Threaded Order Chronological Order
| So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Posted by: wizrdofoz27 12:52 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| I was pretty startled to learn that the character of the sister was originally written to be fat. It's one of the "Four Strikes Against Me" she sings about. Have other productions made that change? Has Encores flubbed casting like that before? | |
| reply to this message |
| And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m | |
| Posted by: FleetStreetBarber 05:31 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - wizrdofoz27 12:52 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| . | |
| reply to this message |
| re: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 06:24 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 06:09 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m - FleetStreetBarber 05:31 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| What a shabby way to treat the original creators! I hope the Dramatists Guild fires off a letter of protest to Encores! Blackwell passed away in 1995 and Lorick in 2016. Does anyone know if Krieger was invited to Encores! (or consulted about any revisions)? (Encores! included an insert for the original musical & vocal arranger Harold Wheeler, so why not Blackwell, Lorick and Krieger, as well?) For the record, ''The Tap Dance Kid'' is based on ''Nobody's Family Is Gonna Change,'' a novel by Louise Fitzhugh, best known for ''Harriet the Spy.'' |
|
| Link | Encores! Inside the Revival of 'The Tap Dance Kid' (2021), includes footage of Dule Hill, who had to drop out of the 2022 revival |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:35 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m - WaymanWong 06:09 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| Krieger was reported to have been at one of the performances. The failure to include bios for the original authors, along with the failure to credit the orchestrator and vocal arranger (Harold Wheeler) and dance-music arranger (Peter Howard) speaks to major sloppiness or thoughtlessness or lack of knowledge on the part of the person responsible. And someone at the top should have been paying attention. Since they put an insert crediting Harold Wheeler in the playbill, with a bio, why did they not also include on the insert (or add another insert with) bios for the authors? Charles Blackwell was an important person in Broadway history (with important London credits, too, connected to his Broadway work), and most people know little about him. A bio for him would have been especially useful, although I wonder if people at Encores! know much about him. As one of the few black writers whose work has been produced in the main Encores! series, this oversight is particularly disturbing under the circumstances. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m | |
| Posted by: DAW60 12:55 am EST 02/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m - AlanScott 09:35 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| He was in the audience Wednesday evening, introduced from the stage. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m | |
| Posted by: FleetStreetBarber 10:17 am EST 02/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m - DAW60 12:55 am EST 02/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| He was also in the audience at the dress rehearsal on Tuesday evening and was acknowledged from the stage. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:27 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m - FleetStreetBarber 05:31 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| And Harold Wheeler, but I guess he got an insert eventually. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 04:57 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And why no bios of Krieger, Lorick & Blackwell in the Playbill ??? n/m - Chromolume 07:27 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| That is wild. What are they up to over there? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Todd Buonopane responds | |
| Posted by: TimDunleavy 04:25 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - wizrdofoz27 12:52 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| The thread is worth reading. | |
| Link | https://twitter.com/ToddBuonopane/status/1490400417125179395 |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Todd Buonopane responds | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:31 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: Todd Buonopane responds - TimDunleavy 04:25 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| Good for him. I worked with him once, btw, when he was still in Boston - great guy, and I'm thrilled he's gone on to much bigger stuff. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Last Edit: writerkev 03:20 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| Posted by: writerkev 03:20 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - wizrdofoz27 12:52 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| I didn’t see the show, but it doesn’t seem to be about miscasting. There seems to have been a concerted effort to erase any references to the character being fat, so as to…what? Not offend anyone, I guess. Future productions of “Richard III” will have to get rid of any references to the hunchback now, I guess. Nothing onstage but what is perfectly palatable to all? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 04:24 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - writerkev 03:20 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| Unfortunately, the logic that a character who is fat or has a hunchback would be unpalatable to an audience plays into sizeism and ableism, and getting rid of those aspects of a show because they might offend is rather lazy. If the goal here was to adjust the book in a way that wouldn't be offensive (and we don't know that this was the case), the show could have brought in representatives who can speak on ways to successfully navigate the language and narrative role of that character. Erasing her fatness is the wrong approach, whatever lead to it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 05:57 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:53 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Singapore/Fling 04:24 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| Why should they have to bring in "representatives who can speak on ways to successfully navigate the language and narrative role of that character."