joevitus said: "I'm amused by the people who think they know the quality of a Sondheim song and whether it should be retainedbetter than Sondheim. He's all for cutting it. So one ballet will also be cut (not the song)? This is something to freak out about?
It's really still about one thing, as far as I can tell: the casting of Amar. Considering thekudosfor "making it relevant to a new generation" that the recent Oklahoma! revival got (which radically recreated its dream ballet to such an extent that one can say the "LaureyMakes Up her Mind" ballet was cut), and My Fair Lady got for literally changing the ending to the show, there's just no way this production would have received somuch nay-saying--sight unseen--as it currently has. On this board, anyway."
But the thing with the Oklahoma and My Fair Lady revivals is that they were able to make those shows "relevant" without changing a word of the script. They didn't cut songs, they didn't change lines, and they got a good reception. To cut two of the most iconic songs (to the point where they were, at least in my case, the two songs from the show I'd heard in public that drew me to listen to the show in the first place) is a very clear case of changing the script. There are ways that Ivo van Hove could still give the show that "race against time" feel without cutting those two songs. Obviously, we all have to wait to see the show before we make any final judgments, but the first impressions aren't great, to say the least. If the show ends up being as disastrous as many on this board have predicted, it'll really be a shame - besides the casting of Amar and the gender disparities, this did have a lot of potential.
"I think that when a movie says it was 'based on a true story,' oh, it happened - just with uglier people." - Peanut Walker, Shucked