re: CAROL BURNETT (A caveat tribute)
Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:05 pm EST 11/29/19
In reply to: re: CAROL BURNETT (A caveat tribute) - Chazwaza 09:52 pm EST 11/29/19

***I don't understand moving "Tomorrow", but now that I think about it, it's not like it doesn't work where they put it also, and it's definitely no more silly than the silly FDR scenes in the stage show. And... i must say I very much enjoy both "Dumb Dog" and "Sandy", so they surely felt the first act would overloaded if "Tomorrow" were there still... plus, they thought it worked where they moved it (and frankly having Annie sing her theme song to cheer up and encourage the president and Warbucks is the most Annie thing that could happen so I'm not sure what's wrong with that move), AND they likely wanted to save the song everyone is waiting for until later in the movie. So I guess I understand the move for many reasons and I don't actually have an issue with it.***

What you write makes it sound as if you don't know the show or the movie very well at all. In the show version of ANNIE, a reprise of "Tomorrow" occurs exactly where it does in the movie, when Annie is at the White House cheering up the President and the cabinet and Warbucks. But one of the reasons the song is so effective at that point in the show is that it IS a reprise of a song that's first heard at a very crucial moment early in the show -- when Annie has run away from the orphanage and is alone on the streets of NYC except for the company of a stray dog she has just met, so she sings "Tomorrow" to the dog (and to herself) to make them both feel better. It's ESSENTIAL to the character and the plot and the construction of the musical that the song appear first in that slot. To remove it from there was sheer idiocy akin to what it would be like if the "Tonight" duet had been removed from the movie of WEST SIDE STORY, or the title song from THE SOUND OF MUSIC, or -- well, you get my point. And that blockhead move alone would have virtually ruined the movie of ANNIE even if there weren't so much else wrong with it.

***I don't think Miss Hannigan being dragged off stage is a good part of the stage show though... to me it just makes it all the more clear it is a broad family show meant for kids that would also be enjoyed by adults. I don't need to see my villains carted off in order to feel satisfied. I don't remember if I bought Hannigan's redemption in the movie, but assuming not that wouldn't be the first time I like a movie but not the way it ends.***

In order for ANNIE to work as a show, or a movie, it's vital that Miss Hannigan come across as a COMIC villain who does meet her comeuppance at the end. That's my opinion, but not only my opinion. The stage show ends that way, and it ran for years in its original production, and has had countless revivals, and no one but you -- and the director and writer of the first movie version -- ever thought there was anything wrong with that ending or that Miss Hannigan needed to be "redeemed."

***As for Finney, yes we 100% do not agree on this. I don't get the point you're making, and stand by why. And I'll add that Brian Cox is no less a towering symbol of American capitalism in HBO's SUCCESSION because he is and sounds like a man of Scottish decent (but not with an actually Scottish or actually American accent). I'm not sure why Warbucks would need to have been born in America and have a clearly unwavering American accent in order to either represent American capitalism or to be convincing as it. ***

I can only repeat that I think it's vital for the character to come across as quintessentially, 100 percent American. Would you be convinced by an actor playing Ebenezer Scrooge with a Texas accent? Maybe you would, or maybe you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Previous: re: CAROL BURNETT (A caveat tribute) - Chazwaza 09:52 pm EST 11/29/19
Next: re: CAROL BURNETT (A caveat tribute) - BigM 12:46 pm EST 11/30/19

Privacy Policy

Time to render: 0.017277 seconds.