Three Penny Flop- Page 2

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 4:20pm

Does this revival have a rush? Anyone know? Please respond.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 4:24pm

That info may be on the "one stop" rush thread.

[Brennan88]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 4:33pm

First of all, right on, Matty! Secondly, I know that theatre types love the gossip (hence the popularity of these boards) but to be so dismissive of a show that's had a total of 4 previews...
and in such harsh and absolute terms...I don't get it. I know that we're all not subject to the rules that govern the critics about when they can trash a show, but how about cutting them a little slack?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 4:35pm

Brennan --

Whats wrong with being harsh during previews? They are charging full price admission and its unlikely they are going to throw out the concept and start over before opening night. So if somebody "hates" the concept, they are certainly entitled to say so - even if its only 4 previews.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 4:40pm

"The problem is that if you go into the theatre expecting 'Threepenny Opera', you will also be disappointed."

That depends which Threepenny you are referring to. There have been numerous professional productions and numerous translations/adaptations/conceptualizations. And they are all vastly different. I think if you go expecting the 1954 Blitzstein production, you will be disappointed, but you will be expecting something far removed and watered down from what Brecht originally wrote. It may have been the most commercially popular production of Threepenny in the US, but it does not in any way make it the definitive version of the show.

At any rate, I don't think it really matters which version of the show they do. Even the tamest of productions polarizes audiences simply because it is such an unconventional show filled with unconventional tunes, half of which the audience will not be able to recall the melodies. It's not a show for the masses of tourists, yet the casting of this production seems determined to bring them in only to disappoint those unfamiliar with the show or its creator.

[michelle4]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 4:45pm

Absolutely true MB. If it were the final dress that would be different.

Art is subjective and people should be allowed to freely express their opinions about a show. If your opinion differs, so be it, but that doesn't automatically mean that the person doesn't get it. I don't understand why people can't have a rational discussion about their different views. It would be much more informative and interesting then the name calling that goes on.

[Brennan88]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 4:54pm

Michelle & MB...

I don't think a lot of the discussion (not just this thread) about Three Penny has been so rational. It gets real heated real fast, and it just as often starts with the tone of the criticism as it does the responses to it...and MB, you are correct, they are not likely to scrap the entire concept and start over, but they could still make significant changes. And are you saying that if they weren't charging full price, people would be obligated to temper their remarks?

I think it's great that people have strong opinions, I really do. But I also think a real theatre fan would want to give the artists the benefit of the doubt during previews, that's all.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 4:57pm

I still haven't made up my mind on THREEPENNY. I didn't think it was bad, but then I started to second guess myself the more and more I think about it.

I surely didn't hate it - I very much enjoyed myself - but I just can't make up my mind on whether it's misguided and terrible, or actually quite brilliant. I just don't know.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 5:08pm

I've said this before: I just don't like the material. I've seen several productions and each time I feel alienated from the show from the opening chords of the orchestra.

As individuals we can't be expected to like EVERYTHING. Even so, I'm planning on skipping this production.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 5:39pm

What if Carol Channing were playing Jenny Diver?

[BroadwayChica]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 5:48pm

The more opinions I read on how "bad" this show is, the more I'm POSITIVE I'm going to absolutely love it.

I enjoy the source material, and I think a feeling of alienation is intrinsic in Brecht's work. This is certainly going to polarize audiences expecting a standard musical. But I disagree with the notion that ALL theater should have mass appeal, even if it is in a commercial venue like Broadway.

Anyway, I can't remember the last time I was so thrilled at the prospect of seeing a show.

(Actually, I do. It was right before "Sweeney Todd" openened)

[StageDoorMatty]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 5:49pm

Careful Michael...if they extend and Cyndi Lauper isn't available, they might take you up on that offer.

One thing that continually impresses me about theatre is just how divided audiences can be over the same show. I notice it a lot with my friends. I loved THE RETREAT FROM MOSCOW while a dear friend, whose education and tastes are generally similar to my own, hated it.

I think this production of THREEPENNY (well, ANY production of THREEPENNY really) will continue to divide the masses.

