Who would be interested in "To Kill a Mockingbird" as a Broadway drama?- Page 2

[Weez]

Posted: 8/30/08 at 10:35am

There's nothing wrong with basing a musical or play on an existing property, but if you're taking it to the Broadway stage, you owe it to the audience to give them a new way to see it. Even 'Shrek' and the Disney properties, which are aimed at the kind of audience that doesn't mind Broadway turning into a theme park and WANTS to see the film live and onstage, add new songs, plot points, characters, etc.

I chuckle to think of Rupert Goold. He's done something extremely odd to Pirandello's 'Six Characters in Search of an Author' (no, really, it's EXTREMELY odd now) but still gets a West End stage to put it on. Every day I get a little more keen to see what he's doing to 'King Lear'. I'd offer to lend him to Broadway more, but you guys didn't even give him a Best Director Tony nomination! What is WRONG with you people? (Answer: "at least we aren't talking like we actually own a director", correct? I thought as much...) No matter how much I complain about the state of the West End musical, we do pretty damn well for plays. And that makes me happy. :3

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/30/08 at 11:06am

My big problem is that producers are now looking to the big box office smashes or classics to adapt for Broadway.

I don't mind adaptations, and most of the musicals on Broadway have been adapted from books, movies or plays.

But it's one thing to adapt a musical based on a little-known gem like "The Light in the Piazza." It's another to grab whatever sold the most tickets in the past ten years, or whatever is hot on the DVD rack, and just add a few songs and watch the cash roll in. THAT's what I hate.

These producers aren't looking for good source material. They're looking for familiar/recognizable source material, so they don't have to actually do their jobs by making it GOOD and SELLING it to audiences. People already know what it is... like the back of their hand, sadly.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 8/30/08 at 5:37pm

I know the story fairly well. I've never seen it on Broadway since it never has been shown there, right? I'm afraid you still missed the part about some not being able to read well. Some read but still don't understand. For me, it's the drama and great roles that actually mean something. It was well written, so it is well read. I still would like to see it performed on a stage.

I like some revivals because I was too young to see them on Broadway in the past and only saw them in a Movie form. If it wasn't for Movies, I would never have seen wonders like Judy Garland and Ethel Merman sing and perform. So many others I love and would have paid to see them live when I could. Many revivals I find tedious but that is just my taste. How can I argue the fact that those Disney Shows are making a bundle, even those that aren't very well written for the stage? I love to see some Babar the Elephant or Madeline shows but I'm still waiting for those shows unfortunately. I loved those stories as a child and read everything these two authors ever wrote. Instead, we get Shrek but a lot of people like that so let them have their day.

New stuff is being performed all of the time. Check out the Fringe Festival. Old and new. A great mix of things. More of what most of us haven't read yet? Some of it hasn't been read because it wasn't too good or very interesting. I agree that the Movie, TKAM held back a lot. It's been a long time since I saw it. More the reason why this material should be better explored and performed.

Again, I agree, we need more variety but isn't the real problem that too many shows just seem to go on and on for years and years? It wouldn't be such a bore if we had more venues though too, right? The fact that so many older Theaters are falling to dust or are being torn down retards the process as well? I couldn't believe how many Theatres in LA that were just relics, rotting on the street. One was even turned into a Church, yikes! How ironic is that? Same can be said for San Francisco. Television ruined live Theatre or was it live Theatre stopped giving us a good reason to spend that much money to see a live show? A little bit of both.

Sure, more material needs to be developed and brought up from off-Broadway. Many of what shows there though has a limited audience and just won't draw in a big enough crowd to fill up a large Theater. So Producers can't afford to lose that much money. I like books turned into shows. I prefer them to be closer to the original source though because the whole reason I want to see it performed is because the original writer did write an outstanding book that will benefit from a live performance because of its great content. Changing it too much will only annoy most people who do feel the book was well written in the first place. That's why we like it. I get bothered when other authors feel they can "improve" on someone else's material. If that is the case, write something original than. We enjoy the book because we feel the original author got it right the first time.

For me, it is how the material is presented and how well is it cast? Famous people are nice because you already know what they are able to do but that isn't as important as seeing that those cast in the parts are good representations of characters from the story.

Sure I want DVD's of good performances. I can't and won't go to NY all of the time. I mean, paying $500+ to see a show is kind of steep for me to do often. That is being pretty conservative too. It seems to have enough people living there as it is. If I didn't care about live Theater or appreciate the experience I wouldn't be interested in what others have to say here on this mssg. board. Great performance should be saved and shared with those who can't come to Broadway for everything. It honors those whose work is memorable and offers others source material to teach and learn from. I just don't see that as a bad thing.

I rather most of the time watch or listen to a great Broadway performance than most of what is available out on DVD these days. Instead I usually get whatever Hollywood will put out for us. Most of it is acted very well but the singing isn't always as great as I would expect from a real Broadway show. I don't want to sit in a Theatre day in and day out watching the same show. Some shows I will see more than once but that is very rare. Unless I am getting paid to do so. Going to the Theatre has its drawbacks too unless it is local. At home we can laugh, joke and sing along if the mood amuses us. Why can't I like both?

[Weez]

Posted: 8/30/08 at 5:56pm

But here's a thought... if producers are going to turn to existing movies, books, etc for source material ANYway, wouldn't you rather they went for something aces like 'To Kill A Mockingbird' rather than churning out 'Desperately Seeking Susan' and 'Gone With The Wind' and other such calamities? They're not always going to turn to a little-known gem and make it shine, but there's good well-known stuff they could work from, and there's... less good well-known stuff. If they're going for the well-known, they could at least pick something good. I doubt if they're going for obvious things that they're really thinking "I know how to make this better...", after all.

Oh damn, I remembered 'Gone With The Wind'. Excuse me while I cry. ;_;

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/30/08 at 6:50pm

"There are levels of pain and violence in that novel that the movie glosses over.'

You DO see the point, then, of having another chance to take on the book without
inviting cinematic comparisons to Gregory Peck's performance or Horton Foot's screnplay?

The film was released in the early 60's and just like "Guess Who is Coming to Dinner", the limitations placed on Hollywood to sanitize pictures did not permit certain issues to be dealt with and the language was censored.

As to your opinion that the movie pretty much sucked, that is almost the opposite opinion Harper Lee had of it and the AFI, who after polling thousands of people who had seen the film (as well as many others featuring a noble protagonist), declared Gregory Peck's Atticus Finch to be the most heroic character in the history of American film. Gregory Peck also took home the award for "Best Actor". I don't believe I've ever seen that happen to a film that was trivial or without merit.

Also, one poll of attorneys, produced the startling discovery that it was Peck's portrayal of Atticus, rather than the Atticus of the novel, that began a stampede of young men and women to law school.

Surprisingly, despite the Pulitzer it won, the book was hardly received with unanimous raves. The most-common criticism was Harper Lee attributing to Scout
a precociousness that was completely unrealistic.

And, most importantly, neither the book or the film, touches on the fact of the matter that at the end of the story, Atticus engagd in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, which, as I said, was not made clear in the book or the film, and if approached in the right way, would make Atticus an even more heroic character,