? So now they should have paid someone... what, a dramaturg who is also fat, i'm guessing? ... to consult on how to alter a show that isn't even meant to be a new show? The point of Encores is to give audiences a chance to see an underseen/underappreciated gem, focused primarily on celebrating the score of that show. The show was written with this character being fat. The only thing they needed to do was present the show and cast the fat character as fat. If the original script is notably cruel or awful with/to the fat character I guess rewriting would be worthwhile. But to what extent? And was that even the case? Encores shouldn't be rewriting shows to appeal to the audience of the present day. Especially when they aren't trying to do a major overhaul to give the show a new form/life, like it seems they're doing with The Life (though I'd rather they just do the original show and let another organization with a different goal do an overhaul revisal version). Are productions now meant to add consultants from the community of any minority group (be it racial, sexual, gender, body type, mental health, nationality, the list goes on and on) that get paid to give them notes on how to think about a script that is already written and published from a long time ago? And then what if they don't agree or implement that person's notes or guidance? And who's to say that representative speaks for the sensibilities or what's "offensive" to everyone in that "community"? One person's experience being fat might be different than this character's experience. The world around the rep is different than the world around the character in the show. And different than each audience member who has the potential to be offended or bothered by the way it is written. This is true of everything. So would this be to shave it down into something no one would be offended by (which usually means making the character an idealized version of a person), or so there's someone officially hired to validate it and hide behind if anyone is offended and says something online? Maybe I'm taking your notion the wrong way, but it seems to be the answer would have been to just keep the character fat, not change the script, and cast it appropriately. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 06:32 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:30 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Chazwaza 05:53 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| There are a lot of argument threads to ponder here, and until we know more about why Encores! made the changes they made and how they reached that decision, the only one I can speak to is the thread of dramaturgs from diverse communities: In a nutshell, yes. When we bring people into our stories that are from different communities or lived experiences than our own, we should also be bringing in collaborators who can speak to and from how those cultures are being put on stage. Each process will determine for itself how it implements those perspectives and what role the dramaturgs and consultants ultimately play in the final product. But it is becoming standard practice to do this, and it helps when we get into situations like the hypothetical that has been forwarded here, that the production changed a character to be skinny because they were afraid that the language or representation was problematic. Rather than try to solve that, in this hypothetical, they simply erased it, which is its own problematic behavior. In the ideal situation, the goal isn’t “not to offend anyone”, it’s to create an authentic, multi-layered character who isn’t the butt of a joke or whose identity isn’t being used as a signifier. Hopefully this work would actually prevent the scenario you propose, where the character is an ideal, not a person. If producers and creative use those dramaturgs and consultants to hide behind after they disregard their inputs, that’s on them. But the more likely scenario is that everyone on the team learns more about what people and stories they’re bringing to life. It may sound radical now, but the idea of intimacy consultants was radical only a few years ago, and we’ve seen what happens when a show doesn’t do this dramaturgical work: case in point, the “jagged little pill” debacle, where that show positioned itself with the very audience it was making the show for. 🤦🏻♂️ |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 07:28 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:21 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Singapore/Fling 06:30 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, by this logic or new rule, we should throw out just about every novel or play (or movie or tv show even) that's be written prior to... well, even today. Enjoy that. Unless you have written a play about your own "lived experience" exclusively, from the clear point of view of you (because your lived experience is only true for you, the other characters written in the portrayal of that life are seen through the lived experience of the author, not the person the author is writing, so there's an inherent problem in writing anything but an auto-biographical one-person play), then you have to bring on consultants who are able, somehow, to represent, and give notes, with deference, on the things you didn't live? Including a mounting of a play from the past? I'm sorry, I don't agree. It is becoming a standard because of fear, not because it is the agreed upon best way to do things. Encores mission is not to only produce musicals that are 100% authentic, with exclusively multi-layered characters with nuance and seen always and only in the light today's audiences want to see them in. And it's not true that the only scores worth celebrating and presenting in the Encores style are only the musicals that fit this standard coming in. Nor should it be. I don't think a lack of dramaturgical consulting was the issue at play with Jagged Little Pill. And yes, if you're writing about characters or places that could be/have been negatively impacted by how they're written about/portrayed, it's worth having someone from that community take a look and give feedback. That is not at all the same as "bringing in collaborators", nor is it the same as doing it whenever you bring people into the story "that are from different lived experiences than our own". It's quite different to consult on how something might reflect on or impact the current community than a dramaturg being hired to "help" reflect their own lived experience or their perception and opinion of what the characters experience would be and also what of that needs to be included in the play. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 08:04 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 08:00 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Chazwaza 07:21 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| Nothing in what I wrote in any way suggests that we need to toss out everything that’s been written before today. And look, writers and creatives regularly do research into areas that they don’t know as much about, in order to render them authentically. This is nothing new, and it’s nothing unusual. Your hostility is misplaced. Likewise, I didn’t write that writers are limited to writing auto-biography; that’s your overreaction. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 08:27 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:15 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Singapore/Fling 08:00 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not claiming you said those things, and you've missed my point, I suspect willfully. I'm am following your logic to another level. If we applied the standard of "needing" to bring on collaborators to consult and guide writers writing any character or story that is outside that writers lived experience to just about every novel or play (etc), they would not have been written as they are, or not have been published or performed because there was no "authenticity of presumed relevant lived experienced" to consult and approve before it was released. The point is that there are many great and celebrated works written by people, currently and throughout the history of the written word, that do not meet this standard. And my point with the one-person auto-biographical play is that if you are writing something that is not specifically that, you are writing people and stories outside your own actual lived experience, period. So therefor, now, would need to hire a collaborator who can guide and consult your writing through the filter of their own lived experience which is closer to (or deemed the same as, even though that's not possible) the characters'. I am also fully in support of writers doing research and being sensitive to the approach/context/portrayal and impact of their writing. I am not hostile to that idea. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:57 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Chazwaza 08:15 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| I did miss your point, but not willfully. Sorry to tell you, but you made a leap from one idea to the next as if that was what I was proposing, rather than stating this was your extension into speculative fiction. A dramaturg might be able to help you state yourself more clearly - you might want to hire a consultant before you publish your next post (tongue in cheek, of course). I think most reasonable people are able to recognize the past and separate it from the present, but I also think that we can look back on many plays or novels and see how they didn't handle certain characters or communities with the delicacy or intelligence that they might have. And we can also look back at plays or novels and if we did some digging, we'd likely discover that those writers did work with people from these communities, in some fashion, in order to expand their knowledge. We're just talking about making that a more codified part of the process. Do you object when someone writing about a Roman gladiator hires an expert on Roman history? Do you object if someone producing a Moliere play brings in someone with knowledge of French humor and etiquette in the 17th Century? I would guess not, and so I would challenge you to consider how this is fundamentally different. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Posted by: ChattaMatta 06:34 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Singapore/Fling 06:30 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| "In the ideal situation, the goal isn’t “not to offend anyone”, it’s to create an authentic, multi-layered character who isn’t the butt of a joke or whose identity isn’t being used as a signifier." A critical point, very nicely stated. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 07:30 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:25 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - ChattaMatta 06:34 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| And you think the production would only know if the fat character was the butt of a joke if they hired a "body positivity consultant"? And you think all characters who aren't white, cis male, straight, thin and young, need to be authentic multilayered characters? And if they aren't then a consultant from that community who is also a quality dramaturg worth hiring should be brought on to help re-write and guided the writer to re-writing it so they are? Interesting. (also, i must say, i know several dramaturgs and trust me when i say many dramaturgs are not worth hiring) These are very different things... consulting on whether or not the community the character belongs to would be negatively impacted by the way its written ... and making sure the character in question (and all characters who are minority of any kind) is "multi-layered", and should not be confused as the same thing. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 08:03 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Chazwaza 07:25 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don’t know why you’re presuming this is only about “minorities”. There are plenty of rooms that could benefit from a consultant on how to portray or engage with White, cis, straight men. You know dramaturgs who are not worth hiring… well we all know plenty of people in all professions who are not worth hiring, and we know some who are. The lousy ones don’t discredit the position. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 08:31 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:25 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Singapore/Fling 08:03 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| I happen to think the majority of people claiming to be a dramaturg do discredit the position. And I'm not presuming this is only about minorities. And no need to put that in quotes, there are many many minorities, I don't mean the word dismissively. It is, I think, only about minorities, because no one is concerned about misrepresenting or doing harm in the perception of characters who are in major majority communities. They are not at risk of something negative being created in the audiences mind about them, and they don't suffer from limited representation (or limited authentic representation, acknowledging that no minority group or minority group is monolithic, and my experience as a gay person is different than yours, and their experience as het/white is different than someone elses) in media or entertainment. There are also very few rooms, as you say, that have no white cis straight male representation or oversight which are also attempting to tell stories involving white/male/cis/het characters -- except as antagonists or villains or minor characters not worthy of focus, in which case the people in non-cis/white/het/male room are not typically concerned with that majority group feeling that their representation in that project was potentially harmful or inauthentic to their lived experience. It's not a bad thing that this is prioritizing and exclusively considering "minorities", my point was more that almost all musicals, plays, movies and tv shows have characters, in a majority or minority community, who are not multi-layered nuanced characters or even having enough material to use to be verify whether or not they're "authentic"... and that's ok. It is not the responsibility of every piece of art or entertainment to not only include a diverse group of characters but also to give them all enough detail and layering that they can be looked to as an notable and positive representation of the group they would be counted as belonging to. But I'm very much reacting to the wording you used originally and the mixing of impact of the writing vs the writing itself, and of a specific and limited consultant vs a collaborator. I think they are different, I don't think either or both are necessary in all situations of a writer "writing outside their own lived experience" (again, almost all writers, writing almost anything). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Posted by: den 08:36 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Singapore/Fling 04:24 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| I guess we can no longer see a production of 'Lear' where the king is old anymore ... ageism! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? | |
| Last Edit: writerkev 05:19 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| Posted by: writerkev 05:17 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - Singapore/Fling 04:24 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| I didn’t mean to suggest that a fat character might be seen as unpalatable to those who aren’t (which I think is what you assume by saying “sizeism”). I would speculate that having a character declared fat in the script would be offensive to those who are overweight. We are moving in a direction where creators will be paralyzed with fear at the possibility of offending anyone. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 05:42 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 05:36 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: So, Encores erased the fat character in Tap Dance Kid. Have other major productions? Has Encores done this before? - writerkev 05:17 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| which stands for people who Get Off On Being Offended. Yes, there are plenty of things in the world to be outraged about. But some folks in the business have tried to turn it into a cottage industry and get attention for themselves by their grievances. More often than not, it's about race -- fair enough. But it's too much sometimes, like in this case. If people are offended by people of size having songs about either being it being a problem or even about being confident in oneself, what about productions of "Hairspray" and its leading characters of Tracy and Edna Turnblad? Martine Allard was one of the best things about the original "Tap Dance Kid"; the folks who cast this have taken away a role which was conceived to be of someone of larger size from a performer who would have fit it as written. That the creative them has dealt with this role in this manner is a manifestation of (or fear of) a hidden prejudice, apparently brought about by fear of being criticized by whatever GOOBO might pop up. And that's a damn shame. Lest anyone call me out for complaining about this, I pick my battles carefully and selectively, unlike some others around here. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 05:45 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - PlayWiz 05:36 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| But to be clear, we have no idea why they made the choice to cast a non-fat actor. Until we know why, we're just speculating, so we shouldn't treat the theory that it was about not wanting to offend anyone as a given fact. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:39 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - Singapore/Fling 05:45 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| Why is it the audience/public's responsibility to be fair? The producers/director/writer did it, with no explanation. Until/unless they make a statement online, it's their issue that the public is speculating -- speculating will only stop if/when they make a statement. They had the responsibility to cast the role as written, not the audience's to assume the best intentions and say nothing in response until they've explained a thing they clearly didn't think needed explaining until there was push back. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:44 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - Chazwaza 05:39 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| People are free to speculate, but some on this board are treating the speculation as gospel fact, which it is not. I would think that right now, we would all see the importance of responding to facts rather than internet theories that we think are true. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:40 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - Chazwaza 05:39 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| At the Saturday talkback, someone asked about the reasons for the changes to the character. Lear deBessonet said she could not answer the question. Adaptor Lydia Diamond was the person who could answer, and she was not there. If deBesonnet really did not know the reason (or perhaps even did not know of the changes), she should have known. It may be that she simply did not want to speak for someone else, but as the artistic director, she should have been able to answer the question. Let us hope that if similar questions come up at future talkbacks (as it seems may well happen), someone will be able to answer them. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: mikem 11:22 am EST 02/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - AlanScott 09:40 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| I find it kind of unsettling that the artistic director would say she doesn't know why major changes were made. As you say, that's something that the artistic director should know. And she should be prepared to answer what seems like will be an obvious question at a planned audience talkback. Coupled with her idea that almost no shows written in the 1990s are acceptable, this incident makes me think that deBessonet's idea of what Encores should be and what her role should be is radically different than Jack Viertel's. And I think radically different from what most long-term subscribers think. I don't think Encores's mission is to "correct" shows from the recent past. deBessonet doesn't seem like the right choice for Encores. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:00 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - AlanScott 09:40 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| That is kooky. I'm trying to take the viewpoint that giving the creatives radical autonomy is a plus (having worked at a place that practiced the opposite to miserable results)... but that is radical even for me. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: ChattaMatta 01:09 am EST 02/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - Singapore/Fling 10:00 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| Radical autonomy is essential for most theater orgs. But ENCORES! has historically been about preservation, and honoring and upholding the original intent of the text, not about revisionism. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 01:31 am EST 02/08/22 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:30 am EST 02/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - ChattaMatta 01:09 am EST 02/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| There have definitely been exceptions over the years, including (in varying ways and to varying degrees) Merrily We Roll Along, Do I Hear a Waltz? and No, No, Nanette. EDIT: But you know that. Somehow I thought I was responding to someone else, and then I realized it was you. :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: ChattaMatta 09:52 am EST 02/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - AlanScott 01:30 am EST 02/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| MERRILY was its own thing at ENCORES! But the NANETTE (going from the beloved 70s version) and WALTZ didn't do anything as radical as with TAP DANCE, did they? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:03 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - ChattaMatta 09:52 am EST 02/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| I am sorry, ChattaMatta, to have taken so long to respond. I wrote a good deal of this right after I saw your post, but then I got bogged down trying to finish it to my reasonable satisfaction. I kept adding stuff (even just before finally posting), and some of it required a bit of research and much of it required a good deal of thought and rewriting, and I lost momentum. So, to start, since I didn't see Tap Dance Kid at Encores! and I did not see the original, I can't compare it in terms of revision with Merrily and Nanette. Do I Hear a Waltz? was a mix (as far as I can tell) of the George Street-Pasadena revision and the original, but leaning on the revision, except for restoring ”Bargaining” and the original version and location of ”Here We Are Again.” The revision has book changes, some of them unwisely putting back stuff from The Time of the Cuckoo. I felt the changes hurt the show. I think the Nanette example is pretty self-explanatory. It was based on the 1971 version, with barely a line (or perhaps none at all) from the original book, and missing two songs, although the original did have its weird history of multiple pre-Broadway productions, with some numbers that came and went, the latter situation being pretty common at the time. And the 1971 revisal had very different orchestrations from the original. I won't necessarily say the decision to do this version was wrong, but it certainly was disappointing to me, even as it made many others very happy. You yourself are saying ”the beloved 70s version” while decrying revisions in other cases. So Encores! revived a revisal, as it did with A Connecticut Yankee. You wrote in the post to which I responded: ”But ENCORES! has historically been about preservation, and honoring and upholding the original intent of the text, not about revisionism.” Is reviving a revisal (an extremely popular one in the case of No, No, Nanette) not revisionism of some sort, however justifiable it may be? I am sure that the people who made the changes to The Tap Dance Kid felt what they did was justified, perhaps even necessary. It's all in the eyes and minds of the beholders. And then there was The New Yorkers, a major revisal created for Encores! The original may well have been more-or-less unproduceable in the form in which it existed, at least in a way satisfactory for a big Encores! production — and it was another older show that made changes to its song list during the run — and the Encores! version may have been entertaining, but did two extremely famous Porter songs need to be added, along with three or four others? (I hedge on whether it was five or six altogether because I'm not sure how close to ”The Physician” truly is to ”He Never Says He Loves Me,” cut out of town from The New Yorkers. The answer is not altogether clear from The Complete Lyrics.) New orchestrations were definitely needed since most of the originals could not be found, but some of the interpolation choices were questionable to me and to others with whom I have discussed this. I understand the desire to interpolate a few songs, but I would have preferred if they had not