My only hope is that those who express their opinions have an educated opinion and don't merely trash a show simply to trash it.

There will be teenagers who go see this show who will be enamored with it, just like there will be sophisticated theatregoers who may have seen previous productions of the show or other shows in the Brechtian style who will hate it.

I just love the theatre...and all the people...in it.

:o)

[leadfootlouie]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 6:00pm

it's a show, not a term paper


BRAVA! GarlandGirl!

Frankly, if I wanted to hear a lecture on social mores, I would go find one.

Plain and simple- the show has no zip, no wow, no omph!

and even Brecht needs Omph!

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/28/06 at 6:25pm

TDF or Broadway Box called for here

See no problem getting tickets. If we see it great & if not so be it

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 12:59am

Well taking a dump on stage can be "alienating", but who wants to pay to see that? I echo the sentiment that one should not have to attend a lecture on Brecht and Epic Theatre in order to appreciate 3PO. It can't hurt, of course, but it should not be a prerequisite. If it is done well it should make the audience think about the condition of the world and of man. If done poorly it could "alienate" in the worst sense of the word.
There is a very fine line with Brecht which is why it is so difficult to do well and why often productions of his plays are so divisive.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 1:39am

I didn't write this - its from ATC but it's an interesting review of this production...
________________________________________________________

THREEPENNY - Brecht and Weill are the unhappy victims


Posted by: smore2 11:06 pm EST 03/28/06


"Let me preface these thoughts on the Roundabout Threepenny Opera with the following disclaimer: I love director’s theatre (regietheater) - where a director takes a work and re-imagines, creating a new way to look at a playwright’s idea. I recently had a good dose of that seeing brilliant modern dress, rather radical productions of Master Builder, A Dolls House, Importance of Being Earnest, and Hamlet - all in German, mind you, but still...

I have also seen many views of Threepenny Opera. A fabulous modern dress production by the Berliner Ensemble in the early 80's; a production directed by Tim Baker at the National Theatre (Studio) London - Tim’s an acolyte of John Doyle’s, so it was actor-musicians - and possibly the best Threepenny I’ve seen; the updated to the future version at the Donmar Warehouse directed by Phyllida Lloyd withe lyrics by Jeremy Sams and englishbook by Robert David MacDonald, which wasn’t perfect but was very exciting nonetheless; a dreadful, semi-traditional production by Tony Clark at Birmingham Rep; the Richard Foreman production at Lincoln Center, in a tough, terrific translation; an awful National Theatre mainstage Threepenny - I think John Caird directed but have tried to wipe it out of my mind; a stunning production in Paris (in Spanish) by bad boy director Calixto Beito, which was modern, sexy, political, and captured the spirit, tone, and purpose of the piece; the fairly awful Williamstown production by Gordon Hunt several years back ... well, you get the point. I’ve seen the Feingold translation, the Blitzstein, the John Willet, plus the Sams/MacDonald, and a few others, in addition to productions in Spanish and the original German - all of these - the good, the bad, and the ugly, tried to put the Brecht/Weill work on stage - in very different ways - but with integrity.

The Roundabout production is nothing less than an act of cultural vandalism. If there were prison sentences for this, Scott Elliott and Wally Shawn would get life sentences. Although in Mr. Elliott’s case, the death sentence might be more appropriate.

THREEPENNY is the story of why capitalism is a terrible, destructive system (no tmy opinion - Brecht’s). Brecht was a socialist and a communist - this was his purpose in this work, to spread his beliefs in musical theatre work. Peachum’s firm of Beggars mirrors real capitalist businesses - he has organized London into districts, and he licenses and costumes beggars for best effect. Kind of like NY food vendors. Go to the wrong corner, and you’re in big trouble.

Macheath represents the criminal element within this world - and is in league with both the police and the prostitutes of London. Corruption on a very high level. Brecht also contrasts the “happy married capitalists” Mr and Mrs Peachum with their rebellious daughter and Macheath’s gang (ALL MEN) and the whores (ALL WOMEN). This is not a play about Weimar Germany and those cliches or bi and trans and multi sexuals - it takes place in England on the eve of Queen Victoria’s coronation.

