The Wiz Revival- Page 2

[beyondblessed]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 9:32am

If this is given another try I think Detroit would be a wondeful place for the out of town tryout.

[WordedGrace]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 10:22am

Totally agree with the comment the show is supposed to reflect African-American style and musical taste.. The music of the original is timeless..sure it could be arranged a little tighter but that's nit picking. That's why the Dutch version will never be authentic in my opinion, you can't have a show created by people of color, about people of color, and voiced by people of color without first tapping into the realities behind that experience.

[whoisquilty]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 10:23am

And, JMoss, did you actually *see* the original? How can you say "100000000 X" better than La Jolla when you have no idea what you're talking about. It seems to me that you're of the "new is good, old is bad" mentality. That statement alone makes it clear that you only know the production from the cast recording and a few cropped down photos in books.

Had you seen the original, seen the staging and artistry that went into it, seen the beauty of the Tornado Ballet, the beauty of the costumes onstage in color in person, the glamour of it...you would not be saying that.

Having seen film of the original production, knowing several of the creative team, seeing photographs that are not available to the general public...I can tell you 100% that the La Jolla staging comes nowhere NEAR close to the original.

How can you say that a revised production that ignores the very concept on which the show was conceived is better than the original? An original production is going to be superior 99.99% of the time. The reason being is that when a show is conceived and goes through its original design and casting phases, the material is written to suit the original cast's talents and strengths, the physical production is conceived and executed and the script is trimmed and rewritten to suit it.

Look at Dreamgirls, the artistic team was designing the sets and costumes as the show was being written and workshopped. That's why the majority of major productions use Bennett's design and staging. It's completely intertwined with the story. Not to mention the fact that the cast improvised the dialogue and Tom Eyen wrote it down. Jennifer Holliday will always be Effie, no matter how many people with similar names play the role in film or onstage.

As far as The Wiz:

1) Geoffrey Holder designed the inital costumes in 1973, before funding was even secured and over a year before the Baltimore premiere. Those drawings (which outlined how characters were to look, move and act) influenced the funding, which influenced the writing, which influenced the final design.

2) Andre De Shields' audition made William Brown change the character of the Wiz from a bumbling sound effects man at a television station to a glam rocker/evangelist...because of the performer.

3) The Tornado Ballet *itself* will demonstrate the quality and the ingenuity and beauty of the original production. The Tin Man's design. The Munchkin costumes. The Funky Monkeys ballet, the Yellow Brick Road as dancers. All of these influenced the script.

Everything in the original is better than tacked-on modern references, hammy acting, silly color-blind casting that flies in the face of the concept of the piece, and DREADFUL set and costume design.

JMoss, you need to defend your statement, because you are so wrong, so utterly misinformed, so off the mark, so completely out of the ballpark...actually, if a ballpark were reality, your opinion would be across the parking lot in the garbage-strewn vacant lot across the street. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Updated On: 3/16/07 at 10:23 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 10:49am

The original staging, choreography and costumes were fantastic.

I had no interest in seeing the La Jolla "revisal," because everything I heard or read about it seemed ill-conceived... and pointless.

[sondhead]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 12:55pm

Lets come off our rants and realize that while yes, shows are conceived around their original productions, that does NOT mean that other takes on a work can't work or even be better. I can't speak on this experience because I didn't see the original, I only saw the La Jolla production, I'm just saying just as new doesn't always equal better, original doesn't always equal better.

Before anyone attacks me, I am not a "revival" lover or anything. I did enjoy the La Jolla production of The Wiz and wish that people who didn't see it would stop talking **** on it. And just hearing a private audio of the performance doesn't count! You'll notice the few people who *did* see the production mostly loved it (there are of course those who didn't).

However, I don't really know why I'm saying.. because i loved the La Jolla production but I pretty much wish they would meld some aspects of it back towards the original concept. I really liked the restructuring of scenes and songs (which is something members of the original creative team when interviewed also liked--something they would have done in 1975 had the technology allowed) and strangely, for all the dance taken out of the production, they added a lot to each friend's song and it really cemented the bond between Dorothy and them. I forget to mention that, but it was really great.

Remember, the person doing the arranging here was Harold Wheeler himself, alongside Charlie Smalls' son. That's a pretty major tie to the original creative team right there.

Oh--and another thing they need to fix--the opening. I'm not sure a full overture is in order, but something needs to be figured out. La Jolla's production just kind of started out of no where, and especially when "The Feeling We Once Had" is your opener, you need a more energetic musical opening (perhaps like the Dutch mini-overture.. but I don't like starting with Brand New DAy).