interpolated ”Night and Day,” which I think also didn't fit in especially well. And although not quite so famous, ”You’ve Got That Thing” is also pretty famous and did not especially fit. There are several Porter songs that I think would have been better fits to interpolate than some of the ones they chose, including songs from two of the shows that Viertel intentionally looked to for interpolations as they came directly before and after The New Yorkers. It’s not as if the original score did not already have three standards (one of them added during the run), although not as famous as ”Night and Day.” It's kind of condescending to audiences to think they can't enjoy an old show if it doesn't include at least one or two all-time top standards. In particular, I think it was kind of tone deaf to the tone of The New Yorkers to interpolate ”Night and Day.” It seems to me to reflect a misguided point of view that these shows are even more makeshift than some of them actually are. Even though the plot is crazy, and songs pop in for minimal reason, the piece does seem to have a tone, and ”Night and Day” doesn’t fit that tone. In any case, my understanding is that the intent, or at least part of it, was to create something that might be licensed, even if they probably were not expecting a move to an open-ended Broadway run. In the early years, books were often cut drastically, dance music was often cut wholly or partly, and so on. As time went on, the productions started having more and more choreography, although still sometimes cutting significant amounts of dance, along with the dance music that went along. (I know that you know this history.) So I would not say that Encores! at any point in its history has been a bastion of complete original texts and performance practices. Complicating this is that sometimes the writers themselves revised the show (e.g., Paint Your Wagon). Of course, sometimes there are reasons for wondering whether you really want to stick closely to the original. For example, when they did House of Flowers in a version based on the Broadway script, the surprise from seeing the Encores! production was not that the original was not more successful. The surprise was that the original ran as long as it did, which clearly was because of the presence of Pearl Bailey. In 1954-1955, everyone raved about Bailey (well, one critic said she seemed off on opening night), and the sets and costumes, and Diahann Carroll was highly praised, but even the score got mixed reviews. Encores! did not have Pearl Bailey, Diahann Carroll or stunning design. But is it fair to expect Encores! to have those things? (Not possible to have had Bailey or Carroll, unless Carroll was to play Madame Fleur.) I was glad to have had a chance to see House of Flowers in some form, especially with full orchestra, and with talented pros throughout the cast, even if not all of them were well-cast. But I think some people walked out at the end of that one and some of the other Encores! productions feeling less inclined than people like you and me to look on the positive side. So I understand, even if I don't agree with, the desire to revise. The trouble is that the revising usually doesn't improve things much, if at all. Sometimes it makes things worse, removing whatever consistency the original had. I do think each show is an individual case, and it can be dangerous to make generalizations. But I have to remember that cuts were made to the House of Flowers book. I was just doing something that annoys me when I read other people doing it. When people say that an Encores! production proves that a particular show isn't good or that the book isn't good, it’s important for them to remember that you almost never see the whole book. Sometimes even small cuts have an outsize effect. When things cease to make sense, which can happen very easily with even a few lines cut, a book may seem inadequate when it might not seem inadequate (or at least less inadequate) if the whole book was performed. As with Wagner, cutting can make a piece seem longer, not shorter, because sense and continuity get lost. Not to mention all the other things about Encores! that limit how much we should make a judgment as to the quality of a show, as opposed to the quality of the version we’re seeing presented by Encores! That doesn't mean we can never make some reasonable suppositions as to why a musical is less than a complete artistic based on seeing a somewhat cut version at Encores! performed with limited rehearsal time, sometimes with imperfect casting and other production problems. For example, I found Juno thrilling (despite reservations on some of the production choices), and if memory serves, you also loved it, while some folks left at intermission or stayed but left grumbling. In this case, it seemed pretty clear just from hearing the score with some book context why the piece isn't altogether an artistic success, rich and thrilling though much of the score is. I think the reasons were pretty clear, even taking into account the cuts that were made to the book and that we were not getting to see the full dance sequences, not to mention the de Mille choreography. What we saw made it quite worthwhile for me, but it didn’t for everyone. Truth is that I would have preferred the whole book and all the dance, but, again, there is limited rehearsal. I think that all along compromises have been made for various reasons, including fear that complete books will bore audiences. And especially with the limited rehearsal, sometimes that may be right, but other times I think we need the whole book or a show really does seem worse. Would House of Flowers, such a good example, have seemed better with more of the book or would it have seemed even more endless? Often there is no way to know till the show is on its feet and there are previews, but this does not and cannot happen at Encores! (In the case of House of Flowers, my moderately educated guess is that the piece is dramatically hopeless, and the reasons can be attributed to Capote.) This is one of the conundrums for whoever may be running Encores! at any particular time. So my main point, having gone perhaps excessively into several areas, is that while I am annoyed with the choices that have been made so far by the new artistic director, and by some of the choices made on The Tap Dance Kid — while also mentioning that I did not see it but some of the choices of what and how to revise sure sound problematic and misguided — I think we would also make a mistake to glamorize Encores! as it existed prior to this season. Finally, where is Love Life? Is it just a delay, given the size and complexity of the show, until Encores! is fully back or has deBessonet decided (or is considering whether) to take a pass? Or is someone at Encores! scared of some of the content and how to present it? Or does someone there perhaps even actively dislike the show? I don't know (obviously).This is a musical that I think is either a masterpiece or a near-masterpiece, if a flawed one. I also think that the less futzing with (and cutting of) the opening-night Broadway script, the better. We shall see. If not Encores!, perhaps we can get MasterVoices. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: ChattaMatta 08:16 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - AlanScott 07:03 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for this! A lot to unpack. Short response: I suspect there is a difference between re-arranging some songs and some dialogue trims vs. completely changing the time period and wholesale rewriting a major character, or just flat out completely revising the script to teach audiences a contemporary "lesson." In all the cases you outlined (very impressively) the loyal audience didn't feel as gypped as they did with TAP DANCE. The revival of NO NO NANETTE qualifies for Encores!, in my opinion, because it was an unexpected and legendary hit in its day. So, it is educational to see this "revival" that took Broadway by storm in the 1970s. It was not revised "for" Encores!. Also, one of the joys of Encores! is hearing stuff we've heard on cast albums, live. A great many people adore the orchestrations on the Nanette album. You must admit, the arrangements are top-drawer. It was a treat to hear arrangements not heard in NYC for decades. We had the 1970s experience of a 1920s show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: writerkev 08:42 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - Singapore/Fling 05:45 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| But it was about more than casting, right? I understand there were textual changes to erase the whole issue from the play. Is that not correct? (If it is correct, it sounds like insanity.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:04 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - writerkev 08:42 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| That is also my understanding, and I was presuming that the casting lead to the rewrites, though it may have gone the other way. But we still don’t know why they made this very bad decision. What about it strikes you as insanity? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: writerkev 05:56 am EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - Singapore/Fling 11:04 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| This notion that nothing can be described or presented onstage that has any possibility of offending anyone in the audience. Take it to its logical conclusion, and creators will self-censor everything into bland nothingness. A chilling atmosphere for art, in my opinion. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| We still don't know why they erased the character's fatness is the thing | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:21 pm EST 02/07/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - writerkev 05:56 am EST 02/07/22 | |
|
|
|
| That is a chilling atmosphere for art, but we don't know that's why they made that choice. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 05:53 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 05:52 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - Singapore/Fling 05:45 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| "unlike some others around here" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 06:07 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:06 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - PlayWiz 05:52 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| Oh yeah, I knew what you were implying the first time around, and I'm not picking a battle, I'm just reminding you of the facts before you get in too deep. Pick whatever battles you want, but make sure you're fighting against something real, not imagined. We don't know why Encores! made the choice they made. You may have hit the nail on the head. You may have not. We don't know yet. But your post was treating a theory like a fact, and we should nip those kinds of mistakes in the bud. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Celina Smith(Annie live) should have played Emma | |
| Posted by: champagnesalesman 06:33 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - Singapore/Fling 06:06 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| When I watched ANNIE Live I thought for sure she'd be (perfectly) cast in TAP DANCE KID and Queen Lear directed that..but clearly they decided to erase the size of the character...(and with it most of her great personality)I wonder if they will ever explain | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 06:32 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 06:28 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - Singapore/Fling 06:06 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| You've made plenty of suppositions in your battles as well as showing plenty of indignation in quite a few threads over time here. The main fact in this case is they've rewritten some of a role and cast it differently, to the detriment of am under-represented demographic in the theater. That's the main point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:09 pm EST 02/09/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - PlayWiz 06:28 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| Can you imagine if a production at this level re-wrote a poc or queer role to be not that because they either couldn't cast it well or didn't know how to deal with the way it was written in the past in presenting it to a modern audience? It would be treated as absolute violence. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:30 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sounds like people in charge of this were afraid of being called out by those GOOBOs - PlayWiz 06:28 pm EST 02/06/22 | |
|
|
|
| That is the main point, we've agreed about this the entire time. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.178021 seconds.