Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:15 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Chazwaza 02:13 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| As far as I know, it's all about the Goldman estate and rights issues. (As in, they won't allow it.) | |
| reply to this message |
| CORRECTION - re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 06:28 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Chromolume 02:15 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| My bad. When I saw the original post, I saw "Goldman" and instinctively went with that. But, what I had forgotten (and AlanG just emailed me to ask me about) is that it wasn't the Goldman estate, but the Collier estate that originally objected to any further adaptation. My apologies for that, and probably for a lot of other posters' subsequent Goldman-bashing responses, lol. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:18 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Chromolume 02:15 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| i have to say, I bloody hate the Goldman estate. From not allowing Primrose (god only knows why) to approving the worse version of the Follies book, to holding back the Papermill revival from Bway and allowing the Roundabout one... UGH. Someone talk some sense into those people. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: Maguire75 02:32 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Chazwaza 02:18 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| The Goldman estate is basically his widow, Bobby Goldman, of whom much has been written, most making her out to be the villain in all things dealing with FOLLIES. But from what I understand, both Sondheim and Goldman had reservations about the Paper Mill production, and Goldman (in a smart business move) instead opted to give the rights to a Broadway staging to The Roundabout with the understanding that they also agreed to produce a Broadway revival of THE LION IN WINTER. But since no production of FOLLIES seems to ever use the same script - and the most recent London revival uses much of the original book, I don't think anyone is honoring explicit instructions about the artistic legacy of Jim Goldman's work. I would equally be surprised if Goldman's widow is the sole reason why EVENING PRIMROSE hasn't been adapted to the stage. It's possible Sondheim also feels it was conceived as a television piece and wouldn't work in a different medium. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:52 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Maguire75 02:32 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| That may well be, re: Evening Primrose. I have no insider knowledge here, and I know Sondheim is not unknown for sticking to (what I'd call irrational or close-minded) views and opinions about his work in the past. But if I were him I would certainly want to make the piece even stronger and improve and expand. The movie is not especially cinematic, there's no reason conceptually that I can see why it would need to be kept as a movie. Also no one gets to see it or perform it that way. Also, he wrote The Frogs to be done in a pool, as a one act, by students... and then he adapted it into a pool-less full scale two act musical, based off work I don't think is any better or better suited to stage than Evening Primrose. But if his opinions clash with mine, they're his to have and act on. I just want to know if they are his opinions. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: NUPackrat 04:32 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Chazwaza 02:52 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| The executor of Goldman's literary estate has strongly negative opinions about Goldman's teleplay and doesn't want it to be distributed further, including as a stage adaptation. It's a shame for those of us who love the piece, but in the end it's their intellectual property and their call. As a different approach, I wrote to Sondheim in the early 2000s and asked him if he'd consider authorizing use of his songs from Primrose in a new stage adaptation of the original John Collier short story- Sondheim wrote back and was pretty cordial, but shot it down as he considers the songs inextricably intertwined with the teleplay. That was disappointing, but it's also how I first got to know and love John Collier stories, so for every cloud there's a silver lining, I suppose! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:42 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - NUPackrat 04:32 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| How interesting that he didn't feel the songs to The Frogs were inextricably intertwined with Burt Shevelove's script before allowing Nathan Lane to write an almost entirely new book. I am VERY curious if any famous or successful writers have approached Sondheim about doing a new version of Primrose and if he still held onto those feelings. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: NUPackrat 11:59 am EST 02/08/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Chazwaza 04:42 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Hat tip for the shade. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:05 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Chazwaza 04:42 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, but aside from Sondheim's statement about the songs of EVENING PRIMROSE being inextricably tied to the Goldman script, isn't it likely that he wouldn't want to anger the Goldman estate, i.e. his widow, by entertaining the idea of a stage adaptation with a new book by someone else? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:13 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Michael_Portantiere 05:05 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| It is, however Follies certainly seems to be the stage work of James' that gets produced the most now, opulence or not, so it wouldn't benefit Bobby's financial interests to limit or prevent the productions it might have. But sadly it is quite possible she will well outlive Sondheim and then it will be the two estates battling if she tries to f*ck with Follies, so it would be scary to me too if I were him. For what it's worth, I think Sondheim could have made a really interesting musical out of The Lion in Winter... perhaps a mix of Sweeney and ALNM. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Last Edit: JereNYC 02:24 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 02:23 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Chazwaza 02:18 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Is this "those people" or did James Goldman himself leave explicit instructions about how he wanted his work handled? I find it hard to believe that the heirs, whomever controls the estate now, wouldn't want to maximize every possible revenue stream in the portfolio, similar to the way the Gershwin heirs do. But, if decisions being made today are being made in accordance with explicit instructions left for the purpose by Goldman himself, then you can hardly fault "those people" for doing the job he entrusted them to do. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage?/ match it up with THE APPLE TREE? | |
| Posted by: bmc 02:56 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - JereNYC 02:23 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Broadway day dream; I've often thought it would be nice if they put together DIary of ADAM and Eve(From THE APPLE TREE), with Evenin Primrose(ACT TWO) and the then Messrs Sondehiem and Harnick could make act three out of the Hawthorne short story "Young Goodman Brown(It was considered for the APPLE TREE but I don't know if B&H ever wrote songs for it )but Act three with Harnick lyrics and Sondheim music might be fun(Tho that short story(one of the best) is hardly fun, terrifying maybe.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:49 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - JereNYC 02:23 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Eh - I can, and I'm fine with doing it. Goldman didn't write Evening Primrose alone, and if it's his wishes that are keeping it from being expanded or adapted I think that's incredibly selfish and misguided, and I don't think his heirs should have the right to keep the living co-writer, Sondheim, who wrote the stuff that is the reason it would be expanded or adapted, from sharing it with the world in a different medium. And I think legally it should be able to be done at least with an "inspired by the teleplay by" credit and a new book, so Goldman's work isn't the issue anymore. Also he died before or as the Papermill production was happening so I doubt it was his wish that it not transfer, but if it was either way the word I heard about it from inside sources was that Bobbi Goldman (perhaps speaking for James) was holding out for a production more focused on the book than the score (what sense does that make, if you do a musical you do both) - and she is why the Roundabout happened. But she also approved the revised script (apparently) which I think is a downgrade from Goldman's original... for which he won Best Book. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? | |
| Posted by: bmc 03:10 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Chazwaza 02:49 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Speaking of Estates, who controls the Dubose Heyward estate? I'll be going to a concert version of the opera, on the 17th.The ticket calls it THE GERSHWIN"S PORGY AND BESS. It will be in Ann Arbor's Hill Auditorium, where, a few years back, I saw Audra in Concert. She made a few genial jests re. Sondheim and Porgy, which the friends I'd taken to the concert didn't 'get'. I'm told the entire opera will be performed, not versions of the Cheryl Crawford version... Sorry for going off topic...(Just call me the closer.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... | |
| Last Edit: garyd 03:07 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| Posted by: garyd 03:05 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Has Sondheim discussed why he hasn't expanded EVENING PRIMROSE for stage? - Chazwaza 02:49 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| and she has said similar things elsewhere so I think this is fairly accurate regarding her halt to the Papermill transfer. | |
| Link | https://nypost.com/2001/04/13/the-follies-of-her-ways-musicals-dragon-lady-bares-show-to-its-bones/ |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 03:46 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:43 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... - garyd 03:05 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, this is my understanding of the situation too... except I wasn't aware that James Goldman contributed to the Papermill decision before he died. Having been through the conceiving and writing and producing of the original show, I can't imagine he would really think this show would be *better* being stripped down and with an "actor first" cast (yeah, because Treat Williams is so known for his incredible acting specifically), I have to wonder if, as has been suggested to me, that she got in his ear about a production that "makes the book the star". But alas I have heard from several insiders close to Sondheim that he legitimately, especially back then before there was a new acclaimed revival of his work every 1-4 years, that he is/was just happy that his shows were being revived - and I'm sure he knew what a risk Follies was to do on Broadway so I imagine he was happy just to see it happen - but that last line that he regrets Papermill didn't transfer is what I'd heard, and makes me sad. It was better than the Roundabout revival and the Kennedy Center bway transfer, and in my opinion it was better in many ways than the recent West End revival. I also think her financial excuse is nonsense, it's not her money at stake if they fund a lavish transfer of the Papermill production to Broadway, it just means less profit for her the fewer weeks it runs... but in a short non-profit run, what's the difference? And an acclaimed revival (because it was done right, lavishly) would only help because even if it might not make a profit on broadway it would invigorate interest in the show and get it produced more around the country/world. Also her logic about this singing is nonsense - does she think every character in every other musical is inherently a strong singer as part of the character background? You don't need to make sense of why someone's a good singer as a character to understand why they have to sing well to deliver the songs that *aren't really happening* in the musical. Yes in Follies several of the songs are songs that were performed in the Weissman Follies, but most of them are not, especially for the 4 main characters. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 04:34 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... - Chazwaza 03:43 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| "But alas I have heard from several insiders close to Sondheim that he legitimately, especially back then before there was a new acclaimed revival of his work every 1-4 years, that he is/was just happy that his shows were being revived - and I'm sure he knew what a risk Follies was to do on Broadway so I imagine he was happy just to see it happen - but that last line that he regrets Papermill didn't transfer is what I'd heard, and makes me sad. It was better than the Roundabout revival and the Kennedy Center bway transfer, and in my opinion it was better in many ways than the recent West End revival." On Sondheim's part, perhaps at least part of the decision to let Roundabout revive FOLLIES rather than allow the Broadway transfer of the Paper Mill production is that the Roundabout had already established a relationship with Sondheim through their production of COMPANY and may well have made it clear to him even then that they were planning to do more of his shows. Although I doubt the idea of the company eventually naming a Broadway theater after him would have come up at that time :-) "I also think her financial excuse is nonsense, it's not her money at stake if they fund a lavish transfer of the Papermill production to Broadway, it just means less profit for her the fewer weeks it runs... but in a short non-profit run, what's the difference? And an acclaimed revival (because it was done right, lavishly) would only help because even if it might not make a profit on broadway it would invigorate interest in the show and get it produced more around the country/world." The theory that the rights to FOLLIES were granted to Roundabout as a package deal with Goldman's THE LION IN WINTER makes more sense to me, especially since those two productions were within two years of each other. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:47 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... - Michael_Portantiere 04:34 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, the Lion in Winter deal makes full sense on her side, as much as I loathe that that is why it played out this way since I'd bet anything that with the right actor attached they'd have revived Lion in Winter anyway. And Sondheim's interest in a regular relationship of revivals with Roundabout could certainly have been on his mind... however, their revival of Company was not some great success and only ran 3 months and didn't win any Tonys (and only nominated for 2, revival and supporting actress), so I'd be surprised that he'd see that and say "I have to make sure they do as much of my canon as possible". But given that he just liked that they were being revived and new the new financial realities of Broadway, perhaps he did. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:14 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... - Chazwaza 04:47 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| "And Sondheim's interest in a regular relationship of revivals with Roundabout could certainly have been on his mind... however, their revival of Company was not some great success and only ran 3 months and didn't win any Tonys (and only nominated for 2, revival and supporting actress), so I'd be surprised that he'd see that and say 'I have to make sure they do as much of my canon as possible.' But given that he just liked that they were being revived and new the new financial realities of Broadway, perhaps he did." Yes, and as someone else here noted, those were the days before Sondheim's shows began to be revived so frequently on Broadway. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 05:38 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:36 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... - Michael_Portantiere 05:14 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Ha, yes, that was me. I wonder now if he's more interested in quality control than he was before. I certainly know that when I bring friends who don't know and already love a show to see a mediocre or bad production, they don't usually give it another chance, that is their one and only chance to appreciate or love it. When I brought my mom to the Roundabout Follies I was so frustrated because it would be her only chance to see it on stage. The point is, approving mediocre or misguided productions that don't sell what's amazing about the show properly (or worse, undermine what's amazing about it) does a lot of harm, just as having the show revived can do a lot of good in terms of exposure, relevance, new audiences, etc... It's a tricky balancing act. With a revival it can do one or two of three things - A) remind people and expose new audiences to the show and what makes it so great, B) present the show in a new context or vision, unrelated or intentionally very different from how it was originally presented or intended and bring a new view of the show or show people things about it they hadn't seen before (if it's good), C) degrade the memory of show and opinion of the material for new audiences and make people wonder what the fuss was about. It's really hard to know what will happen. For example: John Doyle's Color Purple (and Sweeney for most people, and Company for some) did B, but in my opinion his Pacific Overtures did C. Many disagree with me, but if his PO were my first and only exposure to the show I'd have been very confused and disappointed. Assassins did A & B, Threepenny Opera did C (luckily it's an enduring classic anyway). The Maria Friedman west end revival of Merrily also did C... in a very big way for me and the friends who didn't know the show who went with me to see it. The Roundabout revival of Follies very nearly achieved C, but the next revival (perhaps barely) achieved A. None of this is to say that revivals should be recreations of originals, or not try to find a new vision or presentation for the show that also works - I'm just saying it can be a risk, especially for a living author who wants his work performed and writes shows that are very challenging to sing and act, and often expensive to produce properly. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:47 am EST 02/08/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... - Chazwaza 05:36 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| "I wonder now if he's more interested in quality control than he was before. I certainly know that when I bring friends who don't know and already love a show to see a mediocre or bad production, they don't usually give it another chance, that is their one and only chance to appreciate or love it. When I brought my mom to the Roundabout Follies I was so frustrated because it would be her only chance to see it on stage. The point is, approving mediocre or misguided productions that don't sell what's amazing about the show properly (or worse, undermine what's amazing about it) does a lot of harm, just as having the show revived can do a lot of good in terms of exposure, relevance, new audiences, etc..." Do you remember the statement/response in the press between Sondheim and Todd Haimes over the size of the orchestra for the Roundabout revival of SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE? Link to the original NY Times article below, and here is a quote from that article, followed by an excerpt from Sondheim's response. Perhaps this sheds some light on the Sondheim/Roundabout relationship. HAIMES QUOTE IN THE TIMES: What happened? Were the producers too cheap to allow six more instruments into the theater? “It was part of a particular artistic concept the director had,” said Todd Haimes, Roundabout’s artistic director. “The show had been in a small theater in London. Then when it came over here, Steve Sondheim was asked if he was happy with the way it sounded. He said yes, so there was never a discussion about increasing the size. If he had said, ‘No, it can’t come to New York unless there are 11 musicians,’ we probably would have accommodated that.” QUOTE FROM SONDHEIM'S RESPONSE, IN A LETTER TO THE TIMES: Like everybody else, as Ms. Elliott reports, I deplore the downsizing of orchestras, but I understand the economics. If I had thought for one minute that Roundabout, a nonprofit company, could afford 11 players for the revival of “Sunday in the Park With George,” I’d have asked for them. After reading in Ms. Elliott’s article that Todd Haimes, the company’s artistic director, would have given them to me, I’ll know better the next time we work together (which, I hasten to add, I hope will be soon). |
|
| Link | NY Times article |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... | |
| Posted by: Maguire75 03:59 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... - Chazwaza 03:43 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| I do think, however, there is some logic in the notion,especially with a show like FOLLIES which was unsuccessful in its initial, extremely expensive, lavish production, that if it worked successfully on a more stripped down level, it would make the piece potentially more viable for other production companies to produce the work. This didn't pan out with the Roundabout production of FOLLIES but perhaps they were hoping it (in its day) would have been something akin to what John Doyle did very successfully with THE COLOR PURPLE. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... | |
| Posted by: bmc 05:14 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... - Maguire75 03:59 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| When I first saw the Bobby/Roundabout caption I heard "Bobby baby Bobby Bubi......But about THE LION IN WINTER: I had only read the play(over and over) as a teenager, and when I saw the movie, I was greatly disappointed; They seemed to think the play was similar to BECKET or MAN FOR ALL SEASONS; The play is ALL ABOUT EVE, set in a castle; It doesn't have the theological underpinnings of Becket or Seasons | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 05:00 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:56 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Here is what Bobby has to say about the Roundabout production... - Maguire75 03:59 pm EST 02/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Totally fair, and very likely the notion that got Sondheim on board with the purposefully stripped down concept of the staging. However there's a big difference to me, because The Color Purple was just a show that told a story, and in the original production it was staged and designed very literally with sets and costumes to match - there was no reason for it to need to be expensive enough to then need to be stripped down. Follies was conceived in opulence as part of the metaphor, setting and premise. I personally think a mixture of the two can work beautifully - there's no reason the show must have moving platforms, etc, it is set in a rundown theater, but the Follies ghosts and musical numbers must reflect that old school opulence or it really doesn't work to me (and I've seen several attempts including both bway revivals and the west end revival). And for what it's worth, the original Color Purple ran 2 yrs 4 months without any stars and middling reviews (couldn't have been solely on Oprah's name above it), the acclaimed raved about joyful revival ran just 1 yr 2 months with a splashy new-star lead performance, a name star and notable replacements. So financially, I don't know which profited more and how running costs played in, but the original ran literally twice as long and both were open commercial runs. Point being, a stripped down and non-literal staging worked magic for the show, which got a new life and new eyes because it (from me including, who dismissed the original based on what I read and listening to the cast album which I didn't respond to though I know love the score), but it didn't need that to have interest from an audience, apparently. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.068679 seconds.