Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Um... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:41 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Um... - lowwriter 07:46 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
|
|
|
| I have also never heard "women" changed to "people" in the lyric "I Am Ashamed that Women Are So Simple." Also, I have not seen this new production of KATE yet, but I'm wondering what has been done to the rest of the lyrics of that song, as the whole thing as originally written is about women as distinct from men, and proceeds from that first line. "Why are our bodies soft....." "so wives, hold your temper," etc., etc. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Um... | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 11:42 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 11:37 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Um... - Michael_Portantiere 09:41 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
|
|
|
| Isn't one of the main plot points of "Taming of the Shrew" all about the battle of the sexes? It's not the battle of the sex-less/gender neutral. It was rather a point of pride I believe with Cole Porter that he actually set to music Shakespeare's actual words for that one final song, probably because he didn't think he could do the Bard any better. If Cole Porter, a master of song thought that way, why are people tinkering with a show that played like gangbusters for years? Are they afraid of offending people, instead of perhaps just inviting lively discussions afterwards about the state of relationships between men and women? |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Um... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:51 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Um... - PlayWiz 11:37 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
|
|
|
| On the one hand, I would think the lyrics of "I Am Ashamed That Women Are So Simple" wouldn't necessarily present a problem even nowadays, because those lyrics are supposed to be sung by Lilli in the role of Kate, the "shrew" in the Shakespeare play, set hundreds of years ago in Renaissance Italy, not by Lilli as Lilli, the star of a 1940s Broadway-bound musical. But I guess the problem is that Kate's song of capitulation is what Lilli sings right after she returns to Fred, so I guess it's natural to interpret that the words Kate is singing are also what Lilli believes about herself, even if that's now what Porter and the Spewacks meant. Are we agreed that this is the main issue with that song, and therefore with KISS ME, KATE in general? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Um... | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 11:53 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Um... - Michael_Portantiere 10:51 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
|
|
|
| If they meant something else they should have written something else. There are no more private lines, only the lines in the song. Besides, we are not seeing The Taming of the Shrew we are watching Fred and Lilli’s Musical version called Kiss Me Kate. There are countless musical versions of Shakespeare that use those plays as a jumping off point-Your Own Thing, Music Is, Boys From Syracuse, Rockabye Hamlet. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Um... | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:02 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Um... - Michael_Portantiere 09:41 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
|
|
|
| All of those lyrics have been changed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Um... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:20 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Um... - Chromolume 10:02 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, I assumed that all of those lyrics have been changed, so it's strange that the comments I've read so far only focus on the change in the first line. But maybe that's because a lot of people don't know the rest of the lyrics (from Shakespeare)? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Um... | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:47 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Um... - Michael_Portantiere 11:20 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
|
|
|
| Also, no real surprise that Fred's response after the song has been shorn of its original "why, there's a wench." ;-) Two thoughts on all this - one, in reality, KATE sings this song, not Lilli, even though we're assuming a parallel. But really, isn't Lilli's gesture of returning to the show enough to make HER point? A professional actress would have played the scene as written - so are we then to assume that the lyrics to the song in its show-within-a-show context were ALREADY changed? (I know, I'm overthinking, but as we were just talking about shows like Brigadoon having too many leaps of faith, lol...) Two - which I suppose helps to answer the above - Fred does have that line in the opening scene thanking (and I paraphrase) "all those fellows staying up all night rewriting Shakespeare." So I guess they rewrote Kate's last speech too? ;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| "Shrew" / "Kate" | |
| Posted by: Whistler 04:45 am EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Um... - Chromolume 11:47 pm EDT 03/10/19 | |
|
|
|