But to Scott Elliott (and Wally Shawn) none of this matters. The text is adapted into a sophomoric muddle. The gang is men and women. Its New York - forget what anybody intended - you can’t do a “musical” without bis and trans and multi-sexuals - what would be the point. The representative of the clergy in the play - rather than being a conservative church-man consorting with criminals for gain - becomes a coke snorting African American woman with great heaving cleavage. Yeah - what point are we making here? Tiger Brown, the English copper is American, wearing what looks like an air force uniform and a retro NY cop’s hat. He does drugs also. And is a cool dude. So there is absolutely no sense in this production of the point of all this - that recognised members of the establishment are corrupt and in league with the thieves. Here we have corrupt sleazebags in league with other corrupt sleazebags. Great. So what’s the play about?

Poor Nellie MacKay flaps her arms about, smiles, and speaks a bizarre English that resembles Bjork at her most Icelandic. She makes a total hash of Pirate Jenny and what is hear called the “No” song. One only has to hear Lotte Lenya, or Ute Lemper, or Bebe Neuwirth sing these songs to realise that no one in this production as a clue what they are doing with this material. And Wally Shawn’s tin eared lyrics and lumpy dialogue doesn’t help.

But before you berate me for castigating poor Nelly MacKay, if I had never seen Jim Dale before I would think he was a non-actor as well. He is left totally at sea, delivering most of his character lines half to the audience half to his “scene-partners”, making no impact on either. And half of his singing (as is almost everyones) is inaudible.

And Anna Gasteyer just does what she always does, ha-ha-ha you’re funny Anna - and that has no place in any production of THREEPENNY OPERA. Where is the terror this woman inspires? Where is fierceness, anger, her tough but loving relationship with Peachum? No where. She and poor Jim Dale sit on stools looking like guests on some easily forgotten late night chat show. Near the end of Act One, in an act of sheer desperation, rather than making sense of a song she is directed to shout every tenth word or so at the audience, as if that were funny, or interesting, or had anything to do with the show or her character. So we’re in London, but Peachum has a loud obnoxious “New Yawka” wife, and a semi-retarded American (or Icelandic) daughter.

But I digress: in the wedding scene, Polly is the only woman (OK, not in this production). Surrounded by the gang. And finally they all leave when they bring the wedding bed out that they have stolen for Polly and Macheath. In this production the gang rides in and out (or prance in and out) throughout the wedding, whenever Elliott wants a star turn for someone - so that when the gang finally excuses themselves, you wonder why they didn’t do so the other six times they left. A total hash made of what Brecht wrote - it makes no sense. One can do this 100 ways. But one can’t take the gang on and off the stage throughout the scene - it makes no bloody sense!

The Roundabout has done their usual act of hiring actors not because they are right for a part, or even competent, but because they will sell tickets. Anna Gasteyer has her fan club. Cyndi Lauper has hers. Nellie MacKay has hers. Alan Cumming has his. Just think how many people beyond the 30,000 near death subscribers at Roundabout will buy single tickets. I can hear the cash register ringing. So can Todd Haimes. He loves it.

But Brecht and Weill’s best work is the victim. It doesn’t have a chance. And this is a crime. It deserves better. There is an embarrassment taking place on the stage of Studio 54, and another 18 days or so before press performances can never fix an adaptation that has betrayed its source, and a director who has no idea what he is doing - or at least no idea what Brecht and Weill were doing. Or does and has ignored it/

Lo those many years ago when I saw the Berliner Ensemble on their only visit to North America (in Toronto - of course during the Cold War we weren’t going to let East German art into the US!), their Threepenny Opera was a revelation. Not reverential, not “traditional” it was more or less modern dress. What has stayed with me most profoundly was in the wedding scene. The gang has stolen furniture to furnish a stable (or barn or warehouse) for the wedding. But they have stolen no chairs. Macheath berates the gang, and tells them to cut off the legs of the harpsichord they have stolen, and they can sit on that. The harpsichord looked like a beautiful rare antique. When the gang set to it with a saw and a hammer, there were gasps in the audience. The point of the moment - the disdain and total unconcern of the underclass to private property was made painfully clear and potent in an instant.

