Threaded Order Chronological Order
| IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: Jax 03:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| We are in a very difficult time, obviously. One in which statues of Confederate soldiers are now considered offensive. Does a big Broadway show which closes Act One with a plantation number seem horribly dated? To me. the answer seems yes. Other opinions? | |
| reply to this message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Last Edit: whereismikeyfl 08:44 am EDT 08/19/17 | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 08:41 am EDT 08/19/17 | |
| In reply to: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Jax 03:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Mame has been close to unproduceable for some time now. The attitudes about class and wealth are less appealing than they were when the play was originally produced. A "free spirited" upper class woman just does not get the same sympathy she would have gotten at the time the work was written. Today she plays more entitled, irresponsible, and condescending--even after the transformation Patrick brings. And given the skeletal nature of musical theater books, there is little room to work against that. It is possible that some imaginative director will find some other way into the material that can make it more appealing to today's audience. But social change has made this one a hard sell with mass audiences. That has nothing to do with the quality of the material itself. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: winters 11:57 am EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Jax 03:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Sure it can be revived.....with the President playing Mother Burnside! Life imitating art. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: MikeR 12:42 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - winters 11:57 am EDT 08/18/17 | |
|
|
|
| Jeff Sessions and Kellyanne Conway as Mr. and Mrs. Upson. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 01:34 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - MikeR 12:42 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
|
|
|
| I can just picture Sessions repeatedly addressing Mame as Mamie, oblivious to her corrections. How about Sarah Huckabee Sanders as Agnes Gooch? Betsy Devos as Sally Cato? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| LOL | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 12:12 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - winters 11:57 am EDT 08/18/17 | |
|
|
|
| Just needs a slightly different outfit... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: BHandshy 05:22 am EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Jax 03:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Are you serious? If MAME is now "unproducable" [sic] due to recent events, I give up. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 01:20 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - BHandshy 05:22 am EDT 08/18/17 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think it has anything to do with recent events. And it's not literally unproduceable - just that as others have noted, no one has seemingly had much interest in the property for a long while. And I personally feel that could be because the show itself doesn't seem to have aged well, despite the marvelous score. Regional and community theatres still do it, I'm sure schools still do it - but a Broadway revival? Eh... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 08:45 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Jax 03:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| horribly dated???? The show's over 50 years old, - it is dated | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 06:50 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 06:47 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Jax 03:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| One in which statues of Confederate soldiers are now considered offensive. Anti-racists consider them offensive because most of them were errected in the 1920's during a revival of the KKK and their program of murderous violence toward black Southerners but the President's nazi supporters think they are a part their "heritage" and the President himself considers them "beautiful". I'm tickled that this was someone's takeaway dilemma from Charlottesville. Bless ATC! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| How about "Prettybelle" instead? | |
| Posted by: Delvino 11:15 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - singleticket 06:47 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Sorry. It seemed too ironic. And Angela did both. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:26 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - singleticket 06:47 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| I would add to this the possibility that the statues are viewed as Oppressive, rather than Offensive. But, yes, a big happy production number about how Southerners yearn for plantation life is certainly not as innocent now as it was when written. I don't think it disqualifies the show from production per se, buy it does present a directorial challenge. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - What your theater season should be | |
| Posted by: summertheater 11:08 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Singapore/Fling 07:26 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Your theater season should be: Mame, Corpus Christi and Burning (by Thomas Bradshaw). All have their critics (Mame for reasons mentioned here, Corpus Christi as Catholics found it highly offensive when it was shown at Manhattan Theater Club, and Burning as it contained extended full nudity and multiple graphic simulated sex scenes at The New Group/Acorn Theater). You should call your theater season "Freedom of speech". When we start to censor, our right to show any of these 3 shows can be taken away. Censorship is never the answer, but education, dialogue and free speech should be instead. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - What your theater season should be | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 04:14 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - What your theater season should be - summertheater 11:08 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| "You should call your theater season 'Freedom of speech.' When we start to censor, our right to show any of these 3 shows can be taken away. Censorship is never the answer, but education, dialogue and free speech should be instead." To clarify, curtailment of freedom of speech in the usual context does not apply here -- at least, not yet! -- as it has to do with government censorship. It does not apply to theater companies or producers deciding on their own not to produce a particular show because they fear some of their audience might find certain elements of it dicey or offensive, even if you or I disagree with their decision. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - What your theater season should be | |