| I was just looking at the script of "Shrew" again -- I don't have a script of "Kate" handy -- and I'd forgotten how much of "Shrew" often gets cut to make the script playable today. And maybe it always has. The first time I realized directors and productions cut Shakespearean scripts was in high school, when we compared the original script to what we were seeing in a movie. And, OK, that was a movie, and our teacher pointed out that play scripts are usually cut for movies because the originals are too talky. But then we studied "Shrew" and went to see a local college production and half the script was gone. Maybe for lots of reasons -- to fit high school students' attention spans -- but sometimes it's the director's choice: I recently saw a production of what should have been billed as "Some of Hamlet" because it was only an hour long without intermission. At the discussion afterwards, the very experienced director explained that he'd always liked parts of "Hamlet" but felt the whole script was too academic and generally a mess. So he did the parts he liked. I've got to admit it played well, but it still wasn't close to any of perhaps a dozen versions I've seen of "Hamlet" -- including the Mel Gibson movie. As for "Shrew " / "Kate" -- I've definitely seen more productions of "Shrew" than of "Kate," even though the former seems far less frequently performed. Maybe that's why I hunt it out: just to see if and how the actors and director have managed to make it playable. So maybe that's why I'm not surprised at the word change. And maybe someone with a academic background -- almost any dramaturg -- suggested it, based on experience. Also, while I was looking at Kate's speech in "Shrew" I was reminded of how much of it Cole Porter cut for his song. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The Lunts' SHREW (long) | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 01:03 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: "Shrew" / "Kate" - Whistler 04:45 am EDT 03/11/19 | |
|
|
|
| I've researched the Lunts' THE TAMING OF THE SHREW extensively, and whether of not it was the direct inspiration for KMK (San Subber says yes, Bella Spewack says no--and I could bore you to tears with all that), their drastically edited SHREW is very much the basis for the musical SHREW Fred Graham is staging, right down to lifting specific bits of stage business. Because KMK's director John C. Wilson was the coproducer of the Lunts' SHREW and knew it quite well. So here's some food for thought: The text: the Lunts and Harry Wagstaff Gribble (I vow to one day name a fantasy character "Wagstaff Gribble") approached the play not as a high comedy, but, as Lynn put it, "a flapdoodle farce," decked out in circus and carnival trappings. The Lunts focused on character development and stage business, while Gribble helped the edit. They shifted the order of scenes (especially Bianca's), transposed lines, eliminated repetitions, and interrupted all long speeches....save Kate's final one. The result played more like a fast-paced modern piece. The 1594 quarto text of the taming of A shrew and the 1623 Folio text of the taming of THE shrew: the Lunts brought back Christopher Sly, the drunken tinker found sleeping by a nobleman out hunting. The noble plays a prank on Sly, and instrucfs a froupe of strolling players to perform for him and treat him as a lord. This character was so little used in thirties staging, one critic though the Lunts invented Sly. Sly got most of the transposed lines, and Richard Whorf, who played him, improvised constantly--as did the rest of the cast. The play-within-the-play: Using the Sly Induction let the Lunts emphasize that their audience, too, was watching a play-within-a-play, and that was the core of the show. Nearly everything they did reinforced this. Why? The concept put the audience at one further remove from the inherent sexism of the original. The production began with the players (in capes, black hats, white domino masks) pulling their harpist in a wagon. Sydney Greenstreet (Baptista) led the way, pounding a drum. Lunt snd the actor who would play Grumio began pulling costumes from the wagon,,while acrobats made a human ladder to hang the backdrop of Padua. The carnival theme added both a ridiculous and a fantasy element: acrobats, tumblers, four dwarfs, and a panto horse. Sly (from his seat in a box) admonished late comers and heckled not only the actors, but his fellow viewers for not laughing enough at jokes (or, conversely, for laughing at jokes he thought were poor). The Lunts also included deliberately missed entrances and bungled lines for the entire company. Even the music was exaggerated: sappy harp arpeggios for romantic lines, beer-garden boisterous tunes for the horseplay. So, throughout the entire thing, that 1935-36 audience knew damn well they were watching a play-within-a-play about the battle between Kate and Perruchio, right up to.... The ending: Kate is a right spitfire from the start, but Fontanne managed to find little ways to soften her, even from her initial meeting with Petruchio. I'll spare you those, and jump to the end, since this whole thread started with the new KMK ending. During her final soliloquy, she shows she still has the fire within: she smacks the Widow for laughing and her final hand gesture ("My hand is ready, may it do him ease") strikes Petruchio's cheek. On the 1939 tour, Fontanne crooked a finger at the audience during