Would anyone want to see a revival of Torch Song Trilogy?- Page 2

[junkyard]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 3:48pm

Nice to see a thread not dominated by 'musical theatre experts'. With some re-writes and some smart casting, I feel this play could be a welcome addition to the broadway scene. Like most revivals it would need a major 'above the title star' to succeed. I remember seeing the original production at the old Helen Hayes.....memorable evening.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 3:55pm

Not to belabor the point too much, but I was in the audience the night when Ethel Merman was there, with, I think, her son. The expression on her face told the whole story -- she absolutely hated it. When we went backstage to see Harvey, he asked me how Ethel looked and both my friend and I were at a loss for words. One of us finally came up with "old" and let the matter drop. I believe Ethel saw him later that night, either backstage or at Ted Hook's.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 3:56pm

What would need to be rewritten? If you're thinking of the back room scene, please remember that once the show was on Broadway, '82-'85, the war time of AIDS was in full swing.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 5:50pm

I'd love to see a modern play that works as a Torch Song for our time, as Newintown seems to be suggesting, but I don't think that means there's no reason to revive it. The play is somewhat forgotten now, as far as any big hit play of 30 years back that has a decent (if tamer and of course much abbreviated) movie version can be, and I think a new production could be a revelation. Or could be awful, depending...

But I'd be game for seeing it again. I do think it would be a better project to open as a limited run somewhere, than right on Broadway, or Off-Broadway as it originally opened anyway, but I suppose that's how most non musicals seem to work currently anyway.

I certainly don't think it should be re-written or any attempt made to update it in period or in sensibility--it just wouldn't work for me. Yeah it's trickky with plays (and musicals) that are contemporary at the time and in revival either have to be updated or done as period pieces, but as Company proves (to me, not to others I know), it usually works best, especially after 30-40 years have passed, to keep it to that era as long as you don't play up the period trappings too much.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 6:30pm

I would love to see it remounted, as long as they have a kick ass cast.

[BirdOnWing]

Posted: 11/30/11 at 6:44pm

I concur! Would love to see this happen!

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 11:46am

I don't know how it would play in New York, but I was in an a production about ten years ago in Pittsburgh and our problem was being unfavorably compared to the movie version.

Not with regards to the acting, but in the length. Most people who have never seen it onstage and are only familiar with the movie version don't take too kindly to a nearly four hour play.

(Did anyone see when Seth Rudetsky played it?)

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 11:54am

I don't know how it would play in New York, but I was in an a production about ten years ago in Pittsburgh and our problem was being unfavorably compared to the movie version.

The movie version was a watered-down mess. Such a huge disappointment.

It still bugs me that the vast majority of people who are even familiar with Torch Song Trilogy know it from the film.

If for no other reason, that's enough to warrant an attempt at a full-scale NY revival.

Updated On: 12/1/11 at 11:54 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 12:01pm

So true, best 12. Like I said earlier, it was vitally OF ITS TIME. If you didn't live then and see it then, it will be difficult to understand what that means - you may enjoy a revival, but to many of us who were a part of that time, it will appear to be a distorted and wan imitation of the overwhelming original.

I find the same dilemma at play in revivals of Company - it was so utterly contemporary and a vital part of the late-60s/early-70s urban world, it never makes much sense when mounted by people who can't (or won't) understand how we were a different world then.

Some works can be called "timeless" (although I don't think any art really is); but many plays and musicals are inseparably connected to their time and place of creation. And there's nothing wrong with that - what's objectionable is when people twist a piece of art to suit their own (limited) experience and knowledge.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 12:04pm

The "video" of the original production gives a good idea of what it was like to see it live back then. It's a really incredible production.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 12:05pm

Honestly, the best I think it will do is comparable to the recent Chorus Line revival, which is also a piece "of its time."

Older audiences will either love it to death or pick it apart, sequin by sequin.

Newer audiences will fall somewhere in the middle with a comprehensive appreciation of this "historical play."

Not that any of the above is a bad thing.

[rorschach37]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 12:16pm

"The "video" of the original production gives a good idea of what it was like to see it live back then. It's a really incredible production."

Jordan, what is this "video" you speak of?

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 12:20pm

When I did the show back in the late 80's, the director trimmed about an hour from it. But it was still a very long evening. Thrilling...but long. I remember being 15 years old and having my call time be something like 9:30. It was bizarre!

I still think what is vital in this play is the progression of a single man finding love (however atypical it is...even today) to seeing that love through to fruition with a family. And all the messiness that entails.

[morosco]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 12:26pm

Ah the original production of Torch Song. Happy memories. It's when I first fell in love with Estelle Getty. :)

[Tirso de Molina]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 1:46pm

I would love to see a revival of Torch Song, but I'd want to see it either back at the Helen Hayes or in a comparable off-Bway space - it's not a play that works well when the last row of the balcony is miles away from the stage.

I saw the original production as a college student back in (I think) January 1984, when Fierstein and Court Miller came back to the show for a short run(their bios were on inserts in the Playbill!). As other people have said, you'd need someone with Fierstein's outsized personality and theatrical energy to make it work today. I consider myself very lucky that I saw him do it live.

