Threaded Order Chronological Order
| "Sue Me" lyrics | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 05:26 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| What does "so nu" mean? As in: Alright already! So call a policeman. Alright already, it's true. So nu. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: "Sue Me" lyrics | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 06:36 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: "Sue Me" lyrics - KingSpeed 05:26 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Wow. Looks like I started a successful thread! | |
| reply to this message |
| i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 06:45 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:35 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: "Sue Me" lyrics - KingSpeed 05:26 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| This is the danger of using a homonym in a lyric like this. But to me, saying "so new?" in this context makes perfect sense as if to say "is this so new?" or "this is old news, no?" Like, "you know I'm a no-good-nick, that's not news". I'm surprised the lyric isn't that. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:19 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 06:35 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Maybe you thought it was "so new" because you were unfamiliar with the Yiddish phrase "so nu," so your mind made "so new?" work in context, but it really doesn't. If that was the meaning, I expect Nathan would say "so what else is new?", the common version of that expression. That said, I just Googled "Sue Me Frank Loesser lyrics," and whoever did the first transcription that came up typed it as "so new." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 02:55 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:49 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Michael_Portantiere 10:19 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, I was unfamiliar as I think the majority of audiences ever seeing this musical or listening to it would be. And I don't think most people would think of Nathan as a specifically Jewish character who didn't know this, and many outside nyc would confuse his more Jewish comedic lines as New Yorker speak more than Jewish speak. I know the term no-good-nick, i did not know it was Jewish. I do not know "zo nu?" I think my experience is very common for people listening to or seeing this musical, and likely would have been even when it premiered. It also truly doesn't help that nu is a homonym for the much more well know English word the English speaking audience uses daily, new. It also doesn't help that Nathan being Jewish is written in more as a color of his character and not a context we need to have like Tevye for example. No, actually it really does make sense as "so new?" On that we do not agree. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:48 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 02:49 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| ***No, actually it really does make sense as "so new?" On that we do not agree.*** Right, we don't agree on that, but I understand and basically agree with everything else you wrote. As I recall, I also was not familiar with "so nu?" or "zo nu" as a Yiddish expression when I first heard "Sue Me" from GUYS AND DOLLS, so I guess I just decided that Nathan meant "So what else is new?" -- the version of the phrase that I'm familiar with -- and Loesser had just shortened it. So I too thought that's what Nathan meant, as you did, it's just that we disagree that "so new?" makes sense in that shortened form :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 07:13 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 06:35 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| I assumed this as well. I have not seen a score or libretto for this show since I was in middle school! But I looked the official lyrics up on line and "new" was indeed listed, not "nu." Alan Scott states that in the score it is actually "nu" in his post somewhere down the line in this thread. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Official lyrics online? | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 07:43 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:42 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - TheOtherOne 07:13 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Where are you finding the "official lyrics" online? Please provide a link. As Chromolume says, most lyrics sites online are full of errors, at least the ones I've seen. It is "nu" in the published script, the licensed materials from MTI (both script and score), and The Complete Lyrics of Frank Loesser. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Fake news. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 06:31 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: Official lyrics online? - AlanScott 07:42 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| People assume if something's on the internet, it must be true. Without even crosschecking. We had a conversation about Julie Kavner's net worth on here a few months ago and someone said they "did their research and found out that she is worth X" when in fact all that person did was google and accept the answer as gospel. I guess I did the same thing in this thread. It's very easy to do. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Official lyrics online? | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 07:46 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: Official lyrics online? - AlanScott 07:42 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Relax, Alan, I am sure you were right. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Official lyrics online? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:56 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Official lyrics online? - TheOtherOne 07:46 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm sorry if I seemed overbearing or defensive. I'll blame it on the heat and humidity and various other stresses. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Official lyrics online? | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 08:02 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Official lyrics online? - AlanScott 07:56 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| No need to apologize. We are all dealing with a lot right now. And whatever else Guys and Dolls is, it is fun! Let's let our thoughts about it lift our spirits. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Official lyrics online? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:13 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Official lyrics online? - TheOtherOne 08:02 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Well, the gamblers do say "the heat is on." :-) But just so you realize, if you want to look up a song lyric online, take what you find with some suspicion in mind, and never ever assume they are "official." So nu? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Official lyrics online? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:45 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: Official lyrics online? - AlanScott 07:42 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| ...and The Complete Lyrics of Frank Loesser. Thank you for checking that too. I have that book but totally forgot, lol. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 07:31 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - TheOtherOne 07:13 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Of course it is "nu" in the libretto. "So, nu?" is an idiomatic expression even if some people have never heard it. "So, new?" is not an idiomatic expression. It has not been said by anyone (other than those misquoting Guys and Dolls.) This takes me back to the time someone argued that Eva Peron ran the Argentine treasury because she used the term "sixes and sevens with you" which clearly indicated that she handled the taxes levied on the citizens she was singing to. Sometimes an idiomatic expression is just an idiomatic expression. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:41 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - whereismikeyfl 07:31 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| How would you know that it isn't and has never been said by anyone? But it wouldn't be "So, new?" I agree that isn't an expression and no on has say it - i'm not why you wrote it that way. It's "So new?" It seems like you are trying to make it more absurd that anyone would think that was the expression than it actually is. And sometimes when you use an idiomatic expression that the majority of people listening to a cast recording would never know was one, and that expression including a homonym, then everyone is going to assume there either IS an expression such as the one the character sounds like he's saying, or that it was created for this and sounds good and makes sense. Even as "so new?" it sounds like a very Jewish thing to say (i am Jewish and was raised by NYC Jews). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 06:15 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 02:41 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| In my travels, extensive reading of novels of the 20s through 60s, work curating American films of the same period, checking reference books on American idiom, I have not and cannot find any reference to "So, new," "So new," "Sew new" or any variant thereof. While this does not indicate decisively that there is not some corner where "So new" is a idiom, it does show pretty decisively that is not a common one. The only use of those two words together that I can find is with "so" as an intensifier, not as an interrogatory. In you last paragraph, you even seem to agree that "So new" has only been used by people who misunderstood the lyric in Guys and Dolls, so I am not sure why you argue something else in the first paragraph. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:36 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - whereismikeyfl 06:15 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| You are working on the false pretense that for something like this to have been written to come out of the mouth of a fictional character it would have to be an established idiom or common expression. This is hardly true. And it wouldn't have to be true for this lyric if it had been written as "so new?" So your mocking of the idea that people heard it this way and that it was accepted by them is pretty pointless. The only two points you have are that the lyrics as written is "so nu" no "so new", and that you cannot find proof of anyone saying "so new?" as an expression. But there is really no point to be made on how no one could hear it as "so new?", beyond the fact that I'd wager the vast majority of people who ever heard the lyric heard it as "so new?" whether it made sense to them or not; and there's no point to be made that it doesn't make sense because it wasn't a common expression. It made sense to my ear and other people's... furthermore, especially when you hear something for the first time as a young person (or a person who doesn't have a lifetime of study to feel they have a grasp on what people ever did say anywhere ever or not), you hear something like this and despite it not being something you've heard or would say, you just take it as a thing people have or used to or could have said, or just as a thing this character would say. My first exposure to this song was when I was probably 10... I've never been in this show or worked on it so I never had reason to look up the lyrics I thought I knew because the lyrics are all pretty straight-forward and easy to hear and words I know. I had no idea what half the things they sing in "Fugue for Tin Horns" meant but I also assumed it made sense and I made sense of it in the context. If you are one of the people in this thread who just cannot fathom a character with a jewish-new yorker-comedic way of talking saying "I'm just a no-good-nick. So new?" and having it make sense to anyone ... then i don't know what to tell you. It does. It doesn't have to be the lyric written to be confused for the lyric, and it makes sense even if it's not something "people say". |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 11:12 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 04:36 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| This is ridiculous, but a little