[Brit-ta-nee]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 1:23pm

I saw the La Jolla production of The Wiz and I thought it was really entertaining and I enjoyed the cast. I would definitely see it again.

The last I heard the show was trying to go to Vegas and the cast would want to go back to it although I know most of them are working on other things, Courtney Corey -Wicked LA, Tituss Burgess - Little Mermaid on Broadway, just to name two that I am positive of.


On a side note has anyone seen "The Sining Detective" which took The Wiz's place in NYC?

[skingdom]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 4:44pm

Yes, this show is going to broadway.

You can put your money on it.

Skingdom out.

[Jmoss7602]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 5:00pm

"Call me over-critical, however, I feel very very secure in my opinions even from having not seen either production. I would not cast down such a heavy hand if I did not know what I was talking about, I am not one of those posters. "


Sounds to me like you just went and read a few reviews and are going along with what it said. I saw the show several times and the bad reviews do have a little bit of a point but, I think that it is WAY to critical. The show was GREAT!I would say you should have seen it before you talk about the feeling of the show and the staging!!! Right?????

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 7:55pm

Jmoss-
I actually AVOIDED the reviews, because I knew I wasn't going to see it, and did not want to cast a vote off of them. I waited until I had access to the script, and insight from a cast member, and then based it off of that. Thank You.

Sondhead-
Just because a few members of the original creative team get back together to work on something, doesn't mean they know for sure what's right. It's been a pretty unanimous thought that, had they used the Anne Rienking choreography for "Music and the Mirror," D'Amboise wouldn' look as bad. (At least the consenus of those that have seen to compare), and the original creative team (sans Bennett, of course), was reunited. The revisions to large portions of "Company" are also not universally liked, and that WAS Sondheim and Furth's doing.

[skingdom]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 7:58pm

SONDHEAD

Why didn't you like the scarecrow?

I think I know why, but I'm just curious.

Skingdom way way out.

[PersonofInterest]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 8:08pm

I would hate to see this production go to NY without Nikki James. I think she is an incredible talent born to play Dorothy.
Plus, without Titus this show is ALL HERS!! i dread the day Wayne Brady steps back in!

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 8:27pm

Actually, no disrespect to Ms. James, as I have heard her sing "Home" and enjoyed it, I am still hoping that the rumor about it being the World AIDS Day Concert is true, and that Anika Noni Rose is playing Dorothy (Who I think would be STELLAR).

[PersonofInterest]

Posted: 3/16/07 at 8:32pm

I hadn't heard that rumor. Anika is incredible, so I can't really argue that. The thing I love about Nikki though is that she has such a pure sound. So does Anika, but I really think Dorothy should be fairly straight forward vocally. Excessive riffing is just distracting from the character. Plus Anika has crossed into a real lady, Nikki still has a young innocence.

(I know I'm gonna get a lot of feedback about past Dorothy's being older and it's written that way, but I think they have the oppurtunity to do this production a bit more fresh faced and youthful)

[sondhead]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 1:21am

"Just because a few members of the original creative team get back together to work on something, doesn't mean they know for sure what's right."

So what are you defending--original creative teams or otherwise? You're Mr. Original Concept, Mr. Original Creative Team... but now they're not good enough? And then you follow that with an example of where a re-mount was a bad choice.. kind of hypocritical.

My stance is the same. The La Jolla production had lots of good about it and could definitely be workshopped into a fantastic revival.

I didn't like the scarecrow because he could barely sing at all and had very little comic timing. He was just amateur all over the place. Maybe this just wasn't his role, but regardless he was embarassingly terrible.

EDIT: And husk, from what I hear, the concert with Anika is all but decided, so I'd say we'll have that to look forward to next fall. It might just be what the show needs to get a revival back in the works.


Updated On: 3/17/07 at 01:21 AM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 1:33am

Sondhead-
You are misunderstanding. While I am pro-original creative team, etc, I am pro ORIGINAL STAGING. A revision is NOT Original Staging, and that was the implication I was making.

[Dark_Angel]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 9:44am

"if they are reviving it, use Holder's ingenius original staging...

This is coming from someone who was born in 1986. Do the math.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 12:58pm

Again, as I have said, I did not see the original, but I know enough about it to be able to call his staging ingenius.

[whoisquilty]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 8:52am

Having spent time with Mr. Holder, seen film of the original and his 1984 revival, there is no denying that the original is nothing short of genius. George Faison and Gilbert Moses deserve every bit as much credit.

No revival can touch it. Not a bargain-basement 1993 tour or a vast, cold, empty regional revival with no creativity and paying no homage to the original. Yes, shows can be rethought, but when they lose all connection and the entire spirit in which they were conceived...well, then what's the point? Do a new adaptation and be done with it.

