Threaded Order Chronological Order
| NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 09:15 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 09:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| It’s bad enough that on the political right, a degree of comfort with book-banning seems to be taking hold. An idea from the left that good art must seek social justice strikes me as a not entirely different quest to erase the past... A New York Times OpEd looks at Encores!: |
|
| Link | Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. |
| reply to this message | |
| Can someone explain why they changed the character's weight? | |
| Last Edit: mikem 03:21 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| Posted by: mikem 03:19 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - MockingbirdGirl 09:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| I didn't see The Tap Dance Kid either in the original form or at Encores, and I'm genuinely confused as to why they changed the character's weight so she was no longer heavy. Could someone help me understand what they were thinking? It seems like the exact opposite of being woke to eliminate the "controversial" part of the character. If there were jokes making fun of her for being fat, why wouldn't they change the jokes rather than reducing the character's weight? Presumably the jokes are gone in the new script anyway, so changing her weight as well seems bizarre. | |
| reply to this message |
| pretty ironic given their supposed intention to prioritize inclusivity and diversity | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 04:50 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:44 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: Can someone explain why they changed the character's weight? - mikem 03:19 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Doing a show that was not a lost gem, that doesn't have a celebrated or great score despite a forgotten or book-problem show, largely because it features an all black cast (which is fantastic, I'm not bemoaning that at all)... the fact that they took out a character that all sorts of people with out-of-the-mainstream experiences as a kid, especially fat people, could see themselves in and enjoy seeing represented... is amusing and baffling. They just erased a key character trait, written about in the characters big song even, and a trait that gets FAR too little visibility on the NYC stages (and in all entertainment). Like you I really wanna know what they were thinking... and I certainly hope they don't think they couldn't find a heavy actress to do the role. Another reason to wonder if all the effort to "fix" old shows to be appealing, sensitive and digestible to current-day audience sensibility (or, rather, our *assumed* sensibilities) is a half-baked performance of inclusivity rather than a thoughtful and thorough understanding of it and how it can be applied/why it's important (and not just to people of non-white races). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: pretty ironic given their supposed intention to prioritize inclusivity and diversity | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:41 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: pretty ironic given their supposed intention to prioritize inclusivity and diversity - Chazwaza 04:44 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Any "performance of inclusivity" would demand the inclusion of a fat actor, rather than the elimination of the part. So whatever they were trying to do, it wasn't inclusive. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: pretty ironic given their supposed intention to prioritize inclusivity and diversity | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 10:30 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 10:25 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: pretty ironic given their supposed intention to prioritize inclusivity and diversity - Singapore/Fling 06:41 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| I didn't mean the literal performance ... by "performance of inclusivity" I was referring to the new mission statement and choices of shows. I'm saying it seems perhaps what they say is insincere and an attempt to benefit from the optics of "wokeness" and such, but without the thoughtful execution of it -- like the performance of it was only in the talk, not in the walk (which would have meant the actual inclusivity of casting a fat actor -- not to mentioning honoring the role written in the show). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Posted by: singleticket 06:54 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - MockingbirdGirl 09:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| I actually like what Billy Porter is quoted as saying about "In the Life". It seems like an insight that might make a revisal more powerful and not less. I'm wary of McWhorter's critique of anti-racism. It's certainly seductive because the largely elitist (and largely white) institutional orthodoxy on anti-racism was due for a drubbing by critics of color. There's a lot of antipathy towards the contemporary jargon of anti-racism in communities of color. Eric Adams' victory is a good example of it. Yet at the same time, I'm seeing more pieces by BIPOC critics of left anti-racism in elite publications like the NYT's and the New York Review of Books (I just read a stunning one in the NYRB about Frantz Fanon) and I don't know quite what to make of it. |
|
| Link | Has Anti-Racism Become as Harmful as Racism? John McWhorter vs. Nikhil Singh |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Posted by: libbymaebrown 11:03 am EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - singleticket 06:54 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Ooooh, I'll bite--what is the Frantz Fanon book you read? I am interested... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 12:34 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 12:32 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - libbymaebrown 11:03 am EST 02/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| It was Kwame Anthony Appiah's review in the New York Review of Books of a new translation of "Wretched of the Earth". It was a near complete assault on Fanon and his very wide influence on post-colonialist and anti-racist thought. | |