fun. I am not saying that "something like this to have been written to come out of the mouth of a fictional character it would have to be an established idiom or common expression." In this case it IS a established idiom and a common expression. Just one you do not know. I am not mocking "the idea that people heard it this way and that it was accepted by them." What I am mocking is people who insist that their misunderstanding is actually a correct understanding--or that the writer is at fault for writing something that could be misunderstood. And as in the case of my friend who saw Evita and thought she was singing about taxes because she had never heard the expression "at sixes and sevens" before, you made a mistake because you did not know the idiom. Claiming that this is a weakness in the writing is absurd--homonym or not. There is no way for writers to account for the vocabulary and familiarity with idioms of everyone who receives their writing. Especially if the receiver is a 10 year old and/or someone who is not familiar with people who talk like the characters. Not understanding specific idioms and vocabulary used by characters unlike oneself is pretty common. There is no shame in mishearing or misunderstanding. And it is not a problem with the writing that characters speak like their real life counterparts as long as the gist is clear to the uninitiated. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 03:04 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:50 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - whereismikeyfl 11:12 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| It is both silly and fun. ;) So here we have another false premise -- "people who insist that their misunderstanding is actually a correct understanding" ... these people don't exist here and nothing has been said like that. I have never said the misunderstood lyric is a correct understanding... I said it ALSO makes sense. Because it does. That doesn't mean I think the writer meant me to hear and think that, but if you do not know the expression *actually* used in the lyric, the lyric still by some magic makes sense (and has to me for decades, as it seems to have for the millions of people who've heard this song and wouldn't have ever known or heard "so nu" before, let alone seen it written to have the chance to find out they were mistaken about what word it was). Also no one has quite said "the writer is at fault for writing something that could be misunderstood." There's no fault to be had. The writer wrote what he wrote. He DID write something that could, more than almost any other lyric in the show, be misunderstood. If he didn't know that people might be unfamiliar with this expression (i.e. most people who aren't Jewish and/or New Yorkers with Jewish friends), then that's a bit hard to believe but it's also possible he never considered it. Either way he wrote the lyric he wanted. There's no fault, this isn't a blame issue. The reason the lyric exists is because he wrote it. The reason that it is commonly misunderstood is because A) most audiences aren't familiar with Yiddish expressions and B) "nu" is a homonym of the incredibly common word "new", a word that also happens to make sense in the context if the listener doesn't know better, and is in a show with no signals there will be Yiddish expressions used by Nathan (who isn't defined as being Jewish in the show) or anyone (again, this isn't Fiddler). You can agree that "so new?" makes sense to you or not, but I'm curious if you pretend you didn't know the word "nu", what would you think when you hear this lyric? And no, your friend didn't make a mistake and neither did I and the MANY people who hear it as "So new?" I don't know why you speak about this stuff in such judgmental language - fault, mistake. But I also do not know what is so difficult here, why you can't acknowledge that *MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD DO NOT AND NEVER WILL KNOW THE YIDDISH EXPRESSION "SO NU?" That is just not really debatable. It isn't the audience's fault or mistake, and it wasn't wrong of the lyricist to write it. Guys & Dolls is one of the most known and performed musicals in America of the last 70 years. So most people who hear it, a lot of people, either are confused by this lyric or immediately assume they heard the word they think they heard ("new") and make sense of it exactly how I did as a comedic Jewish and/or New Yorker way to say something that makes sense in context. Sondheim has even talked about this. It actually *is* the job of the lyricist to both choose lyrics that sound like they'd come out of the character's mouth AND that the audience will be able to hear and make sense of. That doesn't mean you can't use words or terms they wouldn't know, but if it doesn't make sense in context then that's a problem as a dramatist if you're trying to reach a wide audience. If it does make sense then it's fine. It's a choice either way. And I'm sorry but I disagree-- unrelated to this song which is wonderful -- if you use a homonym in your lyric and it isn't clear in context which word you mean and the confusion of the words could change the meaning of the lyric, that is a weakness in the writing unless you did it on purpose. For example "I mean he kneads me, i mean like dough". Not only do we know which word Sondheim means between knead and need based on the context and the next line, i love that you could hear either and have it make sense. (because if you thought it was "he needs me", you know in 2 seconds from her singing "like dough" that it was actually "kneads", OR you stick with "needs" and are wrong but at least a baker needs dough, and as their partner Dot might like to think the baker needs her like he needs dough, as an essential part of who he is or to function. One is sexual, one is romantic, but both make sense, though only one is correct and it's not at all hard to know which word he meant.) But as sometimes happens when discussing musicals... i think we are not going to see eye to eye here. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| oops | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 05:01 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:00 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 04:36 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| false premise, not pretense. Several typos -- sorry, it's quite late. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Barbra Streisand points the way | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 06:00 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 02:41 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Her very popular recording of SECOND HAND ROSE ends with "NU?". She isn't saying "NEW?" and neither is Nathan Detroit. It's true many Gentile viewers might not understand either of them but Jewish audiences of the 50s certainly did. | |
| Link | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCtrcAp3TEY |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Barbra Streisand points the way | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:41 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: Barbra Streisand points the way - Billhaven 06:00 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Okay... so Jewish New Yorkers in the 50s knew. Nu? I didn't know. I would never have known she wasn't saying "nue" again there, or "new" or "knew"... all homonyms and words we use constantly in this language (the language these shows are written in). In this song it makes little difference if you don't know - it's either a fun tag if you know or a cute but maybe confusing tag if you don't --- the rest of the song doesn't rely on audiences or listeners knowing the yiddish word "nu". Unlike "Sue Me", in the case of "Second Hand Rose" it doesn't actually make sense if the word you think you hear is "new" (or "knew" for that matter), but unlike "Sue Me" it doesn't really matter if you get it or if it makes sense or not. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Barbra Streisand points the way | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:27 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: Barbra Streisand points the way - Billhaven 06:00 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Gentile? Is that still a term, lol? It sounds like...biblical times. (Biblical times? Oh, those biblical times...!!) I tend to think non-Jewish is perfectly ok to say. ;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:25 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - TheOtherOne 07:13 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. In the script and the score, it's "nu." There are no such thing as "official lyrics" online. I don't know one lyric site where songs aren't FULL of mistakes. Don't trust them. The other problem is something I mentioned earlier as well - the authentic pronunciation of the phrase is "zo nu" (with Yiddish adopting the German pronunciation of an initial s as "z") - I just went back to listen to the original cast, the film, and the Lane/Prince revival, and none of them do it that way, which only adds to the misconception/confusion about the phrase. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Second Hand Rose from Second avenue......NU? | |
| Posted by: champagnesalesman 09:47 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chromolume 07:25 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Streisand singing that in the FUNNY GIRL movie was my introduction to that word(I saw the GUYS AND DOLLS movie later) Unlike words like SCHLEPP and KLUTZ and so many others that everyone knows...NU is a Yiddish word of a time It is true Anne Bancroft and Kaye Ballard were Italians who often played(convincingly)Jewish mothers. Sometimes it happened the other way around..Lainie Kazan did the BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING movies. But sometimes Jewish authenticity can't be faked. I believe Carol Burnett rejected FUNNY GIRL and said "you need a Jewish girl for this part you need that quality" You can't cast a non-Latin in a Latin role today without a scandal...but we still see Shiksas playing Jewish women. I remember Blythe Danner in the movie of BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS...so wrong. But then years later she played Ruth Madoff..much better I think because she was older. Similarly Glenn Close, the ultimate WASP goddess played a NY Jewish woman in a 2014 film called 5 TO 7 and somehow she pulled it off. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 06:34 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: Second Hand Rose from Second avenue......NU? - champagnesalesman 09:47 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| I could be Jewish tomorrow if I wanted to be, right? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? | |
| Posted by: Snowysdad 02:31 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? - KingSpeed 06:34 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Nope!! Judaism is the only religion that I know of that doesn't proselytize. The first time you approach someone, say a Rabbi and say I want to convert, the prescribed answer is no, ditto the second time. You are required to request studying to convert three times minimum before you are allowed to begin. Then it is a long studious road to actually becoming a convert. You or anyone else is always welcome to participate in Jewish life by just showing up and being amongst us (do I have to say I am one?), most of us believe the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not sexual but the in-hospitality to the strangers. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:43 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? - Snowysdad 02:31 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| and I am left to ponder a Jewish child named snowy... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 12:45 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? - KingSpeed 06:34 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| "I could be Jewish tomorrow if I wanted to be, right?" Actually, no. The conversion process takes more than a day. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 12:44 am EDT 08/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? - whereismikeyfl 12:45 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yup. I can confirm that. I converted over 40 years ago. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? | |
