HOME ALL THAT CHAT ATC WEST COAST SHOPPIN' RUSH BOARD FAQS

LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH THREADED MODE

not logged in

Threaded Order | Chronological Order

New Side Show and old Side Show

Posted by: Ann 11:50 pm EST 11/17/14

The new version seems to be a good bit "cleaned up"/prettified/made more pleasant, less ugly, less gritty, more mainstream. And I'm not surprised - why relaunch on Broadway a show that didn't succeed before, unless you're going to try to make it more attractive to Broadway audiences?

The changes seem to be direct answers to questions or counters to complaints that were heard regarding the previous version.

I think there probably was a way to fix the problems in the previous version while still retaining the grittier aspect, resulting in a less mainstream version that worked dramatically. I think a lot theater folk would have preferred that version, but it probably wouldn't have sold on Broadway.

I like this version a lot, but I would have liked to have seen the other, too.

Just my opinion.


reply to this message |
re: New Side Show and old Side Show

Posted by: Delvino 07:24 am EST 11/18/14
In reply to: New Side Show and old Side Show - Ann 11:50 pm EST 11/17/14

I saw the original several times, 2nd acted it, and have to report: it was not grittier. It was far more stylized, it had a consistently darker vein in the production values (the actors wore black and white much of the time). But its darkness was not connected to verisimilitude. Longbottom's staging was more like CHICAGO, streamlined, with a theatrical shorthand, only a handful of period touches. The new production is in vivid color, but that color always highlights the side show and carny world with great specificity. The new staging is evocative in ways the original only suggested.

What was missing the first time: a strategy to tell the world this is a big Broadway musical, a backstage rags to riches to rags story, more GYPSY with a touch of CARNIVAL than anyone could tell from the dreadful artwork in the ad campaign.

The two productions are different, but emotionally rich, both, and vivid as well. If anything, the sexuality in, say, "Private Conversation" is far more explicit in the revival. As is the handling of Buddy, and even "One Plus One Equals Three" is more THE NANCE.

The difference is in how the show is framed for today's audience. The show has not been cleaned up.


reply to this message |
re: New Side Show and old Side Show

Posted by: Ann 07:48 am EST 11/18/14
In reply to: re: New Side Show and old Side Show - Delvino 07:24 am EST 11/18/14

It may be the production I saw, which was not the Broadway one.

The framing for today's audience, as you say (a perfect term, even if we view the results differently) seems to be a bit more bland to me, homogenized, a mainstreaming for the masses, less creepy one (there's a word I'm searching for, but may need more coffee). Side shows were creepy, and something that, even if you paid to go in, once you got there you really wanted to look away, and get away. I felt they were going for that more in the earlier production (Tunnel of Love creeped me out for sure!).


reply to this message | reply to first message
re: New Side Show and old Side Show

Posted by: manchurch03104 11:19 am EST 11/18/14
In reply to: re: New Side Show and old Side Show - Ann 07:48 am EST 11/18/14

Ann. have you seen this production, either in La Jolla, DC or on Broadway?


reply to this message | reply to first message
re: New Side Show and old Side Show

Posted by: Ann 11:26 am EST 11/18/14
In reply to: re: New Side Show and old Side Show - manchurch03104 11:19 am EST 11/18/14

Yes in DC.


reply to this message | reply to first message
re: New Side Show and old Side Show

Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:55 pm EST 11/17/14
In reply to: New Side Show and old Side Show - Ann 11:50 pm EST 11/17/14

"The new version seems to be a good bit 'cleaned up'/prettified/made more pleasant, less ugly, less gritty, more mainstream."

And yet, I'm hearing and reading that the deformities/oddities of the "freaks" are far more literal and explicit in this production, so that certainly doesn't sound less ugly, "cleaned up," etc. Makes me all the more curious to see the show later this week.


reply to this message | reply to first message
re: New Side Show and old Side Show

Posted by: Ann 11:57 pm EST 11/17/14
In reply to: re: New Side Show and old Side Show - Michael_Portantiere 11:55 pm EST 11/17/14

They are more literal, but obviously done through costumes. They are not ugly, to me.


reply to this message | reply to first message
re: New Side Show and old Side Show

Posted by: lowwriter 11:54 pm EST 11/17/14
In reply to: New Side Show and old Side Show - Ann 11:50 pm EST 11/17/14

Well I saw the original Broadway version. I only saw it once. I enjoyed several of the songs but I remember feeling the show felt underproduced. But now we see a lot of shows that don't have elaborate sets so it probably wouldn't feel that way now. It has been a long time but I didn't find it that gritty. Not like Cabaret, for instance.


reply to this message | reply to first message


All That Chat is intended for the discussion of theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)

Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.

[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]

Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]

Time to render: 0.045751 seconds.