Perhaps we'd like to update "Annie Get Your Gun" to make Annie a paintball sharpshooter? Perhaps we'd like to make Dolly the operator of a Match.com-knockoff? Perhaps we'd like a revival of "Gypsy" making Louise a poledancer at Bah-da-Bing? Come on...

Also, Sondhead, just because Harold Wheeler did the arrangements with Charlie Smalls' son (how is *that* a major tie...someone who didn't work on the original...the score is by Charlie Smalls, Luther Vandross, Tim Graphenreed and George Faison, not Charlie Smalls and Charlie Smalls, Jr.)...just because Harold Wheeler did the arrangements doesn't give them any distinction. They are not done in the spirit of the original, and I'm sure Charlie Smalls would be pretty irritated by it. I was certainly irritated sitting there listening to what sounded like a small combo (after having heard the original with full orchestra).

And, which creative team members are on record saying that that's what they would have done in 1975? I haven't seen that. Further...is that in press releases put out by La Jolla or statements that these people have made in private? Did they merely sign off on statements so that La Jolla's production would *seem* to have credibility? Were they doing it because they're getting residuals and they want to see it transfer. That would be a good indication if it's George Faison, since he wrote at least one of the songs which, even though it's not in La Jolla's tunestack, he would probably have had to be bought off. Just because you read in the papers that the creative team likes it doesn't mean it's true. There are other factors involved which you may know nothing about.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 9:14am

The revival isn't happening (at least not any time soon.) Des McAnuff and company tried to either get The St James between "The Producers" and "Young Frankenstein" or The Circle in the Square, but neither ended up working out.

Last I heard, the only hope for it having any life past LaJolla is for them to have another out of town try out (The Alliance in Atlanta was where I heard they were looking) and see where things sit at that time.

[sondhead]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:07am

quilty-
I didn't mean to say the Smalls Jr. had anything to do with the show--but he did, along with his mother, have a lot to do with Charlie Smalls. You can bet they wouldn't enthusiastically love the La Jolla production as they did if they thought for an instant that it would "irritate" Charlie Smalls.

And don't take my other comment too far. The original creative team never said this is the way they wish they could have done the show in 75--they talked about the structure (being able to have dialogue in the middle of songs and such). Aaaand I'm not getting that from a press release.

[whoisquilty]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:39am

But that makes no sense. In 1975, they were adding dialogue in the middle of songs. Follies used it extensively in 1971, etc. etc.

And you said:

> which is something members of the original creative team when
> interviewed also liked--something they would have done in 1975
> had the technology allowed

What technology does it require to put dialogue in the middle of songs? A computer versus a typewriter?

Technology = design. Technique = dialogue in the middle of songs.

And until you state where you got the information that the creative team was happy with the changes and wished they could have done them in 1975, many would be inclined to take it with a grain of salt.

There is a definite trend in theatre for revivals to make mountains of changes and then they dig up some retired vet who worked on the original to say "That's the way it should have been". If that's the way all of these should have been, why weren't they that way to begin with? Updated On: 3/19/07 at 10:39 AM

[sondhead]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 11:40am

Mics are the new technology. They're also a huge factor in the change in musical theatre structure over the past 30 years.

As for how I know, I have no reason to look it up. Look it up yourself. Look up interviews with Mr. Holder. I've definitely seen it quoted.

Besides, it's such a little thing that you're throwing out of proportion--I'm not trying to say the La Jolla production was perfect and/or what the original creative team wish they'd done. I'm saying that the La Jolla production did some things the original creative team liked and furthermore that I've never heard anything but positive things from them about the La Jolla production. Which, if they thought negatively, why would they publish it, but still--I'm just sayin.

Furthermore, why does original concept reign all in this case? I don't care how brilliant any original concept was. Brilliant pieces work in different ways. The original production of Sweeney Todd was pretty brilliant. So much so that it is recreated constantly. The John Doyle revival did something completely different and it was also brilliant--which speaks to the credit of the piece that it works in different ways. I would say The Wiz can too. Change is not always bad. It's not always good, either--but considering 90% of the nay-sayers in this thread DIDN'T EVEN SEE THIS PRODUCTION I'd say that we ought to give it the benefit of the doubt and wait to see what happens with it.

[whoisquilty]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 12:33pm

Actually, the original was heavily mic'ed and the sound was amped way up...to points that OSHA was getting involved.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 1:12pm

So the revival is as dead as the Wicked Witch of the East?

[whoisquilty]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 2:14pm

Sounds like it. Phew. Dodged that bullet.