| Link | How Frantz Fanon came to view violence as therapy. |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Posted by: Pokernight 07:16 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - singleticket 06:54 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| FINIAN'S RAINBOW is most unwoke, but has such a marvelous score. I have the DVD of the film version, and nothing beats Al Freeman, Jr. delivering a mint julep. Brilliant. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 07:21 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 07:20 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - Pokernight 07:16 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| I love FINIAN'S RAINBOW as well but I wouldn't say it was un-woke... I would say it is an anti-racist musical from 1947. Blackface has been historically used by a lot of white left critics of racism in theater pieces... whether that's an appropriate thing to do is another question. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Tell that to YIP | |
| Posted by: stevemr 09:43 am EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - singleticket 07:20 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| YIP Harburg would certainly take issue with the suggestion that Finian is un-woke. But I'm sure he'd come up with a marvelous rhyme using semi-made up words to respond. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Posted by: richmurphy 10:44 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - MockingbirdGirl 09:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Why doesn’t it suffice to make clear, perhaps with a disclaimer in the program, that the Encores! team does not endorse certain attitudes of earlier times but still thinks that the revived piece is worthy of a revival that hews as closely as possible to the original? Exactly. Warner Bros. does something similar with its "politically incorrect" cartoons of the past, without censoring them. Why can't Encores? |
|
| Link | Warner Bros. Disclaimer |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Posted by: singleticket 06:33 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - richmurphy 10:44 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Warner Bros. does something similar with its "politically incorrect" cartoons of the past, without censoring them. Why can't Encores? Perhaps because Encores isn't owned like those Warner Brothers cartoons by a $20 billion a year corporation like AT&T. If corporations owned all those Confederate monuments that have been taken down I wonder if they'd still be standing with explanation plaques. American questions. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Posted by: richmurphy 08:06 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - singleticket 06:33 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Perhaps because Encores isn't owned like those Warner Brothers cartoons by a $20 billion a year corporation like AT&T. If corporations owned all those Confederate monuments that have been taken down I wonder if they'd still be standing with explanation plaques. American questions. So what do you suggest? Should Warner Bros. edit them to make them acceptable to 2022 sensibilities? Or should they be locked away, or maybe thrown in a bonfire? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Posted by: singleticket 08:16 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - richmurphy 08:06 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| So what do you suggest? If I were king of the world and if that cartoon was caricaturing my particular ethnicity or race? I don't know, I suppose it would depend on the cartoon. I'd definitely make them available to the public in libraries. I'm not sure if I'd put them to use as jolly money makers. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. | |
| Posted by: AnObserver 08:40 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - MockingbirdGirl 09:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Now you can all relax. Ito will remain in MAME, starring Jenifer Lewis. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Last Edit: ShowGoer 06:31 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 06:30 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - MockingbirdGirl 09:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Unless they do a U-turn from this newly stated mission, I think they’re about to be toast. This is purely anecdotal, of course, but no one my age or younger that I’m aware of has any real interest in it any longer, some older theatergoers who’ve been dedicated subscribers didn’t renew this year, and after that first production and the comments by the new team, those I know who did renew have already decided not to do so again come May this year. Who knows, maybe Billy Porter’s “The Life” will be as big a hit as Chicago and will save the institution from disappearing…. (though considering that’s the most successful revival in the history of Broadway, I somehow doubt it). It’s a shame after 28 years to see it go out like this. But as deBessonet, Ramos and company make clear, times change and the world moves on. Maybe I’ve just reached the stage of acceptance, since there’s no bargaining left for me to do, but it seems time to let Encores (at least in its current, City Center incarnation) go as well. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Posted by: theOtherJames 04:37 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - ShowGoer 06:30 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Anecdotally.... I had a subscription for 20 years and gave it up. I don't need to see Into the Woods again. Love Life, yes. Not the 7th version of ITW. Another friend had his subscription for even longer and gave it up. Subscribers to Encores are generally not casual theatergoers or people who want to see the star du jour do a show they've seen a million times. They are (again generally) people who like the old shows, despite the clunky books. I'd get a single ticket to an individual show, but unfortunately the comments I had seen about Tap Dance Kid made me not eager enough to make the effort. Hopefully The Life fares better. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Posted by: Pokernight 07:20 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - theOtherJames 04:37 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| But, you have to consider........if Encores hadn't done CHICAGO..................? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Posted by: Seth Christenfeld (tabula-rasa@verizon.net) 09:53 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - Pokernight 07:20 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| But, you have to consider........if Encores hadn't done CHICAGO..................? Chicago is only ubiquitous now because Encores! did it. At the time, it was underappreciated, if not wholly forgotten. (And not even old enough to drink.) Seth, unless that's what you were saying and it was unclear |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 04:18 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - Seth Christenfeld 09:53 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Underappreciated, yes; forgotten, no. Nobody who knew anything about musical theater had forgotten Chicago by the Nineties. And nobody who doesn't know anything about musical theater had ever possessed any information to forget. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:58 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - keikekaze 04:18 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know what their written or commonly understood mission statement was in the early/mid 90s, but I think underappreciated is enough for it to fall into their purview... and I don't blame them if they were able to get such key players involved creatively to honor/celebrate Fosse's least known major work (in that there's no film or filmed staged production, at the time, but was maybe the most Fosse of the Fosse works)... and if they thought it might have a chance to be a hit (not sure if they thought that way then). But any show as good as Chicago, by such massively major musical theater writers, that was so sadly overshadowed by the biggest blockbuster and critical success Broadway had ever seen up to that point... and met with mixed critical reception, deserved a spot at Encores even if it wasn't a forgotten gem from 20+ years prior. If you ask me (which no one did. :) ) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:26 am EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - Seth Christenfeld 09:53 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don't have a long list of productions handy, but I would not say that it was forgotten, although a bit underappreciated. But it was definitely showing up in productions. Not as much as the standard-rep shows, but it was getting done in community theatres, dinner theatres, and so on, after the tours based on the original production that continued into 1982 or so. There was a London concert Crusaid benefit in 1990, and the famous Long Beach production mentioned by KingSpeed. It certainly was not forgotten in New York or the Encores! would not have been completely sold out in advance, the first time that had happened (and it hasn't happened much since). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Posted by: ChattaMatta 01:54 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - AlanScott 12:26 am EST 02/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| But Chicago was not a household musical they way it is now, despite sporadic productions. I remember in college in the 90s, our musical theater professor introduced us to "All That Jazz." He presented it as a rare musical appreciated by insiders, but not widely known. This felt correct because none of us young rabid fans had heard of it. There wasn't even a CD, I believe, because a year or so later, they issued a CD and I recall being thrilled to FINALLY hear this full score. Then the '96 production hit and the rest is history. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I recall that a student production of CHICAGO was done at my college in 1991... | |
| Posted by: MeredithChandler1973 07:25 am EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - AlanScott 12:26 am EST 02/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Everyone thought, "What's CHICAGO?" | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 11:33 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - Seth Christenfeld 09:53 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| I believe there was a bus and truck tour of Chicago in 1993ish and a SoCal production with Bebe in 1995ish. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 07:04 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 07:03 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - theOtherJames 04:37 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Wait! I’m out of the loop. They’re doing into The Woods??? My goodness. How many times must we see this show? I liked the original production but cmon now. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Posted by: theOtherJames 07:17 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - KingSpeed 07:03 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Exactly! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Last Edit: ShowGoer 05:19 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 05:15 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - theOtherJames 04:37 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Exactly. I didn't renew, same as you, but relented and got a last-minute ticket for Tap Dance Kid, only to mostly regret it. (it had moments, but I wish I'd left my memories of the original production alone.) "The Life" seems poised to make the same mistakes. Even 25 years ago, most of the appeal of "The Life" was that we all knew it was kind of a trashy glitzy Frankenstein monster of a show – a musical conceived and begun in the 1980s about the seediness of Times Square during that period, but which took so long to develop that it happened to be opening the same year that "Lion King" re-opened the New Amsterdam and that the Disneyfication of 42nd Street was beginning, staged to a fare-thee-well by Michael Blakemore and with a terrific cast that included 4 of the show's eleven (!) Tony nominations (2 of whom of course won, Lillias White and Chuck Cooper). So it was already a period piece that asked us to care about its characters even as it somewhat romanticized the milieu they lived in, and still made room for catchy tunes like "Use What You Got (Until What You Got Is Gone)" and "My Body" which weren't that different from the dance-hall-girl numbers in Sweet Charity.... in short, the perfect example of a show that tried to have it both ways, and to a degree, love it or hate it, succeeded in its limited way. But love it or hate it, right from conception, that's all baked in to the material. What I can't imagine working, or that I have much interest in seeing (to borrow a phrase from portenopete) is a production of "The Life" that tries to make it into something profound and capable of changing history.... one that condems "the infrastructure that creates pimps, prostitutes and drug addicts", as Billy Porter said in the Times, at the expense of any of the wit and glitz that helped put "The Life" over in 1997 (or for that matter Sweet Charity 30 years before that). I'm loathe to pass judgment on anything before I've seen it, so I'll stop there. But you're absolutely right, the people who have supported Encores the last 3 decades tend to be people who have affection for the original shows, warts and all. People who like these old 'museum pieces', not only despite the flaws... but in some cases BECAUSE of them. That's the core base. And to alienate them by, for example, taking the fondly-remembered and Tony-nominated role of a heavyset teenage girl and making her into a generic thin adolescent whose problem is thus never quite clear, seems the apotheosis of not knowing (let alone respecting) your audience. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. | |
| Posted by: gcarl44 08:20 pm EST 02/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - ShowGoer 05:15 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| "People who like these old 'museum pieces', not only despite the flaws... but in some cases BECAUSE of them. That's the core base. And to alienate them by, for example, taking the fondly-remembered and Tony-nominated role of a heavyset teenage girl and making her into a generic thin adolescent whose problem is thus never quite clear, seems the apotheosis of not knowing (let alone respecting) your audience." For what it's worth, my thought is that they don't care about respecting their core audience, and I think that is why Debessonet is there. I think that they realize that their core audience is dying out, and they are trying the more woke approach to appeal to a younger, more contemporary audience. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Happy endings and Diapers | |
| Posted by: toros 10:46 am EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Amen. Yeah, Encores! is a terminal case right now. - ShowGoer 05:15 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree. These types of changes are patronizing to the audience, who knows how to put elements that have dated into context. We do it all the time with old movies. This process also defies the (original) mission of Encores!, as has been previously noted. And I'm disappointed that the Estates yeild so readily to these requests for changes. That said, Encores! has been inching in this direction for years - what's new is that now, it's officially a part of their new mission. It reminds me of when King Lear was rewritten so it had a happy ending, as Nathum Tate did in the early 1800's, or putting diapers on nude statues during the Rennaissance. This is the era in which we live. Will we look back on this era with horror or amusement or both? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Happy endings and Diapers | |
| Last Edit: FinalPerformance 07:26 pm EST 02/18/22 | |
| Posted by: FinalPerformance 07:25 pm EST 02/18/22 | |
| In reply to: Happy endings and Diapers - toros 10:46 am EST 02/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| I'll look back in horror. All these unnecessary changes to change history. Encores is on it's last legs with those running it into the ground. Went yearly but passed on Tap Dance Kid and ITW forget about it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| finally | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 10:03 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: NYT: Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them. - MockingbirdGirl 09:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Must say i agree with everything he says here. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: finally | |