| Posted by: champagnesalesman 09:38 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: But isn't Judaism a religion, not a race? - KingSpeed 06:34 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| You might already be...I haven't seen you naked :) it is a religion yes but it is more about ethnicity and culture...most Jews I know are not religious but they identify with the background |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Sue Me" lyrics | |
| Posted by: Snowysdad 02:33 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: "Sue Me" lyrics - KingSpeed 05:26 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yiddish, doesn't exactly mean anything, sort of an all purpose word to fill in. Example: Wife: I was at the butcher, he had nice chickens Husband: So nu? Meaning, so what does that mean to me. Can stand in for lots of different things in different contexts Husband: I saw so and so on the street today Wife: So nu? Meaning either how did so and so look or act or it could mean what is that supposed to mean to me. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Nevermind. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 05:28 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: "Sue Me" lyrics - KingSpeed 05:26 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Google told me. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Nevermind. | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 07:12 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: Nevermind. - KingSpeed 05:28 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Many productions blithely ignore the fact that Nathan Detroit is Jewish. No matter who plays him. (Sorry, Sinatra) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Just curious. | |
| Last Edit: TheOtherOne 08:48 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 08:47 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Nevermind. - NewtonUK 07:12 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Is Nathan ever described as Jewish in the libretto to Guys and Dolls? Did Damon Runyon ever say that he was? Sam Levene was Jewish and brought his ethnicity to the role to great effect, but I'm not so sure this is essential to the character. I could see finding it essential to Tevye or Fanny Brice, but not Nathan Detroit. Sam Levene had appeared as another Runyon character, Horsethief, in the the film version of Runyon's The Big Street. Nicely-Nicely Johnson (played by Eugene Pallette) is a character in the film as well. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Of course Nathan Detroit is Jewish. And Henry Higgins isn't. (nm) | |
| Posted by: BwyDan 03:04 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: Just curious. - TheOtherOne 08:47 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Just curious. | |
| Last Edit: NewtonUK 10:04 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 10:03 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: Just curious. - TheOtherOne 08:47 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Well, his speech, and song, are JEwish in tone and rhythm - Sue me, sue me, what you can do me. And nu is Yiddish. And back in Runyon land you didnt speak Yiddish if you werent Jewish - believe me! A- right, already; I’m just a no-goodnik/ A -right, already; it’s true. So, nu? Again Jewish slang. So - no they don't say the character is Jewish. But if you did a play and a character said 'in the name of the father, the son, ...' it would be fair to assume the character was a Catholic, whether there was a note to that effect or not. We saw what happened in the Alfred Molina revival of FIDDLER when you try to play a truly Jewish character, ignmoring that they are Jewish. Not great. You don't have to be Jewish to play Nathan or Tevye. But you have to act Jewish. Otherwise why bother? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Just curious. | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 10:58 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Just curious. - NewtonUK 10:03 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| I can’t say I agree with you as to the relevance of his being Jewish. “So new?” strikes me as street slang for “and this surprises you?”, so I would not equate Nathan with Tevye, Fanny or Tateh, to name a few. (I liked Molina’s Tevye all the same.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 02:35 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:31 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Just curious. - TheOtherOne 10:58 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| As noted by others, it's "So nu?" (spelled that way in the script and score) and not "So new?" Nu is Yiddish. “I’m just a no-good-nik” is Jewish-speak. As to whether Nathan Detroit is Jewish. I think a few things are relevant. First, Guys and Dolls is almost an original musical. It uses the Runyon world — Runyonland — but the two main plot threads are basically invented. The Sarah-Sky plot is greatly different from the story told in "The Idyll of Miss Sarah Brown," and all the rest is basically new. A couple of plot ideas may be inspired by things in a couple of Runyon stories — specifically, "Pick the Winner" and "Blood Pressure" — but to the extent they are used, they are transformed. There is no Adelaide in Runyon. It's been said that the Adelaide-Nathan subplot (and, of course, Nathan is a character in Runyon stories) comes from "Pick the Winner," about Cutie Singleton, who's been engaged for a very long time, but the only connection between "Pick the Winner" and the Adelaide-Nathan story is that Cutie has been engaged to a guy called Hot Horse Herbie for a very long time. (Vivian Blaine later played Cutie Singleton in a TV version of "Pick the Winner.") As for the Jewishness, I will quote a couple of sections from an Adam Gropnik New Yorker piece on Runyon that I’m also linking. “There are two layers of idiom-making laid one on top of the other in Runyon’s writing, a technique that accounts both for its complexity and for its comic, slightly out-of-focus nature—for its mixture of authenticity and unreality. As far as one can tell, Jewish crooks of the period really did speak a surprisingly elaborate and cautious diction. They didn’t speak like Runyon characters, but they tried to speak high for the same reason that they polished their