| Posted by: bearcat 02:34 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - What your theater season should be - summertheater 11:08 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| as a Catholic, I found Corpus a bit "offensive": (portrayal of Virgin Mary...) but I am glad I saw it. If only with the play were better and cohered better; there were some stunning moments: the "possessed" scene, the "Our Father" but it seemed like McNalley rushed with the final script and lifted pages directly from the Gospels in Act II tho at some points, he expressed much sympathy, and personal insight into the story I am also intrigued by other artist's take on the story-I just see Corpus as a missed opportunity and really not that good to get repeatedly produced as time continues (remember the "apostle" who at the beginning said something like: I am not the best looking guy here, but I can land a joke better than anybody or something like that) that was great |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| with the right star it can be done! | |
| Posted by: Naughty_Rob 05:05 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Jax 03:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Those songs alone are simply great! If they can make "Dolly" red hot some genius can do it with "Mame" tooooo |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| No, it can't. Come on with that. | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 05:13 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: with the right star it can be done! - Naughty_Rob 05:05 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Nobody would even do that role right now. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| even with the right star it probably can't be done! | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 05:12 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:08 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: with the right star it can be done! - Naughty_Rob 05:05 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| "Those songs alone are simply great!" Yes - taking that statement at face value, very true. (Except for "The Fox Hunt.") But, as I say in my post below, that's exactly it. The songs alone are simply great. The book is lukewarm at most, and I really don't think it would hold up well any more. Luckily, the songs don't need the book to survive. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I wouldn't recommend auditioning with "Waitin' for the Robert E. Lee" these days either | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 05:19 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: even with the right star it probably can't be done! - Chromolume 05:08 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| though folks like Judy Garland and Al Jolson recorded or filmed musical numbers with it. Things are really shaking up. I feel very troubled and am somewhat unsure what is the right thing to do, what with some of these statues being taken down in a way, since aren't they considered art, someone's handicraft? It's not like a current president or dictator's statue is being taken down like Saddam Hussein, but these Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc. have been up for years as a marker of history. Histories are written down and their artifacts are studied and put in museums to remind people of what came before them, good and bad. I just think things are happening so fast -- who decides what is worthy of being taken away? Al Sharpton actually played into Trump's hands by saying (I hope he wasn't serious) that they shouldn't maintain the Jefferson Monument because he owned slaves. Yes, but he also wrote the Declaration of Independence (musicalized in "1776" to help keep on theater track). These things are all troubling. "Mame" will keep. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Disney | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 08:48 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: I wouldn't recommend auditioning with "Waitin' for the Robert E. Lee" these days either - PlayWiz 05:19 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| who decides what is worthy of being taken away? Disney, they want to rewrite history so everything in the past was all rainbows and butterflies |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Disney | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 08:59 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 08:58 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: Disney - Greg_M 08:48 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| If Disney wants to create stories that promote inclusion and diversity to their target (family) audience, then fair play to them. Sensible people are not looking to Disney for preservation of the historical record. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Disney | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 09:01 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Disney - MockingbirdGirl 08:58 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Kid's first impressions are formed by watching Disney. Disney has a responsibility not to alter history since little kids aren't old enough to be sensible | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Disney | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:23 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Disney - Greg_M 09:01 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Which historial alterations are you concerned about? (Not saying that they haven't done so, but nothing immediately springs to mind, unless we're talking about "Pocahontas", which presents a fairly rosy idea of how Native Americans reacted to the invasion of their land by foreigners.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Disney | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 09:04 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Disney - Greg_M 09:01 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| No, Disney has a responsibility to tell engaging stories (and please their shareholders). Kids don't need to see this yet: | |
| Link | Historically Accurate Disney Princess Song |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Disney | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:24 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Disney - MockingbirdGirl 09:04 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Eek. That voice is like nails on a bunch of blackboards all at once. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I wouldn't recommend auditioning with "Waitin' for the Robert E. Lee" these days either | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 05:28 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:28 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: I wouldn't recommend auditioning with "Waitin' for the Robert E. Lee" these days either - PlayWiz 05:19 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not going to get into the statue debate on here - not that I'm not tempted, but we should stick to theatre. As for Mame - it will keep, on mothballs...;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Were people rushing to produce MAME? (nm) | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 04:58 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Jax 03:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| With huge success of dolly | |