At the Roundabout we barely see this happen - no point is made of it - we are not asked to pay attention or to care. This one moment sums up everything wrong with this new production. Whether Mr. Elliott knows what THREEPENNY OPERA is about or not is moot. He has chosen to ignore the authors and conspire with Mr Shawn to put a foolish, boring, slow, miscast, and incomprehensible production upon the stage. Shame upon him and those who have abetted him.

My opinion, but . ... well, there you have it."

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 1:49am

I don't think it's a giant disaster, like he said, but that's a wonderful review and I agree with most of his points.

[elmore3003]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 8:35am

MichaelBennett, thank you for the review. MisterMatt wrote:
"That depends which Threepenny you are referring to. There have been numerous professional productions and numerous translations/adaptations/conceptualizations. And they are all vastly different. I think if you go expecting the 1954 Blitzstein production, you will be disappointed, but you will be expecting something far removed and watered down from what Brecht originally wrote. It may have been the most commercially popular production of Threepenny in the US, but it does not in any way make it the definitive version of the show."

Trashing Blitzstein has been popular since the Lincoln Center revival of the 1970s, and it's old. The Blitzstein translation was done in 1950-1953 (there were revisions after the Brandeis cncert performance), and it is cautious. However, it conveys all the points of Brecht's text, and more importantly, it sings well and it's funny, something that a lot of the new versions lose in favor of what is considered Brecht's "grittiness." If you onlky know the Blitzstein from the 1954 cast recording, the text is watered down further because if nsistence from the MGM recording executives at the time; Blitzstein was under survey by the HUAC, and Brecht was a known communist: we're lucky there was a recording at all.

The production featured Lotte Lenya from the original, and I suspect that she had a lot of input on what the 1928 production was like. The original Berlin production wasn't directed by Brecht and a lot of the text was Elizabeth Hauptmann's translation of the 1728 BEGGAR'S OPERA. Brecht didn't credit her nor his plagiarism of Villon ballades for a couple of song texts. It was only later, I believe, that Brecht really became interested in this cash cow. He may have been a communist, but he was smart enough to keep his wealthy in Swiss banks.

Now, to Brecht's text: the script as it stands today is not what played in 1928; since then, Brecht constantly tinkered with the text - without Weill's input - and there were two (three?) published revisions before the final official publication.

I believe there is always room for a new translation, whether it's HEDDA GABLER or Homer's ODYSSEY. That doesn't mean one considered no longer up-to-date isn't worthwhile and valid on its own terms. Usually by the time something's up-to-date, it's already dated.
Updated On: 3/29/06 at 08:35 AM

[leefowler]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 8:58am

I love the Blitzstein translation. He was an experieneced lyricist, and knew how to write the lyrica so that they were comprehensible,moving, and funny. He wrote "The Cradle Will Rock", "Juno", and the excellent operatic version of The Little Foxes, "Regina". When people complain here about not being able to understand what people are singing in this production, I think it's because Shawn's translation is so lead-footed and prosaic. I'm not familiar with the original German lyrics, so it's possible that Shawn's translation, on a word to word basis, is closer to these original lyrics. But he simply doesn't know how to write a lyric. They scan poorly, and are hard to sing. I'd be interested to know from someone who really knows the German original how much here is by Shawn annd how much by Brecht.

The fact that Shawn has the freedom to use scatological language scarcely makes his lyrics better than Blitzstein's.

One of the few pleasures of this production is hearing Weill's original orchestrations (Quite well played, by the way.) But Scott Elliott had no choice, the Kurt Weill foundation demands this. I have feeling that if he had the choice, he would have the score played by a rock band, or something. It's a shame there's no foundation to protect Brecht's work.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 9:24am

I saw a dreadful production of Three Penny Opera at the Jean Cocteau Rep a couple years ago and escaped at intermission.

