Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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: 0.057294 seconds.