| Posted by: dramedy 06:15 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: Were people rushing to produce MAME? (nm) - MockingbirdGirl 04:58 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if there is interest in herman's other works. Ivs never seen milk and honey. I like the score of mack and mabel but the ending has alsways plagued the show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: With huge success of dolly | |
| Posted by: Ann 06:34 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: With huge success of dolly - dramedy 06:15 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Without a star like Midler, though, would any of them work like Dolly (did with a star like Midler)? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: With huge success of dolly | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 07:17 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: With huge success of dolly - Ann 06:34 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Dolly has a sturdy book that still works and Midler is a great star who is right for the part. Unfortunately Mame's book pales next to both the original Auntie Mame and the Comden-Green screenplay -- even with the right star I can't see it taking in $2 million plus a week like Dolly has been doing to be successful on Broadway. Milk and Honey has a beautiful score but the book is plodding, incredibly dated, and "of its time". I'd love to see it at Encores though. Maybe with the enormous success of the Dolly revival, Herman will drop his objection to an Encores production. Although I doubt it will happen, I'd love to see a revival of Mack and Mabel with a big star like Hugh Jackman, paired with maybe Annaleigh Ashford, and going back to the original libretto with the unhappy but realistic ending. The score is easily one of Herman's best. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| They should take the screenplay to "Aunite Mame" and add the best songs from the musical "Mame"and throw out the bad ones | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 08:51 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: With huge success of dolly - BroadwayTonyJ 07:17 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| and get a big enough star with some class (Whatever happened to class?) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: With huge success of dolly | |
| Posted by: wisebear 08:45 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: With huge success of dolly - BroadwayTonyJ 07:17 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| If Encores did Milk and Honey (which I love) the perfect Clara Weiss is Bette Midler. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: With huge success of dolly | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 09:47 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: With huge success of dolly - wisebear 08:45 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Midler sounds good to me. How about Paulo Szot as Phil? Any ideas for Ruth? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: With huge success of dolly | |
| Posted by: wisebear 09:08 am EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: re: With huge success of dolly - BroadwayTonyJ 09:47 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Szot is my choice, also. And I want to hear Kate Baldwin as Ruth. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Were people rushing to produce MAME? (nm) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:06 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: Were people rushing to produce MAME? (nm) - MockingbirdGirl 04:58 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| On this board, there are always a few, lol... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Who will play "Mame" this week threads seem to have died down in the last few months | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 09:02 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Were people rushing to produce MAME? (nm) - Chromolume 05:06 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Thank God! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Who will play "Mame" this week threads seem to have died down in the last few months | |
| Posted by: kess0078 01:16 am EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: Who will play "Mame" this week threads seem to have died down in the last few months - Greg_M 09:02 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Well, rather than start a new thread.... ;) I'll just say here that a friend recently suggested Jane Lynch, and I thought that was a fabulous idea. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 04:23 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Jax 03:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| I personally have felt that MAME has been essentially unproduceable for some years now, long before Charlottesville, for the very reason you state. Even though OBVIOUSLY the show does not offer a positive view of the Confederacy, the humor of that entire sequence revolves around Southerners who are clinging to the ideology of the Confederacy. And I'm not sure that many people can view any of that as funny anymore, not even in a very spoofing sort of way. I also feel that, unfortunately, the show is hopelessly dated in the humor it derives, or attempts to derive, from the situation of an unwed mother abandoned by the man who made her pregnant, but I know a lot of people disagree with me on that point. Just my opinion. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 05:05 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:02 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Michael_Portantiere 04:23 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Michael - I agree with you in general. To be honest, I didn't know Mame well until I was out of college and doing some rehearsal accompaniment work for a local production. This would have been in the late 1980's. I knew the big songs, of course, but not the book at all. I was completely underwhelmed. I found a lot of the humor more "precious" than actually funny, and was wondering even back then if the Peckerwood scene really worked anymore. (Let alone with that awful Fox Hunt song, one of Herman's very unsuccessful attempts at a counterpoint number.) The genuine humor in songs like "Bosom Buddles" shines without the tepid book along with it. And though I do hear what you're saying about Gooch's situation, I do think "Gooch's Song" is deservedly funny. But those songs (and the other wonderful songs in the score) can and do live on without productions of the show. Even though Dolly was written earlier, somehow Mame feels much more old-fashioned to me - and not in a good way. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 05:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Chromolume 05:02 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| They can re-write "Mame" like the film (and presumably the original play) where Agnes' date for the evening does come back to her and claims her as his wife. Peckerwood could be solved --- hmm, as played by the cast of "Naked Boys Singing"? Seriously, things are really severely unusual in our country's history right now and tempers are flaring. "Mame" hasn't the strongest book of a musical, and Lord knows some playwright will convince a producer in the future that the book needs revisions. They've been screwing up "Pal Joey" and shows with stronger books for years. These issues will come up if someone want to produce "Mame" in the future. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:17 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - PlayWiz 05:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| "They can re-write 'Mame' like the film (and presumably the original play) where Agnes' date for the evening does come back to her and claims her as his wife." I believe that section of the script was rewritten somewhat for the movie, by Comden and Green, to make it more palatable for the censors :-) Anyway, even if they made that rewrite for the musical, there would still be that long period, as in the movie, where the very visibly pregnant Gooch thinks she is unwed and abandoned -- and all of that's supposed to be REALLY funny. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I guess the Carol Burnett Show "Went With The Wind" sketch is out too? | |
| Posted by: NoPeopleLike 04:50 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Michael_Portantiere 04:23 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| N/M | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 04:05 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Jax 03:27 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Well - they produced ANASTASIA, even though after the cartoon came out we learned that Anastasia was indeed killed with rest of her family. So the whole girl power story is now more or less in bad taste, since there is not a chance that she survived ... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Anastasia | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 04:22 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - NewtonUK 04:05 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| The DNA testing of Anna Anderson's hair and tissue was done years prior to the release of the '97 animated film. I'm sure that both the film and Broadway musical are intended to be viewed as fairy tales. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Anastasia | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 04:38 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: Anastasia - BroadwayTonyJ 04:22 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| I was assuming the Anastasia comparison to Mame was a joke. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:18 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - NewtonUK 04:05 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| I was actually thinking yesterday - I wonder if the "Oh, Stonewall Jackson" lyric in Hello Dolly is still being sung? It's pretty much a throwaway line, but still... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: summertheater 04:21 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - Chromolume 04:18 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| But where does it stop, if we pick and choose what we censor? Do we shut down the Michael Moore show (which would be wrong) because some are offended by it? Let the Michael Moore show go on. Let Mame go on. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Censorship is bad | |
| Posted by: Greg_M 08:56 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - summertheater 04:21 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| you have to learn from the past and you can't do that is you alter it, that's why old plays are still worth producing | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Censorship is bad | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:29 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: Censorship is bad - Greg_M 08:56 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Mame is not a play one learns from. That's really preposterous. We must study our history, warts, cancers and all, and the theatre can and should and does play an essential part in that, but that does not mean we have to glorify the ugly aspects by making them seem swell. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Censorship is bad | |
| Posted by: summertheater 10:43 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Censorship is bad - ryhog 10:29 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Should Manhattan Theater Club have had the right to show Corpus Christi in the 1990s even though it highly offended Catholics (and audience members had to pass through metal detectors)? Or should we have censored that as well ? To Catholics, it was a "wart", "a cancer" and highly offensive. It's literally frightening that anyone would think to censor any of these: Mame, the Michael Moore show, and Corpus Christi. Each of these shows offend certain people. But censorship is exactly what "1984 on Broadway" warned about. Once you start to censor any of these shows (no matter how reprehensible they may be to some), we slowly lose our free speech as Americans. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Censorship is bad | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:18 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Censorship is bad - summertheater 10:43 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| I am not in favor of censoring anything. And I don't think most folks here are talking about censorship. Censorship is what a government does, not what individuals do. Every theatre company selects what to present and what not to. That's what I refer to. I am in favor of not patronizing things that glorify what I believe is not worthy, and even protesting against them. I support the rights of (those) Catholics who protested Corpus Christi, and of course they are not obliged to go see what offends them. When we talk about what cannot be produced, we are making an assessment of whether people would go see it, whether others would protest against it and whether a theatre wants to spend its resources on something hideous. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Censorship is bad | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 11:21 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:16 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Censorship is bad - summertheater 10:43 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Those three examples all speak to very different issues, and nothing links them aside from the fact that certain people may be offended by them. That's a broad category, one into which we could fit any number of unrelated things, and one which doesn't serve us in this current discussion. My opposition to monuments to the Confederacy is not that they are offensive, it is that they are oppressive. So if we are going to draw a line from Charlottesville to "Mame", I'd argue that the best line to draw is how the effects of slavery have warped our society, our culture, and our humanity. The Peckerwoods are warped by their devotion to an idealized version of the past in which they held control over other human beings, the same as the people who were marching in Charlottesville have been warped by their devotion to white supremacy. In its way, that devotion is something that the musical skewers. If anything, the events