It wasn't really the actors, but the underlying material that sent me out the door. Gag.

I had greatly looked forward to seeing the piece, as it literally made Brecht's career and I like the song "Mack the Knife."

smore2's quote

"The harpsichord looked like a beautiful rare antique. When the gang set to it with a saw and a hammer, there were gasps in the audience. The point of the moment - the disdain and total unconcern of the underclass to private property was made painfully clear and potent in an instant."

regarding the Berliner Ensemble's interpretation actually gives me more interest in seeing it again in that different style of performance. I'm not a big Brecht fan, though I found his early Nazi era paranoia-laced drama, The Jewish Wife, excellent. I think his work would be much better presented in a political interpretation.

Assuming that he grew up in post-WWI defeated Germany, it seems like Brecht internalized some of the wretchedness of life at the time and it fueled his antagonism toward politics, societal justice and structures (Good Woman of Seczhuan), and war (Mother Courage).

I suppose like the Brazilian director Boal of the Theatre of the Oppressed, who does excercises with actors in which they will take turns playing the aggressor and victim, Brecht wanted the public to be more socially aware to prevent political disasters and recognize human behavior to be able to stand up and oppose it. A noble ambition.

I just find the absence of love and spirituality in Brecht's works tough to endure, for these things also exist in life, and help get you through it. It is not all pap. They do exist, you can't write them off.

That's why I go more for a playwright like Eugene O'Neill, who while giving you a devastating view of family members who have acted horribly to each other and who have feet of human clay in their own weaknesses in A Long Day's Journey Into Night, lets you feel also the complex duality of the undeniable love that also exists between them.
Updated On: 3/29/06 at 09:24 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 10:10am

Yeah, well, I graduated culinary school with Brecht's grandson.

The Cocteau production a few years back had a ragtag quality that was appropriate, was unamplified, and stuck to Blitzstein. It let the work speak of itself without apology or need to "improve" or "make relevant to today."

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 10:59am

"If you onlky know the Blitzstein from the 1954 cast recording, the text is watered down further because if nsistence from the MGM recording executives at the time"

Actually, I performed it. And I read the original text and lyrics in German. Yes, Brecht tinkered and rearranged the script and placement of the songs (often under the insistence of Lotte), but did not actually soften the show as he originally wrote it. The popular Blitzstein version treats the material with kid gloves. Yes, it hits on the major themes of capitalism, politics and social mores, but does so with a very light and at times, fluffy touch. The vulgarity of the show was part of Brecht's style and its text and lyrics were quite the shocker in its day. I doubt anyone would find anything shocking in the lyrics or dialogue of the Blitzstein version in any production after maybe 1967. It could be staged in a more gritty way than in 1954, but without altering the text, it is quite tame. In my opinion, it is milquetoast when compared to most other versions of the text. But in the 50s in the US, I'm sure it was somewhat daring in the realm of musical theatre.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 11:04am

I haven't seen this show but the comments in this thread are interesting in terms of expectations and understanding of what a show is intended to be versus what YOU think it should be.

The trend I have seen over the past few years in theater goes along with the attempt to 'commercialize' or popularize theater to attract another audience segment (young people and people who will come to the show because they recognize a name from TV or movies, etc.)

But this trend also stands on its own as a symbol of how theater audiences have changed in general.

First, many people buy a ticket without knowing whether they will like the material (and at $100 and over per ticket this amazes me). I was standing outside a theater a few weeks ago and heard someone ask if anyone knew what 'Three Days of Rain' was about and then say they just bought the ticket because Julia Roberts was in it. So, there goes another potentially disgruntled audience member. For all they know, this play might be offensive to them, or too long for them to sit, or about a subject that they find boring...or...in a foreign language. They didn't care.

Secondly, as far as expectations, many people today seem to have an idea in their head of what a production SHOULD be and if it is not, they aren't willing to accept the director's vision or the playwright's work. I think we all grow by exposure to new, experimental and different perspectives on things but if a musical MOVIE is not like 'Moulin Rouge' or 'Chicago', people don't want to even TRY to see what the director or creative team had in mind or accept that 'different' can be GOOD too. In the space of a month, I have heard criticism about a show that was revived and changed slightly ("it wasn't exactly the same as the original") and criticism about a revival play that WAS exactly the same as the original ("they didn't change anything...it was exactly the same. I wanted something different"). Sigh.