One reason I'd like to see it staged again in New York is that I'm another person who was disappointed by the film. The third play, "Widows and Children First", worked best on-screen because it's the most naturalistic onstage (though the film STILL unnecessarily opened it up for scenic variety; it works fine set entirely in Arnold's apartment). On the other hand, the first two-thirds of the evening are more theatrically imaginative, and film literalism didn't serve them well at all. The second play, Fugue in a Nursery, was especially inventive onstage, with all the characters in the giant raked bed, and replacing that with a real farmhouse on-screen ruined the effect.

(Parenthetically, I'm constantly startled to realize how long ago it was that I saw the original productions of plays now eligible for revival for entirely new generations. I hope I'm not the only one!)

Updated On: 12/1/11 at 01:46 PM

[Overkill]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 4:00pm

Such a huge fan of this show. I've been hoping for a revival for YEARS. I also have the "video" and it's so much fun to watch. I gave a copy to Fierstein himself, and he was so appreciative. He said he watched some of it, but that it was "...scary to watch myself knowing how I was then."

Did anyone else see Seth Rudetsky as Arnold at The Gallery Players back in '06? A lot of people weren't impressed, but I thought he was just great. Not for Broadway, but definitely a great Arnold for a regional/off-off-broadway theatre.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 9:31pm

I'm curious about this "video" as well. I assume it's not just one in the Lincoln Center archives...

Would getting a similar reaction to the Chorus Line revival be a bad thing? I know it got a mixed reaction--but I did recommend a number of semi-theatre literate friends my age or younger (so roughly 20somethings) to see it on tour, who had ZERO experience with the show before, and they all came back in love.

Newintown, you raise good points, although a part of me always bristles when people "who were there then" claim that people who didn't experience that time in person can never *really* understand or appreciate a play (or book, or movie, or whatever...) Sure, they invariably bring a different perspective to it, but I think if the production is good, nearly any important piece of work can still have impact on an intelligent audience.

But I think I kinda get what you're saying--certainly I think all attempts to bring Company into the modern era just make the piece feel much more dated and "off". Not that I think it should be a full on "hey weren't the seventies crazy" style nostalgia number by any means, but...

As for length--weren't the plays originally done seperately off Broadway--or over a few years? I was obsessed with the play as a teenager and read the history of it, but I admit I don't really remember. But I definitely agree that the movie (which, as far as being a fairly mainstream 80s "gay" movie isn't half bad) is a hopelessly watered down, in all respects, take on the play.

And for whoever said instead of a revival we should hope for new plays that make a similar impact--I always wonder why Fierstein hasn't done much else playwrighting wise. Is it because Torch Song was partially autobiographical and he doesn't havbe much else in him? I think his libretto work for musicals is merely so so (and largely based on existing material), though I admit I know nothing about his Broadway flop Safe Sex.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/1/11 at 9:42pm

SAFE SEX was a bit of a mess.

'Nuff said on that point, actually.

[Tirso de Molina]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 1:57am

Safe Sex was another collection of three one-act plays. The third one, On Tidy Endings, was a solid piece of writing; it was later filmed for cable (as Tidy Endings) with Fierstein and Stockard Channing. You can watch it on YouTube.

The other two plays, though, should never have been inflicted on a paying audience. Although I remember that Fierstein did have an effective monologue in the second play, even that couldn't save a scene performed with its two performers bouncing up and down on the opposite ends of a seesaw for the entire length of the piece. And the first play was worse.

[Tirso de Molina]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 1:57am

Safe Sex was another collection of three one-act plays. The third one, On Tidy Endings, was a solid piece of writing; it was later filmed for cable (as Tidy Endings) with Fierstein and Stockard Channing. You can watch it on YouTube.

The other two plays, though, should never have been inflicted on a paying audience. Although I remember that Fierstein did have an effective monologue in the second play, even that couldn't save a scene performed with its two performers bouncing up and down on the opposite ends of a seesaw for the entire length of the piece. And the first play was worse.

[Tirso de Molina]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 4:12am

First off, sorry for the double post above - I tried to click through a server error and ended up with two posts.

Second off, did anyone see Fierstein's Spookhouse (with Anne Meara, as memory serves!) or Forget Him? I've read Forget Him but not Spookhouse, and I didn't see either onstage. Of course, any memories of seeing the pre-Torch Song plays - Flatbush Tosca, Freaky Pussy, In Search of Cobra Jewels - would also be cool!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 9:36am

Torch Song Trilogy is one of my all-time favorite plays. I would love to see it revived. I think it is still extremely relevant.

The film was probably the first time I ever saw two men kiss, which, of course, was mesmerizing to a 15/16 yo just coming to terms with being gay. This was in the 90s, so with AIDS swirling around me in the news and amongst dating/hook-up fears, I found this play to be a break from all of that. I was thankful to have one play I could look to about standing up for being gay and looking towards building a family and a home that didn't consistently connect who I was to a plague. This is in no way disrespect for the canon of beautiful "AIDS plays". I just craved for another aspect of "my story". I hope that makes sense.

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 12/2/11 at 1:45pm

I remember reading somewhere that the deal for movie version was based on the film being no longer than two hours long.

I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing.