The Secret Garden Revival?- Page 2

Posted: 4/11/07 at 7:17pm

I wouldn't normally be so lame about this but I'm pretty certain I read several places that the RSC was meant to be closer to the book--in any case it *was* closer to the book whatever the motivation.

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 8:27pm

Well I don't know of any plot changes that helped it be closer to the book. The Broadway production is in truth barely any different from the book anyways. It makes Lily a character displayed on stage and adds the ghosts, but they have little to do with the actual plot. The main difference in the stage production from the book is the addition of Neville Craven. He does not appear in the book and naturally neither does the mutual obsession with Lily.

To answer an earlier post, two changes were made for the national tour that were also worked into the Broadway production once Mandy Patinkin left. To my knowledge these are the only changes but I haven't studied it or anything. The ending of "I Heard Someone is Crying" is changed. You hear on the CD that at one point the chorus has ended, Lily goes into her "OOs" that also start the song and then we hear a chorus sung by a few ghosts into a quiet diminutive ending. In the revision, at the end of the chorus before the ghost's chorus the music modulates, everyone sings and the ghosts come in behind to end with a loud and impressive "I Am Lost". It was seen as giving the audience a clear applause spot since without it there was not one until after "If I Had a Fine White Horse". Also, "It's a Maze" is heard on the CD as a song for Ben the gardener with some others coming in for very brief moments. The national tour revised it to be more of a montage between Ben, Mary, Dickon and Martha. It is, in my opinion, kind of awkward. That may, however, be because I listened to the CD for years before hearing the revised versions. I like both endings to "I Heard Someone Crying". I'm not sure which, if either, I prefer.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 8:36pm

Actually Sondhead, Neville IS a character, but is only listed as Dr. Craven, and is a much more minor character. However, he's important enough that SparkNotes listed him. (I looked cause I didn't remember him in the book either)

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 9:14pm

Thanks for the correction. I've read that book several times and I didn't ever remember him being in it! He must be very minor.

Regardless, his character in the musical was the major difference in the stage version. He is not so much the antagonist as he is in the musical, and the the Lily crush is not discussed.

Other than that, I'd say the stage version follows rather closely, with perhaps the notable exclusion of the character of Martha's mother. Most adaptations of the story delete that part of the story anyways. It's not necessary.

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 10:19pm

"Clumsy--aren't msot of the reprises, transitions, etc sung by ghost son the OBCR too? I never realized the tour had some changes--how was Maze cut? "


Some of them are different.
Like "There's A Man" after "Quartet" includes verses by Major Holmes and Albert which aren't on the CD.
Also we changed "House On A Hill--- Transitation" to not just Shaw and Wright: but all the people in Mary's "garden party."

"Maze" includes Martha singing in with Dickon, Mary and Ben. The guy who played Ben got a bit upset cause he heard the CD before we all got cast and he lost many of his verses to Martha.


"It is, in my opinion, kind of awkward."

It was. The audience got confused and couldn't pay attention: So many people singing at once, and as I said, the guy who played Ben was not a happy camper.

Updated On: 4/11/07 at 10:19 PM

[Marianne]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 10:40pm

Sondhead, I find the musical quite different from the book. The book was mostly focused on Mary and Colin's transformations from spoiled, sickly brats into healthy children; Archibald Craven was a minor character. The musical, though it pays Mary and Colin their due, shifts the main theme of the story onto dealing with grief and the loss of loved ones: the addition of the ghosts and of Lily as a character, the expansion of Archie's subplot, the Archie/Lily/Neville love triangle, all these point to a very different focus from the book's.

Granted, these themes were present in the book, but they didn't dominate the plot as much as they do in the musical. What Marsha Norman and Lucy Simon were saying about grief through this musical wasn't there in the book--which doesn't mean the book wasn't a great framework for those ideas, just that the book and the musical don't have 100% the same point and focus.

(Incidentally, when I first became familiar with the musical, I thought the creators had invented the name Lily as a cheesy-if-appropriate moniker for Archie's dead wife. It wasn't until I reread the book a few months ago that I realized Archie cries out his wife's name--"Lilias!"--at the end of his dream.)

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 11:24pm

I agree Marianne. Those themes are in the book but the focus is shifted. However, plot wise it is very close and more importantly, I can't see how the London production could have shifted the focus enough to be more like the book. The Archie / Lily focus was definitely still there.

[Marianne]

Posted: 4/12/07 at 12:08am

"I can't see how the London production could have shifted the focus enough to be more like the book. The Archie / Lily focus was definitely still there."

It would have gutted the show to take that out, anyway. The musical is using certain themes from the book to express a fairly different point; why take away the point just for the sake of making the show a mindless rehashing of the book?

(Ho boy, now there are probably a few people here who know me from the Les Mis fandom and who are wondering what closet I have the real Marianne locked away in.)

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/12/07 at 12:24am

Especially when that "fairly decent" point is amongst those presented in the original work, just not as strongly.

Not to even mention that if it was just a re-hashing of the book, why do it on stage at all? Might as well just read the book.

Which by the way everyone should. It's beautiful.

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 4/12/07 at 1:55pm

On "that site" that we can't name by name, they have an "E!" television special about the national tour and you never see two of the people from that production who went on to have major careers. Douglas Sills, who played Neville, and Audra McDonald, who played the Ayia.

You hear her once on the special. She doing the wordless vocal that gets sung behind the scene where Mary and Colin meet for the first time.

Posted: 4/12/07 at 6:06pm

You do know we *can* name that site now right?

Thanks so much! I'll try to find that clip

Marianne I gotta agree--to me the focus of the musical (Broadway) feels quite stirkingly different from the book, and the theme--but I think it works better for stage and is a valid direction to take (and I love the book as well)

Anyoen else remember for a big chunk in the mid 90s it was rumoured PBS had filmed this and was just clearing all the right sto air it?
Updated On: 4/12/07 at 06:06 PM