Lastly, as a young theatergoer, I remember wanting to see lots of different things and being excited about new perspectives. Even if I walked out of the theater hating the production it made me think about art and theater and what makes it good or bad. Sometimes, I think we are so self-involved these days that we can't allow ourselves to reach out and consider another point of view.

Again, I have not seen this production of Threepenny, so I am not commenting on this show or on the people who like or dislike it in this thread. Merely making an observation about how audiences have changed and the expectations of audiences today.

Five years ago many producers thought that they would be safer going with revivals because the new productions seemed to open and close so fast. NOW, you can't even be safe with a revival.

Methinks if they mounted "As You Like It" today, someone would say "Geez, I wish they'd speak English. I couldn't understand a freakin' word they said" :)

[elmore3003]

Posted: 3/29/06 at 2:22pm

MisterMatt wrote:
"Actually, I performed it. And I read the original text and lyrics in German. Yes, Brecht tinkered and rearranged the script and placement of the songs (often under the insistence of Lotte), but did not actually soften the show as he originally wrote it. The popular Blitzstein version treats the material with kid gloves. Yes, it hits on the major themes of capitalism, politics and social mores, but does so with a very light and at times, fluffy touch. The vulgarity of the show was part of Brecht's style and its text and lyrics were quite the shocker in its day. I doubt anyone would find anything shocking in the lyrics or dialogue of the Blitzstein version in any production after maybe 1967. It could be staged in a more gritty way than in 1954, but without altering the text, it is quite tame. In my opinion, it is milquetoast when compared to most other versions of the text. But in the 50s in the US, I'm sure it was somewhat daring in the realm of musical theatre."

My suspicion is that you read the final Brecht text as it exists in the final German edition of his works and not the libretto published by Universal Edition in 1928 for German performances. This text is now published in the full score to the new Kurt Weill Edition.

I don't knock the Blitzstein edition for being soft, I praise it for its musicality and wit. I enjoyed Michael Feingold's translation 10 years ago, but I still don't believe it or the Mannheim-Willett 1976 text sings as well as Blitzstein. Often, Marc's lyrics reach the same point without adhering closely to the German, and that's one advantage of "adaptation" over "translation." Sometimes, I feel he should have taken another shot. I suspect, though, that his adaptation plays more closely to the 1928 Berlin production than Brecht's later texts. In 1931, when Weill published "Lucy's Aria," he said the song was never scored because in rehearsal the scene proved to be superfluous and Kate Kuhl as Lucy wasn't up to it. We know that Act Three Scene Two wasn't in the original production, but it's been in the Feingold version with Sting and this new one. Clearly Brecht later decided that his text wasn't superfluous, although his text doesn't include the aria in the scene. I also doubt that Brecht did any tinkering after 1928 with Lenya's insistence, since she and Weill both felt screwed in the royalty agreement.

The point is, we're talking apples and oranges. Alexander Pope's 17th Century translation of the Aeneid may be less faithful than a contemporary blank verse edition, but his language, archaic and rhyming it may be, is beautiful. I can enjoy both.

[Fairies]

Posted: 4/7/06 at 2:54am

I think the mixed reactions to Three Penny are easily expained. I saw the show tonight and although I am not very familiar with this piece - I am a very well trained and studied theatre professional. The real problem with this production is clarity of story. I and the 3 friends I brought (an actor, director & cinematographer) did not understand 75% of what was happening. This has to do with bad lyric translation - operative words being "shoved" in to musical phrases and so forth, less than professional performances - lack of training or experience resulting in bad diction and projection, and muddy direction - about 1000 light cues and bits of staging more than Brecht would ever approve of. I didn't hate the show - actually it grew on me as it progressed - but my artistically savvy and intelligent guests were bored to tears. To me, that means the story wasn't told.