The NEW Night Music at The Kerr Thread — Page 7

After sitting through 3 and 1/2 hours of GONE WITH THE WIND: the Musical, I don't trust anything that man does.

---

God I hope not. This is my favoirite musical so I hope he doesn't ruin it.

---

Oh the dramatics in this thread.

Well said, best12bars.

The more and more I see of this casting, the only three I'm excited (truly excited) for are Leigh Ann Larkin, Ramona Mallory and the Henrik (who's from my area, and we have an ex in common).

And, while I'm sure it isn't happening, if Waddingham comes over, I will *not* be seeing it.

---

Waddingham is by far the best thing about Nunn's production in London. I don't know why everyone is so determined that she not be part of the show. I know she isn't a name, and everyone wants to see a star take the role, but really, she plays it about as well as you can.

Scarywarhol--the issue with Waddingham has very little to do with her talent and much to do with Actors' Equity. There's an "exchange program" set up between the US and the UK unions.

Many rules and precedences have been established over the years. If a lead is transferred internationally for a show, it usually has to be "proven" that this performer has either an essential "name" cache associated with the show, or is integral to the specific production being produced. There's also a tit-for-tat system in place. Equal number of performers are exchanged to keep it balanced. If Hannah were to come over, a comparable West End show would need to use an American actor as its lead. Those "exchanges" are usually scheduled way in advance.

So, with Hannah, she doesn't have a "name" associated with this production. It probably wasn't scheduled in advance to do an Equity exchange, and Trevor Nunn is probably trying to say she's "integral" to this specific production and its creative vision.

Good luck! Equity knows if it accepts, based on that argument, it's basically saying that no American actress can do this role justice now on Broadway. I'm guessing they're scrambling to work out an exchange with an American actor in a West End show. And until they can lock one, they can't accept her to play Desiree.

I'm hoping (against hope) that they scrap Nunn AND Waddingham and start over. It'll never happen, but that would serve this musical best. He's probably only holding out for her because she got good reviews and is a bit of an "insurance policy" for him. She'll make him (and his lame concept and lack of skill as a director) look good.

RANTING AGAIN (so ljay, please look away so you don't try to "control" what I say) ...

Note to Mr. Nunn and many other current theatre directors: When did "clever" substitute for "quality?" Can't you just do a good job? Can't you direct talented actors who are appropriate for the written roles and help them craft brilliant performances? Do you have to cast an 80-year-old Asian man as Fredrika, set the whole musical in Mexico with a mariachi pit orchestra, and have every other spoken line in Esperanto, just to create interest in your work? "Clever" isn't good. Try being "good." It's much more gooder.

"Where's passion in the art, where's craft?"
---Madame Armfeldt, Act I, A Little Night Music

Try trusting this brilliant material! Try honoring it. You're doing a classic Sondheim show in its first revival on Broadway. Don't insult the intelligence of the composer or of your audiences by slathering it with a shiny new coat of "modern clever."

"Don't any of the great truths of the artists come through to you at all? Are you no better than the others?"
---Henrik Eggerman, Act II, A Little Night Music

---

Here, here, best12bars!

Trust the material. A director doesn't have to thrust some convoluted concept onto a classic piece to make it fresh and new. Just help your actors bring honest insights to their roles and do justice to the art. Explore what's already there in the subtext. Don't twist it into something unrecognizable!

If you don't like the essence of an established show, don't do it! Direct a new work, or write something of your own.

"Clever isn't good."

Except ofcourse when it's Mr Sondheim being clever.

"Don't insult the intelligence of the composer"

Do you think Sondheim would confirm that this production insults his intelligence? Somehow I doubt it. Therefore don't control what Sondheim thinks or says, in just the same way that you request Ijay not to control what you say.

You've seen the London revival, I take, MB? A serious "Smiles of a Summer Night?"

Pouts of a Summer Night? Frowns of a Summer Night? Tears of a Summer Night?

Thanks, I'll pass ... and wait for the "tragedy" revival of Mame.

---

Updated On: 7/30/09 at 03:16 PM

To say that the production is void of humour would be incorrect and unfair. Charlotte still gets laughs. The whole affair is just very small and introspective as perhaps you would imagine a production that came out of a 200 seat theatre.

^ Which means Nunn doesn't get their relationship.

And, I just don't buy Hannah as Desirée. I just don't.

---

I think he gets it, Nunn just doesn't direct Charlotte to be quite as sarcastic as say, Maureen Moore, whom I imagine are most people's reference point for the role on this board, and so the competition is on a different level. There have certainly been any number of Charlottes who have been the same age as Desiree in productions over the years, so while I agree that it can be a fascinating and sanguine angle of expoloration, Nunn isn't exactly going against the grain or doing something 'new' by not casting a Charlotte ten years younger than Desiree.