Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway | |
| Posted by: Jax 03:33 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - StageLover 02:37 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Co-book writer, Matthew Lopez: "It is an exciting proposition to create a show with characters whose race is instrumental (and not incidental) to the story." Really? Were white folks Billy Widler, I.A.L. Diamond, Jack Lemmon, Tony Curtis, and Marilyn Monroe aware of this when they made the film 60 years ago? Just asking, since the film is commonly considered to be perfect and, just maybe, the funniest comedy ever made. Inclusivity is fine, when appropriate. And POC should be considered for all behind the scenes positions (writer, choreographer, etc) for this or any show. But to LEAD with this? This is your outlook when working with a masterpiece from another era? Silly, at best. Disastrous, possibly. And if you don't agree -- your privilege--please don't post that the characters' antics are indicative of their privilege. I can't even stay awake for an argument that bogus. |
|
| reply to this message |
| I don’t think good stories are written in stone. | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:15 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - Jax 03:33 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Hadestown is a reworking of Greek mythology. Do I want to hear Greek songs? No. Lion king is reworking of hamlet—is that racist to use African animals instead of danish cast? If someone wants to keep the widler movie sacred, then they can watch the dvd or stream it as much as they want. But reworking the basic story for modern audience is good for me. I don’t see much use in bringing movies to stage intact like the graduate and many others. I guess it’s nice to see an actors take on the material instead of a remake of the exact movie, wHich does happen with Agatha Christie movies. But I’m willing to pay $15 for a remake movie and not $150 for the play. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: I don’t think good stories are written in stone. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 03:03 am EST 02/12/21 | |
| In reply to: I don’t think good stories are written in stone. - dramedy 12:15 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| One point that I've made about adaptations before - both your examples are now a rarity - shows that retitle their properties. (Though in the case of The Lion King, that's debatable, given that the stage show was directly based on the film.) It used to be that musicals strove to come up with new titles - but not so much anymore. So whereas Some Like It Hot originally became Sugar, now it seems that it becomes...Some Like It Hot. Which doesn't help redefine it. The Wizard of Oz was reworked with a black setting and became The Wiz. Kismet was only somewhat altered for a black cast but still became Timbuktu. Raisin lost its sun, Purlie wasn't victorious, Carmen got a last name, and Porgy got Bess. But - Some Like It Hot will seemingly keep its original title this time, which, subliminally or not, invites more comparison to its source. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think good stories are written in stone. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 05:34 pm EST 02/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think good stories are written in stone. - Chromolume 03:03 am EST 02/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Intriguingly, in the footage that Wayman shared of the California production of "Sugar" (which made a very clear case for why it's a largely forgotten musical), the advertisement went out of its way to make clear that the musical was based on the film (or, per their language, based on the screenplay). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| What's in a name? Broadway adaptations of movies that got a new title | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 05:11 pm EST 02/12/21 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 05:06 pm EST 02/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think good stories are written in stone. - Chromolume 03:03 am EST 02/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| ''It used to be that musicals strove to come up with new titles - but not so much anymore.'' Nowadays, it's pretty direct: ''Billy Elliot the Musical,'' ''A Christmas Story: The Musical,'' ''Moulin Rouge! The Musical,'' etc. Obviously, the producers are counting on name recognition and the nostaglia for certain film favorites. But in the 1960s and '70s, there seemed to be a number of Broadway musicalizations of movies that took on new titles, like ''Sugar'' (1972). A musical of ''Lilies of the Field'' became ''Look to the Lilies'' (1970). A musical of ''East of Eden'' became ''Here's Where I Belong'' (1968). A musical of ''How Green Was My Valley'' became ''A Time for Singing'' (1966). A musical of ''Smiles of a Summer Night'' became ''A Little Night Music'' (1973). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That is the most racist post I've ever read at ATC | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 08:10 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 08:07 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - Jax 03:33 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Your post is so offensive and ignorant. They are clearly creating a new story by saying that the race is instrumental to the story which is obviously different than the original. The film is not being put onstage here. It's a new musical with a similar story and same title. It is so racist to say "when appropriate." Inclusivity is ALWAYS appropriate. And then you say black people should only be considered for behind the scenes positions? I'm horrified that I'm the only one who called you out. Wow. Go away. This community doesn't need you. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Oh, I've read much more racist things on All That Chat | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 12:41 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:38 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: That is the most racist post I've ever read at ATC - KingSpeed 08:07 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Is this the most racist post on this board? I don't think so. Yes, it's racist and gross. Yes, it displays white supremacist thinking, and the poster is clearly threatened by the growing cultural power of BIPOC artists. But the poster was also quick to correct themselves, at least partly, for throwing a tantrum over their fear that the remake was a negation of the original film, and thus, presumably, an erasure of the white men and women who made it. I mean, the poster didn't come out and say they were apologizing, but it was clear that was happening, especially because the second article didn't say anything that wasn't in the first article. it was a pretense to dial down the racism of a post that I would say is far from the most aggressively racist thing I've read on this site. And yes, it's also gross that in the sort-of apology and submission to antiracist culture, the poster tossed out this darkly cynical thought that any attempts to create shows that don't center white people is a calculated business move, rather than the decent thing to do. That's definitely white supremacist thinking, and it makes me fear that the poster can't see BIPOC as human beings, which is the core of the problem that we're having as our nation tears itself apart over whether White people are going to clean up the mess that their ancestors made of the world when they invented race 400 years ago. But, I can't tell you how many racist things like that get posted on this site on a regular basis, and some of them are much more aggressive in their hostility. There's some people on this board who did not see anything wrong with the stories the Racist Gays told 'round the table in the Netflix "Tales of the City". Maybe you haven't been following that as closely over the past few years, but it can get pretty toxic on this site. So when a post like this happens, it feels like Medium on the Racism scale. So I think it's worth pointing out the racism, in the spirit of antiracist principles, but I can also acknowledge the gap between passive racism and active racism. Perhaps it's my own moral failing, but there are definitely days where calling out passive racism is just not worth the effort, and I put that energy more deeply into my own antiracist practices. But to each their own, |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:52 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Oh, I've read much more racist things on All That Chat - Singapore/Fling 12:38 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think the jew slaves in Egypt would state that racism existed 5000 years ago. I don’t know if Aida has any historical context, but the Egyptians probably conquered and enslaved the races to the south of Egypt. Almost every major power from Greece to Romans and China and Japan to British etc empires had slaves that were not their own race. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:04 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - dramedy 11:52 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The "Jew slaves"??? I hate to mince words, but that actually sounds a bit racist to me (as a Jewish man) as opposed to something like "Jewish slaves." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:24 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - Chromolume 09:04 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I thought that when I read it but the perhaps-less-open-to-interpretation reason it's wrong is that Jew is not an adjective. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:34 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - ryhog 09:24 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yes - I'd say that's the technical reason. But something about it also seems to make "jew" a pejorative, even if that was not meant. (And I'm sure it wasn't meant - but it was said regardless.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:57 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - Chromolume 09:34 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| It struck me that way too. I think sometimes there are words that develop pejorative connotations from the way they are used by racists and that may be the case here. I've felt that way about how "gay" is sometimes used (e.g., "he's a gay" doesn't sit well whereas "he's gay" doesn't have the same connotation. I am also sure it was unintentional in this case. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: singleticket 01:06 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - dramedy 11:52 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think the jew slaves in Egypt would state that racism existed 5000 years ago. Don't strike me down but I believe that the historical record on that is contested. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Yes, but... | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 12:00 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 11:59 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - dramedy 11:52 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| ... slavery in the ancient world was based on conquest, not race. The Romans, for instance, absolutely had a large population of slaves who were among their conquered peoples... but also a large population of citizens of all skin colors and nationalities. You have to wait until the 18th century for the idea of cultural superiority to be based on the supposed innate characteristics of different "races." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yes, but... | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 01:12 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 01:04 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Yes, but... - MockingbirdGirl 11:59 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| You have to wait until the 18th century for the idea of cultural superiority to be based on the supposed innate characteristics of different "races." The Brahmins didn't wait, they had it down in 2000 BCE. Ancient mesoamerican culture also had slaves, royal hierarchies and caste systems. That culture had colonies as far north as where St. Louis sits now. But I can't argue that one of the main ways of looking at the history of race in the US is through the colonial catagorization of race and the way that practice continues into the present. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yes, but... | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:44 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Yes, but... - MockingbirdGirl 11:59 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| That's not correct. Long before the time of the Reconquista in Spain (15th C.), the Christians were hating on the Jews and the Moors, and that hate was very much based on cultural superiority. I suspect it goes back long before that and it was true many other places in Europe (Venice, Prague, Frankfurt, to name a few) in the 14th and 15th Centuries. And none of these had anything to do with conquest. I can't speak to the Egyptians in antiquity. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yes, but... | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 02:14 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Yes, but... - ryhog 12:44 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Long before the time of the Reconquista in Spain (15th C.), the Christians were hating on the Jews and the Moors, and that hate was very much based on cultural superiority. Of course they were. But they were also hating on lily-white Protestants, as demonstrated by the extension of the Inquisition into the Spanish Netherlands. But I wouldn't lump it under the heading of slavery, in any event. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yes, but... | |
