The dark Trinity Rep "Annie" -- anyone see it?

I used to work down at Trinity Rep. I was soooo mad when I didn't get to see this production until we had to change it back. Amanda (the director) had in fact at the end made the entire 'happy' story a dream Annie had in the orphanage and the show itself, then had a more cheesy, commercial feel. She had written a few additional songs to it. However, upon seeing this version Martin Charnin, the lyricist decided that it destroyed the essense of Annie or something and forced Amanda to change it back. It's something I regret not seeing in time even today. Amanda is a very talented director when it comes to thinking outside the box.

---

Just a wild thought: I've always thought a darker take on the story is possible WITHOUT changing a single word. First of all the orphanage is semi-Dickensian. Then there's the parent-child love story. The 'bonding' between Annie and Daddy Warbucks is so instantaneous, and in some ways, based exclusively on his showering her with material wealth, possessions, etc. It would be interesting to approach the title character as someone who is desperate to escape her poverty, etc. Her investment in her birth parents' abandonment so informs the story -- she is haunted by that -- it would interesting to see her more shrewdly play Daddy as a means to an end, and then not be so gaga over the end she gets. One of the reasons the sequel was so hard to write perhaps is because the first show was awash in wish fullfillment. Let's face it, Annie and Warbucks barely know each other when they fall in love with one another. She's basically a foster child who is adopted after a few weeks. And why THIS little girl? (No, I'm not suggesting Michael Jackson here, but it's always just a little odd...) I love a happy ending, but I believe you could play the show's plot with more reality. Or not--the show is an instituion.

---

Updated On: 4/15/05 at 09:22 AM

Martn Charnin has every right to be angry! She is changing HIS show!! She has no right to do that.

If she is so talented then she should write her own show rather than piggy back on someone else's classic. She has no right infringing on another writer's work and artistic intent.

Annie waking up back in the orphanage?? That is RIDICULOUS and WRONG! If I was an audience member, I would have been pissed.

EXACTLY!!

I am sorry butI have a hard time dealing with any artist changing another artist's work.

This Dehner sounds pretty brilliant to me, and hasn't Sam Mendes made his Broadway career out of changing people's work?

That being said, I do believe the author needs to have final approval over any changes made in professional productions.

---

I, personally, think that what she did was partly fine and partly wrong. It's fine to have her wake up in the orphanage because it's an artistic choice and doesn't change any of the words of the story. TECHNICALLY, though, it does change the story and Martin Charnin has every right to be upset. But adding songs into the show is so illegal. I'm surprised they didn't get sued.

---

Reminds me of a regional "Sweeney Todd" that played a short season in Australia a few years ago, set in a blood-stained 1950s style diner. During the final reprise of the title song, photographs of contemporary serial killers were projected onto the walls. Gosh, I'm glad I missed it...

Yes, the addition of different songs to ANNIE does sound very naughty, but classic works have been reinterpreted for centuries so it's inevitable that Broadway musicals will be pulled and prodded every which way in years to come. As for Annie waking up still in the orphanage, maybe it's the Rod Serling reading of the lyric:

"Tomorrow...
You're ALWAYS a day away....

Forever...."

bjivie2, I read your entire post. Not only does the change go against the author's intention, but in this case, goes against the original source material. In the comic strip version of Annie, she doesn't return to the orphanage.

I think it's dangerous to allow directors to tack on whatever they feel like. No wonder so many artists are so protective of their work.

---

Michael Bennett

She reworked "Javert's Suicide"

kidding

---

This can be argued many ways.

Would you change the Mona Lisa?

What about colorizing the first 20 minutes of The Wizard of Oz? (and perhaps making the rest black and white)

Do you have the right to take someone's copywritten material and change it and still call it the same (in this case ANNIE)

Re-interpretation yes, but I do believe there's a line that gets crossed between interpretation and making almost a new work out of it.

---

She wasn't CHANGING anything. She was ADDING. Theater is alive. Theater is a constantly, morphing, living world and we all have to realize that. It thrives on the experimentation and on the risks we as actors, directors, playwrights, musicians take. IT IS ABOUT CREATION.

Nobody can put her down for creative license.

---

To Iluvtheatretrash....

Um..you can't add ANYTHING to an existing piece unless you are the creator. It's unethical and ILLEGAL. We have copyrights for a reason as well as our wonderful union.

Write your own show if you feel the need to "create and morph."

Are you a working actor or just a highschool wannabe actor?

Well, I am an Equity actor and have spent years in this business seeing people get ripped off and it's dead wrong.

Once you become professional, you will understand how wrong it is to mess with someone else's work and then take credit for it.