her speech, as if "having a private conversation about dealing with their menfolk," according to one reviewer. Then the happy couple literally sailed into the heavens in a gilded chariot ppulled by two dwarfs, backed by resounding choral music. In the show's final scene, the Lunts used the ending of the quarto text of THE TAMING OF A SHREW: the nobleman's huntsmen return the sleeping Sly to the forest, the lord pays the actors, they pack up the gear and exit. It sounds like the new KMK ending evokes this. The Lunts's SHREW's influences on KMK: Lilli and Fred closely match Lillie Louise Fontanne and Alfred Lunt, for starters, though the characters are nothing like the famous pair (Alfred was a demanding director, but not the egomaniac Fred is). As above, KMK uses the "troupe of strolliing players" and the play-within-a-play concept; I adore Porter's line "no Theatre Guild attraction are we," as the Lunts' SHREW was coproduced by the Guild. KMK, however, does not use the Induction or Sly. Director Wilson lifted many staging elements from the Lunts: Kate's delayed entrance; the dead goose from the catwalks (now shot by the gangsters, not Kate); Baptista dithering over the dowry; frequent use of spanking; Kate hiding the sausages in her bosom and biting Petruchio when he expects a kiss; even wielding her wedding bouquet like " a stiletto." Even some of the line reassignments reoccur in KMK Lemuel Ayres did not replicate Clagget Wilson's costumes or Carolyn Hancock's set, but there are similarities in the use of diamond shapes and domino patterns. Back to real work. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:03 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: The Lunts' SHREW (long) - showtunetrivia 01:03 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
|
|
|
| KMK uses the "troupe of strolling players" and the play-within-a-play concept; I adore Porter's line "no Theatre Guild attraction are we," as the Lunts' SHREW was coproduced by the Guild. I've also always assumed that that was a also bit of a playful dig at Rodgers and Hammerstein, as they wrote for the Guild. Porter had a famous quip about being unsure about his ability to write songs for KMK, because R&H had now set the bar so high with their new look at musicals. (I'm sure the real quote is out there.) Porter (assumedly - unless it was the Spewacks) also peppered the script with digs at the incongruities of production numbers - "We Sing Of Love" is noted as being a song simply there to change the scene - and the famous comment about it never really being too hot to dance in conjunction with "Too Darn Hot." And of course the odd thing about the "strolling players" lyric is that you could blink and miss that whole conceit. But it's definitely there. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:06 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) - Chromolume 02:03 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
|
|
|
| ***...and the famous comment about it never really being too hot to dance in conjunction with "Too Darn Hot."*** Sorry, I don't understand -- whose famous comment was that, and where is it found? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:34 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) - Michael_Portantiere 02:06 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
|
|
|
| ***...and the famous comment about it never really being too hot to dance in conjunction with "Too Darn Hot."*** Sorry, I don't understand -- whose famous comment was that, and where is it found? It's in the script, in the stage directions at the top of Act II. I don't have the script to refer to at the moment - but I can look up the exact quote when I get home. It was either put in there by Porter or the Spewacks. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:14 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) - Chromolume 02:34 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, I would be really interested to read that! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:39 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) - Michael_Portantiere 03:14 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
|
|
|
| So...a long stage direction description of what happens during "Too Darn Hot" culminates in the following... "...At a certain point in the number, Bill comes out for a quiet smoke, tosses [the] cigarette away, and joins Paul and his two friends in a spirited jazz session into which the dancers throw themselves with Bacchanalian zest. We must assume that it's never too hot to dance." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:37 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: The Lunts' SHREW (long) - showtunetrivia 01:03 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
|
|
|
| Laura, that is great research, and very illuminating, | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 01:46 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) - Michael_Portantiere 01:37 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you, Michael. That means a lot. Lauar |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That's Really Neat | |
| Posted by: Whistler 07:34 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
| In reply to: re: The Lunts' SHREW (long) - showtunetrivia 01:46 pm EDT 03/11/19 | |
|
|
|
| That's really neat. Thanks, Laura. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.046991 seconds.