| Posted by: ryhog 03:12 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Yes, but... - MockingbirdGirl 02:14 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| We are getting pretty far afield here but let me just note that you are off by a couple centuries. On your other point, I thought we were talking about racism and that slavery was of course a sidebar to that discussion. Maybe I merged when I should have remained in a separate lane. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I’m not a historian | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:07 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Yes, but... - MockingbirdGirl 11:59 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| But I find it hard to believe the Egyptians didn’t feel superior to other races. I know the Bible has been used to justify slavery—However, I don’t know if it goes to any level of proof of superiority of races. But I’m not a historian or philosopher so really couldn’t debate the issues adequately. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I’m not a historian | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 01:26 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 01:21 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I’m not a historian - dramedy 12:07 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| There is a good deal of research on the history of European powers in the 15th Century, specifically the Portuguese, creating the ideas of race predicated upon skin color, and the modern hierarchy of race in which societal power and status correlates to lightness of skin tone. When we talk about Black people or White people or East Asians, we are using language and a worldview that springs from the beginning of modern Colonialism and the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Biologically, there is no such thing as race, and the categories we create to contain people around race are a social construct. This isn't to say that there hasn't been ethno-nationalist prejudice for much longer, but that the idea of prejudice based upon the idea of race is relatively recent and created by (and for) people who came to be regarded as White. I did mistype when I wrote 400 years ago, as I was off in my math by an additional 200 years. I've been reading about this in a few books, but the one I'm referencing right now is Ibram X. Kendi's "How to Be an Antiracist", which I highly encourage reading. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Biologically there is no such thing as race? | |
| Posted by: dramedy 03:59 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I’m not a historian - Singapore/Fling 01:21 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| That is incorrect. Sickle cell anemia is a generic trait in the black race—I believe it is a mutation that actually prevents malaria. Tay-Sachs is passed down in Jewish decent. I’m sure there are many examples besides these. There are biological traits that are racially based. Even hair is biological based difference based on race. Using these differences to treat people differently is the issue. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That is correct. Genetics are different than race. | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 04:32 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 04:26 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Biologically there is no such thing as race? - dramedy 03:59 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| As you admit, you are not a historian and have done no research on this. I encourage you to do the work to educate yourself on this. Biologically, there is no such thing as race in the way that we currently understand race in social terms. There are genetic variations within people who share ancestry, but those groupings are not biologically distinct races. Our understanding of the human genome is relatively new, occurring long after the grouping of people into races, and the scientific evidence shows that these groupings are not based in biology. (How could they be? The creation of race is from a time when leeches were the height of science.) In terms of Sickle Cell Disease, you can do some relatively quick Googling to find reading material showing that the prevalence of this disease in Black Americans can be traced to a relatively small number of specific African communities, including the Yorubans, Mandenkas, and Bantu people. Black Americans with that ancestry are linked to specific genetic communities, but we don't talk about the Yorubans as a race, because people of that ancestry have been folded into the larger grouping of "Black". |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Exactly right. | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 03:03 pm EST 02/12/21 | |
| In reply to: That is correct. Genetics are different than race. - Singapore/Fling 04:26 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| And as a physician, I would like to comment further that Tay-Sacks and Sickle Cell and other diseases that have a genetic component can jump across the cultural divide sometimes called race or emerge independently in other ethnic, cultural, regional, and family lines. 3 out of 1,000 children from two white parents are born with Sickle Cell trait. Slightly less from two Asian parents. Race, if being most generous to the idea, could be scientifically analogous to a "breed" of dogs or cats, except the variability is significantly greater in the groupings humans have made of themselves, and I hesitate to give any credence to the idea of the superiority of any "pure line". |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That is the most racist post I've ever read at ATC | |