in Charlottesville make me *more* interested in seeing a revival of "Mame", but only if the production finds a way to put even more pressure on the Peckerwoods and their backwards belief system, which relies upon the oppression of fellow human beings. You mention the metal detectors at "Corpus Christi", but not their reason for existence: the theater had received threats of violence because it posed a threat to christian teaching and ideology, and because it elevated homosexuals to the realm of the saintly. Those who wished to silence the play were those who wished to oppress homosexuals, and their violent rhetoric was not far removed from the violent rhetoric of white supremacists, including those who marched in Charlottesville. When ryhog wrote of warts and cancers, he was writing of the institution of slavery. If we're going to advocate for free speech and the commemoration of our history, I think we also must use that speech to acknowledge that ours is a history of oppression, and that the tools of oppression that were used in the past are also used in the present. It is a wart and cancer that carries a moral weight with it, a weight that White America must grapple with, in terms of the stories we tell and the ways that we influence our society. Part of the moral weight, as I see it, is not to make false equivalencies and otherwise diminish the gravity of the wrong that was done and continues to be done to non-white people in America. While you frame this as a story of people being offended, I encourage you to consider it instead as a story of people being oppressed, and to ask yourself: should we as a society oppress or elevate people of color and other outsiders? How are the stories that we tell as a culture part of that work? And i would also kindly remind you that no one has actually spoken of censoring "Mame". A poster who seems to share your values and point of view raised this as a hypothetical. That poster is the person who thought of censoring "Mame" by imagining others doing it, but no one (to my awareness) has actually proposed that we do so. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Censorship is bad | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:19 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: Censorship is bad - Greg_M 08:56 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Part of learning from the past is changing our civic behavior and adjusting our society so that it is less oppressive. Nothing that we are seeing in the removal of these statues is an alteration of our history - it's an alteration of our present. To many of us, the removal of these statues is an example of how we are learning from the past, and how we are making strides to break down systems of racism. As had been noted elsewhere on this thread, many of these statues are not benign markers of the past; they were erected, well after the war, as a way of reminding people of color of this country's history of oppressing them, so that they would stay oppressed. Removing those statues is a small step towards liberation. The removal of these statues isn't censorship, which would suggest that the government or some other authority is silencing critical or dangerous viewpoints. The removal of these statues is happening in response to a citizenry who has stated that they have learned from the past, as you request, and that they are ready to create new public spaces that don't demand that we revere oppressors who literally risked their lives in order to maintain the institution of slavery. The removal of these statues does not change the past. The people who advocate for the removal of these statues do not request that history books be re-written to show that the United States peacefully ended slavery in the 1860s. Many of those who advocate for the removal of these statues do so with the belief that the history must still be taught, so that we don't forget the genocide and oppression that our country was built upon. This country was built upon slavery, and this country has always been morally compromised by it. Removing these monuments to slavery does not in any way alter those facts. "Hamilton" hasn't been re-written to remove the slavery rap battle. "Molasses and Rum" hasn't been excised from "1776". These great works of art still stand, and they still carry a powerful criticism of our horrific past. Let us celebrate the lesson we have learned, rather than celebrating the sins that are ancestors committed. And let's say that race-based oppression does belong to the past, rather than the present. And let's start that conversation by doing the simples thing possible: removing the tools of those oppression from our public space, so that we may build something better from our blood-stained legacy. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Censorship is bad | |
| Posted by: joerialto 03:45 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Censorship is bad - Singapore/Fling 09:19 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| If they could 'fix' 'Annie Get Your Gun' & make it palatable to Broadway audiences in the 1990s, they can figure out another way to do the title number of 'Mame' without glorifying the Confederacy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Censorship is bad | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:00 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Censorship is bad - joerialto 03:45 pm EDT 08/18/17 | |
|
|
|
| How did they "fix" Annie Get Your Gun? By starting with the truly over-obvious choice of taking the "Show Business" number and putting it at the top of the show, now halfway through Act I where the writers put it? (The writers were smart enough to AVOID the obvious choice. They were right.) And going "cliche slow" to start with, building the tempo as the number goes? Cheapened the show, IMO. (They did the same kind of thing with that revival of Kiss Me, Kate in the same season.) Simply taking out "I'm An Indian Too" and other judicious cuts might have been fine. The fact that they felt like they really had to re-invent the whole show certainly wasn't a "fix" by any means. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:43 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - summertheater 04:21 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| Is anyone stopping "Mame"? More importantly, is anyone asking for it to be produced? The flaw in Jax's question is that "Mame" has been essentially unproducable for the past few decades, in the sense that the last attempt to bring it to Broadway was around 2000. That production never happened, and I haven't heard of an attempt since. Interest in the show faded long before a young woman died on US soil fighting the Nazis |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCEABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? | |
| Posted by: davei2000 04:26 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
| In reply to: re: IS "MAME" NOW UNPRODUCABLE DUE TO CHARLOTTESVILLE? - summertheater 04:21 pm EDT 08/17/17 | |
|
|
|
| The Michael Moore show has already been produced. The question is whether there's any great push to produce Mame, which would have to precede any attempt to censor it... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.158785 seconds.