shoes and tipped their hats and dressed in suits: fancy was classy. This tendency still shows in Sinatra’s recorded speech, which, when made for public consumption, is extremely ‘high,’ a Hoboken boy’s idea of a class act.” And later in the piece: “The other oddity in Runyon’s stories is how startlingly they reverse the normal ethnic roles in American writing. The Bellow generation has made us accustomed to ironically distanced Jewish narrators of violent or extreme events. But with Runyon the controlling sensibility is that of the Gentile author expressing his wonder (albeit through the puppet voice of the hamische narrator) at the violent antics of the Jews.” The world Runyon wrote about was an essentially Jewish world. Not every character in Runyon is Jewish, and I don’t think it’s ever made explicit, but it’s Jewish. Everyone hangs out in Mindy’s, which of course is Lindy’s, a Jewish deli, eating gefilte fish and cheesecake. You wrote this, “Sam Levene was Jewish and brought his ethnicity to the role to great effect, but I'm not so sure this is essential to the character.” Sam Levene was succeeded on Broadway by Julie Oshins, who was Jewish. Oshins had been playing it on the national tour. When he left to take over on Broadway, he was replaced by Sam Schwartz, who I would guess was Jewish. Levene’s original understudy was Paul Reed, who also played Brannigan. Reed was born Sidney Kahn. When Sam Levene left the London production, he was replaced by Sidney James, born Solomon Joel Cohen. In 1955, City Center did its first revival of Guys and Dolls. Nathan was played by Walter Matthau, who wasn’t Jewish but often played Jewish. When the production played a return engagement a month after closing, John Randolph, who was Jewish, played Nathan. In 1965, City Center did the show again. Alan King (Jewish) was Nathan. In 1966, they brought it back as part of a Frank Loesser festival. Jan Murray (Jewish) was Nathan. The list of Jewish actors who played the role in stock and in major houses around the country during the next few decades would include Phil Foster, Shelley Berman, Joseph Leon, Joey Adams, Milton Berle, Jack Carter, Lewis J. Stadlen, and Henry Goodman. Obviously, that proves nothing. There are lots of Jewish actors. But the fact that no one but Jewish actors played the role on any kind of continuing basis during the original Broadway, national tour and London runs suggests that the writers and the original creative team saw the character as Jewish. Clearly, you don’t have to be Jewish to play the role successfully. Look at Nathan Lane (although I felt he lacked the essential Yiddishkeit in a production I thought overrated). But maybe it helps a little? So nu? |
|
| Link | Talk It Up |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I so agree... | |
| Posted by: IvyLeagueDropout 02:38 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) - AlanScott 02:31 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| ...about the '92 revival! Not particularly about its Jewishness (I was probably too young and Midwestern to think about that back then), but I thought the show was vastly inferior to the several regional/community productions I had seen by that point, or the high school production in which I was the definitive Rusty Charlie.😁 The reason I didn't love it was that while the world of Runyon is populated by larger than life characters that can border on cartoonish, there is an earthiness to the characters. I didn't think anyone in the Lane revival seemed anything besides cartoony. Which makes the audience not really care about the characters. I'm a fan of everyone involved in that production, but I thought then (and still think when I listen to that recording or watch clips online) that it was much less than the sum of it's parts. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I so agree... | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:03 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: I so agree... - IvyLeagueDropout 02:38 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| "The reason I didn't love it was that while the world of Runyon is populated by larger than life characters that can border on cartoonish, there is an earthiness to the characters. I didn't think anyone in the Lane revival seemed anything besides cartoony. Which makes the audience not really care about the characters." I know what you mean, and I would say that's probably largely due to the style of Jerry Zaks' direction in general, and of that show in particular. I also think that, despite whatever its flaws may be, the movie version of GUYS AND DOLLS in that all, or almost all, of the actors create vivid characters without cartoonish exaggeration, including Stubby Kaye, Johnny Silver, Sheldon Leonard, et al. I would say there's even a lot of subtlety in the performance of B.S. Pully, who plays Big Jule. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| My Jewish two cents, and a correction | |
| Posted by: fredfrankg (fredfrankg427@gmail.com) 05:43 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) - AlanScott 02:31 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| True, Nathan doesn't have to be played by a Jewish actor. However, Matthau was Jewish, as were so many actors who played Nathan. Also, "So, nu?" isn't the only (funny) example of Jewish syntax in G&D. One of Nathan's great lines when challenged by Big Jule and has to pick up a nickel is, "For this, I have to bend over!" Stay safe and well. x |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Jewish two cents, and a correction | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:45 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: My Jewish two cents, and a correction - fredfrankg 05:43 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for the correction. I had always thought that Matthau was Jewish, and then somewhere at some point I somehow became under the wrong impression that he wasn't. It's a relief to know that he was. :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My Jewish two cents, and a correction | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 07:16 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: My Jewish two cents, and a correction - fredfrankg 05:43 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| "True, Nathan doesn't have to be played by a Jewish actor. However, Matthau was Jewish, as were so many actors who played Nathan." I was shocked to read in Alan's post that Matthau was not Jewish. Thank you for clearing this up. And thank you for your dramaturgy (not quite sure if that's the right word, but I suspect you'd be among the best of dramaturgs), Alan. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 03:41 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) - AlanScott 02:31 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| I love this post. It’s a brilliant post. I also happen to love the idea that many times there is something important about matching the correct actor to the correct role and it may habe to do with ethnicity or race or heritage. Although it’s not always imperative (there have been controversies, as with Jonathan Pryce playing someone who was part Asian in MISS SAIGON, and the contrary, prevalent tendency to cast African-Americans in African-American roles), it’s nice to see such a wise essay. Anne Bancroft famously played Gittel Mosca onstage so you’d have never known she was Italian not Jewish. But perhaps Shirley MacLaine’s work in the film version (of TWO FOR THE SEESAW) was off-balance for just such an issue of heritage. I think Jewish-American is important. I think Irish-American is important. And Casting is a very tricky business. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:48 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) - AlanScott 02:31 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for that wonderful post, Alan. I've always felt that Nathan is clearly supposed to be a Jewish character, even if I knew only a small fraction of the supporting evidence you gave. I also wondered if maybe some of the characters in Nathan Detroit's world might be Italian, though I think it's pretty clear from his name that Big Jule is supposed to be Jewish :-) On that note, I find it interesting that Adam Gropnik chose the Sinatra, an Italian, as his example of someone who tended to "speak high" when he spoke for public consumption, though I'm not sure I can offhand think of a famous Jewish performer who might also fit the category. Maybe Alan King? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 05:29 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) - Michael_Portantiere 02:48 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Terrific post, Alan, thank you! There was never any doubt in my mind that Nathan (and a good many other characters) were Jewish. As for “nu”—my late mother in law could use it, depending on context and her inflection, in a dozen different ways, from utterly sarcastic to fatalism to asking for further details. A versatile term! Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:30 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) - showtunetrivia 05:29 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| As for “nu”—my late mother in law could use it, depending on context and her inflection, in a dozen different ways, from utterly sarcastic to fatalism to asking for further details. A versatile term! Yes - in real usage, it's close to untranslatable. It's almost more of a vocal attitude instead of a word, if that makes sense. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 07:33 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Runyon's Jewish world (one of my very long posts) - Chromolume 07:30 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| It is kind equivalent to "yeah," which in English can indicate agreement, disbelief, need for more info, dismissal, or enthusiasm. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Just curious. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:21 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Just curious. - TheOtherOne 10:58 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| It seems like what you are doing is hearing an expression in a foreign language and intuiting what you think it might mean in context. Moreover, you seem to be translating "nu" as "new" even though a quick google check will reveal that it is something else. I understand how one might not connect the dots to Jewish automatically, but at this point I think it is pretty clear that Nathan is just as Jewish as Tevye. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Just curious. | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 12:33 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:32 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Just curious. - ryhog 12:21 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| This reminds me a little of a college friend who used to say "mercy buckets" without having ANY idea it was a deliberate mispronunciation of the French "merci beaucoups." (I remember asking "shouldn't that be buckups?" and he didn't understand what I meant.) It's also fun when someone who doesn't know yiddish says stuff like "schmuck" or "putz" and has no idea what the words really mean...;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Just curious. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:46 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Just curious. - Chromolume 12:32 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| this is probably not allowed but I will post it and suggest it is for educational purposes :-) | |
| Link | yiddish lesson? |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Just curious. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:00 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Just curious. - TheOtherOne 10:58 am EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| I can’t say I agree with you as to the relevance of his being Jewish. “So new?” strikes me as street slang for “and this surprises you?”, so I would not equate Nathan with Tevye, Fanny or Tateh, to name a few. Honestly, I can't really anyone ever saying something like "so nu" (btw, authentically pronounced "zo" not "so") unless they know their yiddish - and that's mainly going to be someone Jewish. I've never heard the English phrase "so new" as a street slang kind of colloquialism outside of that. Your mileage may differ, but... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.215507 seconds.