. He is still saying the words written, all of them, and in the order they are meant to be heard. If he says them with a certain flair, that is still within his rights as a performer and an interpret of the written work. Don't forget, the audience still interprets the performance from there, and may still take away something different than he thinks he is performing.
#37
Posted: 6/20/14 at 6:58pm
I don't recall it ever being implied that Lola was gay or straight in the musical, but I might be wrong...I don't know how he played it as a 'gay man', except acting stereotypically gay (in terms of mannerisms and speaking voice) on occasion, but that doesn't mean he can't be straight (I actually know a couple of camp straight guys).
I personally would prefer him to be gay but for it not have to be spoken out loud/have to be made a big deal of.
I personally would prefer him to be gay but for it not have to be spoken out loud/have to be made a big deal of.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#38
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:02pm
This is where their "debate" came to light: http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-03-06/columns/clean-and-kinky-michael-musto/
#39
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:07pm
So, if TUTS has the audacity to put on tonite's perf, then the Dramatists' Guild can sue them for damages? Is that about right?
"Noel [Coward] and I were in Paris once. Adjoining rooms, of course. One night, I felt mischievous, so I knocked on Noel's door, and he asked, 'Who is it?' I lowered my voice and said 'Hotel detective. Have you got a gentleman in your room?' He answered, 'Just a minute, I'll ask him.'" (Beatrice Lillie)
#40
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:09pm
Maybe, but they could make changes. Even if they don't I find it hard to believe what "damage" the performance could cause besides hurting the authors' egos, lol (assuming the changes didn't cause people to hate the show and tarnish (what little there is of) the brand..and given the positive reviews this seems doubtful).
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#41
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:12pm
"Did Billy change any of the role/dialogue/scenes to ensure that perception, though? I think it is just his perception and how he prepares to play the role""
I have never read the script, so i don't have any direct knowledge about it, but I have presumed that he did say the lines that were written, even if he changed the character's backstory in his mind and performed that way.
I have never read the script, so i don't have any direct knowledge about it, but I have presumed that he did say the lines that were written, even if he changed the character's backstory in his mind and performed that way.
#42
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:13pm
This statement describes perfectly why I cannot really buy into Billy Porter's performance in Kinky Boots in which he has specifically admitted in interviews that he intentionally plays Lola as a gay male, even though she/he is written in the script as liking women, and has been described as asexual and hetero-romantic by the show's book author, Harvey Fierstein in interviews.
Could you be more off-base?
First of all, where in the script does it say that Lola is interested in women sexually? Billy Porter believes that Lola likes men sexually but still identifies by gender as male even though he wears drag, though he also says he thinks the character may never have acted on their sexuality.
On one hand, you say, "She/he is written in the script as..." while immediately thereafter saying, "I've never read the script." For someone with a really staunch opinion, you're incredibly misinformed.
Could you be more off-base?
First of all, where in the script does it say that Lola is interested in women sexually? Billy Porter believes that Lola likes men sexually but still identifies by gender as male even though he wears drag, though he also says he thinks the character may never have acted on their sexuality.
On one hand, you say, "She/he is written in the script as..." while immediately thereafter saying, "I've never read the script." For someone with a really staunch opinion, you're incredibly misinformed.
Tonya Pinkins: Then we had a "Lot's Wife" last June that was my personal favorite. I'm still trying to get them to let me sing it at some performance where we get to sing an excerpt that's gone.
Tony Kushner: You can sing it at my funeral.
Tony Kushner: You can sing it at my funeral.
Updated On: 6/20/14 at 07:13 PM
#43
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:20pm
I have not read the script, but i have seen the show, and as i said in my previous message, i had presumed that the words spoken in the show were the same ones written in the script. It is spoken in the show that Lola is attracted to women - not necessarily sexually - Harvey's interviews have said that Lola is asexual, so the attraction would presumably be romantic but not sexual. That is exactly what i said in my first message above (asexual and heteroromantic).
#44
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:23pm
Just received the email:
TUTS has found itself in a last minute contractual dispute that prevents the continued performances of Hands on a Hardbody.
We regret this unexpected occurrence and we thank you for your support of TUTS Underground.
TUTS Underground will be issuing full refunds or an exchange for a future TUTS Underground show. For questions and inquiries on how to receive your refund or exchange, please call the TUTS Underground Box Office at 713.558.TUTS (8887) starting Monday 6/23. The box office is open Monday through Friday 9 AM to 6 PM.
TUTS has found itself in a last minute contractual dispute that prevents the continued performances of Hands on a Hardbody.
We regret this unexpected occurrence and we thank you for your support of TUTS Underground.
TUTS Underground will be issuing full refunds or an exchange for a future TUTS Underground show. For questions and inquiries on how to receive your refund or exchange, please call the TUTS Underground Box Office at 713.558.TUTS (8887) starting Monday 6/23. The box office is open Monday through Friday 9 AM to 6 PM.
#45
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:26pm
I don't think that TUTS should keep this particular artistic director. He's brought some negative publicity to a normally reputable theatre company. Thoughts?
"Noel [Coward] and I were in Paris once. Adjoining rooms, of course. One night, I felt mischievous, so I knocked on Noel's door, and he asked, 'Who is it?' I lowered my voice and said 'Hotel detective. Have you got a gentleman in your room?' He answered, 'Just a minute, I'll ask him.'" (Beatrice Lillie)
#47
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:38pm
Bruce Lumpkin's arrogance has put the reputation of Theatre Under the Stars in great jeopardy and the board of directors should take immediate action and force him to resign. (This would give us all a fun opportunity to change and rewrite his resignation letter!!)
#48
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:38pm
The difference between this and KBs is thus: Billy Porter has the blessing of both the author and the director to perform the character THIS way.
Tuts had no such permission.
He didn't just re-order songs, he re-assigned lines (at least in the opening number). What an arrougant douche.
Tuts had no such permission.
He didn't just re-order songs, he re-assigned lines (at least in the opening number). What an arrougant douche.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Updated On: 6/20/14 at 07:38 PM
#49
Posted: 6/20/14 at 7:58pm
I find the most bizarre thing that he would actually invite the authors and then tell Amanda Green to her face that it works better now, lol. Is he literally crazy?
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#50
Posted: 6/20/14 at 8:33pm
Porter's interpretation of Lola is always caused friction between Fierstein and Billy. The difference is Billy was in the creative process as the show was being written and and this director was not. If this plane is that if he was there in the initial creative process share but he wasn't.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95