| Posted by: Jax 08:38 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: That is the most racist post I've ever read at ATC - KingSpeed 08:07 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| You clearly did not read my correction (below) in which I explain that the Deadline article did not make it clear that they were changing Sugar's race. If you check the article you will find that several commenters were also confused. Care to apologize for jumping the gun? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That is the most racist post I've ever read at ATC | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 09:48 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: That is the most racist post I've ever read at ATC - Jax 08:38 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| And no one else in the thread said what you did so don’t bring them into it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Nope | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 09:46 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 09:43 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: That is the most racist post I've ever read at ATC - Jax 08:38 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Your post was still racist. Only black people can work behind the scenes because everyone was white in the movie? And the Deadline article was very clear. You haven’t addressed the most racist thing you said. Inclusivity is only fine “when appropriate.” You should really think about you wrote. Most racist thing I’ve read here. Inclusivity is always appropriate!!! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| eh, the movie is deeply overrated | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 06:02 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:59 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - Jax 03:33 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| A solid film and fine comedy, but truly if this is meant to be the "funniest comedies ever made", it's really lacking in the "funny" department. (For my money, if we're talking old classics and movies always defaulting to the "BEST EVER" lists, as far as story and laughs are concerned Sullivan's Travel is a significantly better comedy and better film) I am only interested in this new musical because it seems to be departing from the source. I have very little interest otherwise. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: eh, the movie is deeply overrated | |
| Posted by: huskyital (huskyital@yaho.com) 10:09 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: eh, the movie is deeply overrated - Chazwaza 05:59 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Every one to their taste.....as a 10 year old I found it howlingly funny and I still feel it is funny with Lemmon, Curtis and Marilyn at their comic peak. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: eh, the movie is deeply overrated | |
| Posted by: comedywest 10:42 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: eh, the movie is deeply overrated - huskyital 10:09 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| and it is well written, with allusions to older movies and callbacks--I had watched it for years when I notice that the excuse Tony Curtis for dumping Sugar was to marry the heiress to the Hupmobile fortune (i.e., Ellie Winemeyer). I saw it in a theater again a few years ago, and you could tell some people were seeing it for the first time. They too were howling. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: eh, the movie is deeply overrated | |
| Posted by: singleticket 06:22 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: eh, the movie is deeply overrated - Chazwaza 05:59 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| The way Wilder lit Monroe while she is performing "I wanna be loved by you" in her Orry-Kelly dress is sheer perverse genius. The rest of it, I would agree, is a bit of a slog. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It does have the best button of any movie, ever. | |
| Posted by: tmdonahue 08:03 am EST 02/13/21 | |
| In reply to: re: eh, the movie is deeply overrated - singleticket 06:22 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Joe E. Brown, upon discovering that Daphne is actually a man (Jack Lemmon), "Well, nobody's perfect." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Oh, it's pretty damn funny. However, | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 06:19 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 06:18 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: eh, the movie is deeply overrated - Chazwaza 05:59 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Sullivan's Travels" is great, but even more flat-out funny more consistently from Preston Sturges is "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek". How it was ever able to get by the censors back then by clever writing makes it even more amazing! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| or even | |
| Posted by: comedywest 06:23 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: Oh, it's pretty damn funny. However, - PlayWiz 06:18 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| or even Palm Beach Story or Hail the Conquering Hero...Sullivan's Travels is very dark in sports, and often very serious. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: or even | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 08:26 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 08:24 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: or even - comedywest 06:23 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed. Those are very funny films, especially the wacky "Palm Beach Story' whose hilarious but nonsensical opening during the title sequence is finally kind of explained and resolved at the film's finale. Mary Astor and Toto are especially standouts once they enter the film, though of course Claudette Colbert and Joel MacCrae were aces, with a very good indeed Rudy Vallee. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: or even | |
| Posted by: comedywest 10:14 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: or even - PlayWiz 08:24 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| And Lady Eve... Though most of Sturges except Christmas in July would be tough to stage. As for Some Like It Hot, like Tootsie, I'd say that if you don't like the source material, do your own musical. Or go back to an earlier source--like Servant of Two Masters--and work from there |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway | |
