| Could we discuss that, "...about these Siamese twins..."? | |
| Posted by: | Delvino 06:12 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | re:Keep in mind ,,. - NewtonUK 05:02 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| "And it carries still the word of mouth problem ' I saw this great musical - its about these Siamese twins ...." about that point you've lost your sale..." This was on everyone's lips the first time around, the supposed (or de facto) "ick factor" about the subject. That conjoined twins make people uncomfortable. I'm not disagreeing her, just opening a discussion. What do we believe to be the source of the discomfort? May we be specific and graphic? Is it the thought of their (shared) sexuality? Of their biological functions in sync or lack thereof? Of the absence of privacy? It intrigues me, because I notice how readily we line up to see the deformed Phantom woo a girl. Or watch a woman expose her breasts to The Elephant Man. But two women with a mere piece of flesh between their hips puts people off their intermission cocktails? I will remind us: in the original production, the concept was entirely stylized. The two women appeared separately at the top of the show and "formed" in front of us. It was Longbottom's stark and stunning conceit to make the show somewhat meta, that this group of performers assembled on bleachers were going to take us into this world and tell the story with a marked degree of stylization. And they did, with the audience imagination supplying a great deal of the specifics. In this revisal, the suspension of disbelief is sought and maintained. Remarkably. And though I had already seen the production the Saturday before, I was startled watching the footage of the now infamous "opening night act ending." Unlike the original staging, the conjoined nature maintained solely by the actors and thus more controlled, Violet is almost dragged across the stage by Daisy in the tense, searing recitative material before the song proper. I was almost shocked at how vivid it seemed. And maybe for the first time -- the image of this woman pulling her sister with her, without negotiation, maybe inducing physical pain with the resistance -- I felt if not uncomfortable, fully aware of what the plight must've been like in moments when they disagreed. It is brilliantly theatrical, because it is done so simply, but harrowing emotionally. Blown up on the screen in Times Square, if not off-putting, certainly startling. That's the only word I can land on safely. Maybe for the first time I got -- if not the ick factor -- the true physical challenge, the sense of how sad and even tragic these lives had to have been. Maybe that is terrifying, a subtle reminder of the price paid for birth defects, deformity of any kind, who knows what issues come up? The show is gorgeous, heartbreaking, everything everyone has written. But in that one moment -- when Daisy started downstage right without Violet's tacit agreement, I was shaken for the first time. Great theater, but maybe still unnerving on Broadway. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Could we discuss that, "...about these Siamese twins..."? | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 09:03 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | Could we discuss that, "...about these Siamese twins..."? - Delvino 06:12 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| I would love to get some actual data on this, assuming something like that exists. Because as you point out, this is something people talked about a lot with the original production, and they're doing it again now. But I can't recall ever hearing a single person say "well, I was interested in seeing that show until I found out it was about conjoined twins." It's always--always--presented as a hypothetical. Is this an actual thing, or is just a theory that people made up to explain why the show hasn't caught on? | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Could we discuss that, "...about these Siamese twins..."? | |
| Posted by: | BruceinIthaca 12:45 am EST 11/25/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Could we discuss that, "...about these Siamese twins..."? - MikeR 09:03 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| Despite what I say below (or maybe in support of it--it's been a long, been a long, been a long, been a long day), I actually assume the conjoined twins aspect would attract more interest than deter it. Perhaps in a post-Lady Gaga "love your freaks" (or "little monsters") era/ | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Could we discuss that, "...about these Siamese twins..."? | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 07:48 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | Could we discuss that, "...about these Siamese twins..."? - Delvino 06:12 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| Count me as someone else who does not understand why the conjoined twins subject matter would be off-putting in itself, especially not to a public that eats up lots of entertainments that have a very high "ick factor" -- AMERICAN HORROR STORY being only one example. The only thing I can think of is that maybe, in their minds, some people draw the line between seeing icky stuff in a movie or on TV and seeing it in a Broadway musical. Do you think that's the difference? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| The "ick" factor isn't the real problem. | |
| Posted by: | keikekaze 07:36 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | Could we discuss that, "...about these Siamese twins..."? - Delvino 06:12 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| The book trouble with Side Show isn't so much that many people will find it icky (though many people will), as that many people will find it static. Being a pair of conjoined twins isn't a drama, it's a situation. And in Side Show, at least, it's a situation that doesn't go anywhere much. By contrast, a musical about the original so-called "Siamese twins," Chang and Eng Bunker, could get into their respective marriages and the fact that, between the two of them, with their wives, they produced 21 children. It could also get into the fact that they settled in the American antebellum South, bought a plantation, and became slaveholders. Now, there's a story, and a drama, or the beginnings of one. Side Show, however, is just another backstage soap opera that's going to end in the usual tears, only with an extra-unpleasant twist. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The "ick" factor isn't the real problem. | |
| Posted by: | BruceinIthaca 08:12 pm EST 11/24/14 |
| In reply to: | The "ick" factor isn't the real problem. - keikekaze 07:36 pm EST 11/24/14 |
|
| |
| There are a few novels about Chang and Eng--interesting ones (I have a friend who wrote her dissertation about their representation in American popular culture across time). In addition, Alice Dreger's "One of Us" (the reference to the movie "Freaks" is quite intentional) is a thoughtful piece of medical humanities/philosophical writing (and not filled with typical academic jargon, to which I plead guilty in some of my own writing--it's the price of admission, I fear). Katherine Dunn's novel, Geek Love, while not centrally about conjoined twins (it's about a family of "intentional freaks"--their parents do various things while their children are in utero to try to produce anomalously-bodied children who can be part of the "family business," i.e. a traveling freak show), features a really fascinating set of conjoined twins--Electra and Iphigenia. I do think there's still both a kind of fascinating with conjoined twins in our culture--remember, in as recent a period as the 19th century, in many cultures, conjoined twins were killed at birth, either because they were viewed as evil omens for the community or as manifestations of the sins of their parents (I don't think we are there anymore, but who knows?). I do think the issues of sexuality and privacy are there still--as Dreger argues, of the American ideal of "individuality" as the "right" of every citizen--until, of course, that individuality threatens the social order. I've only seen a college production of Side Show. It was well-performed and well-staged, but I found the plot rendered in somewhat soapy fashion and the music unmemorable. But that's case of individual taste. It may be that a revival has to latch into something in the zeitgeist (as I think Chicago did when it started its revival--we were in a more cynical place then than when it opened) or to have a performer people know they want to say (as in the succession of Hedwigs currently moving through the role--even Andrew Rannells, arguably the least well of them to the average non-Broadway baby, is known from Girls and The New Normal and perhaps from The Book of Mormon). Or it may be a perennial made fresh again by staging, concept, or casting. Side Show has some of this, but not names to carry it (with all due respect to the leading ladies, whom I gather are quite excellent). | |
| 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: 0.033881 seconds.