The Bad Seed- Revival?

Given that the remake of The Bad Seed that aired on Lifetime this past weekend was an abysmal disappointment and pales in comparison to the 1956 film adaptation, I've been scouring the internet to see if I could find any more information about the original 1954-5 run of the play on Broadway. (I'd love to see production photographs, but I haven't come across any). I am pretty curious as to why there was never a Broadway Revival of the play... I know a lot of people dismiss the original film and play as "melodrama," and while I agree that the film does at times fringe on the melodramatic, it is nonetheless anchored by masterclass performances from Nancy Kelly and Eileen Heckart, who flesh out the material with such pathos that I am always struck by how visceral/affective they are, even though I've seen the film dozens of times in the past 25+ years. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but I do feel that a production of The Bad Seed could work today, which brings me to my query.

I found the following website, which I'm linking to below, that teases a Bad Seed revival aimed at Broadway in 2013. Has anyone heard anything about this? Were there legitimate talks of a revival around then? I debated whether or not to post this, but I'm hoping someone here might be able to point me in the right direction. I couldn't find anything else about it!

http://thebadseedbroadway.com/

The original play and original movie have different endings because of the movie censor code!

The original Broadway production of THE BAD SEED opened on December 8, 1954 at the 46th Street Theatre (now the Richard Rodgers Theatre). The 2 Act play took place on a single set: the apartment of Col. and Mrs. Penmark, in the suburb of a Southern city. The original Broadway principal cast reprised their roles for the multi-Oscar nominated 1956 film adaptation.

"What would you give me for a basket full of kisses?"

Maybe as unadulterated camp - Charles Bush as Christine, Harvey Fierstein as Monica

I'm a huge fan of the play, but it's best treated as a historical text at this point. As has been mentioned by others, the psychology the play is based on is outdated and, in 2018, bordering on the offensive.

I think the approach to the evil child story is very good, especially the original ending. What's more terrifying than the realization that a bright, dynamic child with all the potential in the world will only grow up to breed chaos and harm others just because? The realization that she's smart enough to always get away with it. Always.

If the play is meant to be taken seriously as horror now, it would have to be largely rewritten. Even presenting the script going full camp would be a struggle since some of those exposition/pop psychology scenes go on too long for the joke to keep landing.

That's not even getting into the financial prospects. I think the film is best remembered for the spanking scene in the closing credits and the play known for less than that.

I would kill (figuratively) to see this revived! Any controversy surrounding the nature/nurture arguments would just add to its interest by the public. As for people sitting around talking, in the movie these are crucial scenes as the truth slowly dawns on the poor mother. Thank God they did not have that hideous spanking scene in the play nor the "payback" of death for our precious darling. I also think a camp version would be hilarious, although it is already high camp, especially Mrs. Breedlove.

trentsketch said: "I'm a huge fan of the play, but it's best treated as a historical text at this point. As has been mentioned by others, the psychology the play is based on is outdated and, in 2018, bordering on the offensive.

I think the approach to the evil child story is very good, especially the original ending. What's more terrifying than the realization that a bright, dynamic child with all the potential in the world will only grow up to breed chaos and harm others just because? The realization that she's smart enough to always get away with it. Always.

If the play is meant to be taken seriously as horror now, it would have to be largely rewritten. Even presenting the script going full camp would be a struggle since some of those exposition/pop psychology scenes go on too long for the joke to keep landing.

That's not even getting into the financial prospects. I think the film is best remembered for the spanking scene in the closing credits and the play known for less than that."

Okay, again. There is NO psychology at play in this play except for a modicum of nature vs nurture! Monica is a bit of a kook in her pop psychology. But if you listen to Christine's father the indication is an almost sci-fi exposition, that Rhoda's real grandmother's evil was passed down to her genetically.

Updated On: 9/12/18 at 06:41 PM

darquegk said: "That’s not sci-fi; that’s an early and primitive attempt to conceptualize what we now call “the cycle of abuse.”"