| Posted by: Jax 03:41 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - Jax 03:33 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| CORRECTION: The Deadline article does not tell the whole story. Here is a quote from Playbill about the show and CHANGES THE CREATIVE TEAM IS MAKING: Ruffin’s involvement signals a departure from the Billy Wilder source material, resulting in a new take that the writer calls “honestly groundbreaking.” The character of Sugar—portrayed in the film by Marilyn Monroe—will be reworked as Black, with her racial identity providing more than an opportunity for color-blind casting. “It is an exciting proposition to create a show with characters whose race is instrumental and not incidental to the story,” López says. “It became apparent to me that if we were to honor our commitment to tell that story with honesty and integrity, it required a Black creative voice on the team. It didn’t take long for all of us to agree that Amber was the person to approach.” Lopez's comments now make more sense. Whether or not making Sugar a Black woman changes the show remains to be seen. Initially it seems to me like a calculated move to broaden the potential audience for the show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| You continue to be racist | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 10:06 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 09:51 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - Jax 03:41 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Casting a black person is just a calculated move to make money? Wow. It was clear from the Deadline article that it’s an artistic decision they are excited about. You don’t understand how racist you are. Btw, the recent Hello Dolly made a ton of money without casting a single black actor in a principal role. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 04:08 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - Jax 03:41 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| When I was a kid in suburban Philadelphia, I recall hearing about a community theatre production of SUGAR that featured a black actress as Sugar Kane. I didn't see it, sadly, but one thing everyone mentioned about it was that she was able to create a performance in the role that was terrific and also not at all in the Marilyn Monroe space, something which both productions of SUGAR that I've been in had issues with. I like that the creators here are using the film as a jumping off point and seem to be interested in creating their own piece. One thing I'd suggest would be, at some point, to give it a new title to give it an identity of its own. I'm not sure the title of the film, undisputed classic though it is, will actually sell a lot of tickets. Is it a cultural touchstone for anyone under 45 these days? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:43 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - Jax 03:41 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Why did you read Lopez's original comment as a critique or attack of the original film? Even without this additional context, it was clear he was talking about creating a story that featured POC characters, not condemning the original film. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway | |
| Posted by: claploudly 04:07 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - Singapore/Fling 03:43 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Will this show use the terrific score first used in the musical "Sugar"? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| A tuneful of 'Sugar' | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 06:29 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - claploudly 04:07 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| No, this forthcoming ''Some Like It Hot'' will feature a new score by Tony winners Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman (''Hairspray''). But when this project was first announced, I believe Shaiman did acknowledge ''Sugar'' or Jule Styne and Bob Merrill's earlier score. I've never seen ''Sugar,'' but it does have a couple of fun and infectious songs: the title tune and ''The Beauty That Drives Men Mad.'' Robert Morse and Tony Roberts, stars of ''Sugar'' (1972), re-created the latter number for a 1999 Broadway concert at Carnegie Hall. (''Sugar'' got 4 Tony nominations, including Best Musical, and ran for over 500 shows, and Tony Curtis, as Osgood, did a tour in 2012-13.) |
|
| Link | Robert Morse and Tony Roberts, as Daphne and Josephine, sing about 'The Beauty That Drives Men Mad' (from 'Sugar') |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Correction: Curtis toured with ''Some Like It Hot'' in 2002-03. (nm) | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 09:04 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 09:02 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: A tuneful of 'Sugar' - WaymanWong 06:29 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 04:03 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - Singapore/Fling 03:43 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| If they want to do a new take on it, why not (also perhaps) make one of the lead musicians gay and have the them fall for each other by the end? Or make Sugar be attracted to one of the ladies in the band? Or make some be bisexual (even less represented than POCs or one sex-attracted gays or lesbians in musicals!). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway | |
| Posted by: singleticket 03:40 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: New "Some Like It Hot" musical heading to Broadway - Jax 03:33 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Co-book writer, Matthew Lopez: "It is an exciting proposition to create a show with characters whose race is instrumental (and not incidental) to the story." He says earlier in this confusing press release: "When I was first approached to write Some Like it Hot, the idea that convinced me it was something worth doing – besides getting to work with Casey, Marc, and Scott – was the opportunity to take a classic comedy about Prohibition-era America and rethink it for a contemporary audience. As a queer BIPOC writer.." So I think the press release is trying to tell us that the story is being adapted to include POC characters. In any event, I agree, it would have better to have been clearer about how the musical is being adapted to avoid what can sound like Broadway diversity ballyhoo. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.133001 seconds.