Dude. No, it's not. Have you ever seen the play or the film? There is no cycle. There is no abuse. When Christine's real evil mother is killed Christine's policeman father takes the baby (Christine) and gives her a loving home. Christine gives birth to Rhoda. It is suggested that the "evil" gene skips a generation, thus: our bad little seed Rhoda. There is no abuse.

Owen22 said:

Okay, again. There is NO psychology at play in this play except for a modicum of nature vs nurture! Monica is a bit of a kook in her pop psychology. But if you listen to Christine's father the indication is an almost sci-fi exposition, that Rhoda's real grandmother's evil was passed down to her genetically.

Decades of critical readings of the novel, the play, and the film disagree with your assertions. The concept of a child just being born evil was cutting edge psychological theory at the time this was written. Literal campaigns were started telling people not to blame parents for bad kids because some kids are just bad.

This novel is filled with direct references to the radically evolving nature vs nurture debate (at a time where childhood crime was written off as pure nature and literally cutting off some children as unteachable in respects to fitting into society). The play also goes into this. The ending is inspired by the psychological theory of the time that some children are just born evil and nothing can be done. Most specifically, the story is born of the disproved "murder gene" theory, which was considered cutting edge psychological research and is now pure bunk.

The entire concept of The Bad Seed is a product of pop psychology of the time. It actually took on a recursive logic, with academics referencing The Bad Seed to support the flimsy "murder gene"/some children are evil/everyone is born evil but most grow out it schools of research.

Here's what I'll give you: going pure Gothic horror in a revised book would probably work. Strip out the pop psychology and replace it with Rhoda's behavior being the deep dark secret hidden in the house. The family knows what she is capable of and hides it to remain respectable in the town. The plot beats could be the same, but the mother's turmoil would come from the realization that the only way she could ever regain control of her life and her family's reputation is stopping Rhoda. The plot and characters stay the same; only the context of it changes.

Snafu, I think We Need to Talk About Kevin would be a more promising starting point than a The Bad Seed revival. Imagine that story as a two person "memory" play with the Mother and Kevin circling each other until Kevin leaves for school on that day.

trentsketch said: "Owen22 said:

Okay, again. There is NO psychology at play in this play except for a modicum of nature vs nurture! Monica is a bit of a kook in her pop psychology. But if you listen to Christine's father the indication is an almost sci-fi exposition, that Rhoda's real grandmother's evil was passed down to her genetically.

Decades of critical readings of the novel,the play, and the film disagree with your assertions. The concept of a child just being born evil was cutting edge psychological theory at the time this was written. Literal campaigns were started telling people not to blame parents for bad kids because some kids are just bad.

This novel is filled with direct references to the radically evolving nature vs nurture debate (at a time where childhood crime was written off as pure nature and literally cutting off some children as unteachable in respects to fitting into society). The play also goes into this. The ending is inspired by the psychological theory of the time that some children are just born evil and nothing can be done. Most specifically, the story is born of the disproved "murder gene" theory, which was considered cutting edge psychological research and is now pure bunk.

The entire concept of The Bad Seed is a product of pop psychology of the time. It actually took on a recursive logic, with academics referencing The Bad Seed to support the flimsy "murder gene"/some children are evil/everyone is born evil but most grow out it schools of research.

Here's what I'll give you: going pure Gothic horror in a revised book would probably work. Strip out the pop psychology and replace it with Rhoda's behavior being the deep dark secret hidden in the house. The family knows what she is capable of and hides it to remain respectable in the town. The plot beats could be the same, but the mother's turmoil would come from the realization that the only way she could ever regain control of her life and her family's reputation is stopping Rhoda. The plot and characters stay the same; only the context of it changes.

Snafu, I think We Need to Talk About Kevin would be a more promising starting point than a The Bad Seed revival. Imagine that story as a two person "memory" play with the Mother and Kevin circling each other until Kevin leaves for school on that day."

Again, I'm not sure it's at all a "psychological" story. And of course it's bunk. But "evil" being genetic is much more a supernatural or science fiction concept than psychological. As a matter of fact, it's the antithesis of "psychological" as Rhoda was not just "born that way". It was because she inherited a recessive "evil" gene.