| Posted by: Musicals54 08:08 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: finally - Chazwaza 10:03 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| The goal is to change the future not clean up the past. American history from the first settlers is a story of genocide and ethnic cleansing and vicious caste systems. The American musical is a great art form. Encores is about its past and shows that were not for the ages. Let us see where we have been. I loved the recent revival of Oklahoma! because it revealed what was always there. Encores is not about the masterpieces of the past. They don’t need life support. Yes encores may unearth an unappreciated masterpiece, but that is not its purpose. I want to see Love Life. Why has it been banned? I know Victoria Clark worked long an it. It was the new regime’s first victim | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Encores! mission. | |
| Posted by: portenopete 10:00 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: finally - Musicals54 08:08 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| The stories of almost every culture- certainly the ones that went on to become "great"- have genocide and caste systems woven into their history. I don't know how open and honest other cultures have been about their checkered histories, but the United States has been particularly good at deftly sweeping it under the rug. But we've been ever so slowly taking forward-facing steps toward acknowledging and rectifying the unpleasant aspects of our history and sometimes that change goes into warp speed for a few years and then settles down for a bit. The self-abnegation that has become the hallmark of liberal White culture strikes me as pure fashion for most younger people and the insincere but terrified reaction from those in power smacks of desperation and fear. But it is doing its damage and I don't think anything productive is being gained from the warping of something as innocuous and ultimately transitorily diverting as an Encores! staged reading of a forgotten musical. Trying to make it into something profound and capable of changing history is a ludicrous display of self-aggrandisement and delusions of grandeur. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Encores! mission. | |
| Posted by: hanon 08:49 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: Encores! mission. - portenopete 10:00 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| "I don't know how open and honest other cultures have been about their checkered histories, but the United States has been particularly good at deftly sweeping it under the rug." Are you serious? I'm 65 years old and I feel like I've heard plenty about America's (very real) sins. Do you honestly think talking about America's racism and colonialism has only been going on for a few weeks now? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Encores! mission. | |
| Posted by: portenopete 11:20 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Encores! mission. - hanon 08:49 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| No, not for a few weeks, but not much more than a few decades. I'm 56 and from what I know from American popular culture there wasn't a whole hell of a lot of national discussion about race issues until the 1950's when brave Black people and brave White people began standing up en masse to the power structure that was actively working to maintain the status quo. Yes, there were isolated works that considered the thorny American relationship with race, but they were few and far between. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| another HUGE Amen. | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 11:14 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: Encores! mission. - portenopete 10:00 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| “ The self-abnegation that has become the hallmark of liberal White culture strikes me as pure fashion for most younger people and the insincere but terrified reaction from those in power smacks of desperation and fear. But it is doing its damage and I don't think anything productive is being gained from the warping of something as innocuous and ultimately transitorily diverting as an Encores! staged reading of a forgotten musical. Trying to make it into something profound and capable of changing history is a ludicrous display of self-aggrandisement and delusions of grandeur.” I don’t think I’ve ever seen this argument so well-said, as it applies to art in general and Encores in particular. You (or someone you know) should post it as a response on the Times website. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: finally | |
| Posted by: IvyLeagueDropout 10:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: finally - Chazwaza 10:03 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Every work of art, in any discipline, is a product of its time and its creator(s). For better or for worse. Although interpretive arts have some license to recreate a work, it is insane to think you need to edit out anything not square with contemporary sensibility. Producing Romeo and Juliet today does not make one an advocate of pedophilia or suicide. I don't like the N word, but it shouldn't cause 19th century hooks to be edited or banned. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: finally | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 08:07 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 08:04 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: finally - IvyLeagueDropout 10:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| This piece is so welcome, and should open an expansive conversation about art, the era of its creation, the value of looking back trough contemporary eyes. It's become impossible to discuss, particularly in social media, without an escalation of accusations, often resulting in a segue to ad hominem attack. I got into a discussion of Tea and Sympathy about a year ago (not at this site) that created a small firestorm. My simple observations about the play/film's value as a portrait of toxic masculinity -- daring to say that much could be learned from Anderson's accurate portrait of of the Kerr character's husband, memorably played by Leif Erickson on B'way and in the film -- resulted in heated diatribes, especially about "that ending." At one point I was accused of being pro-conversion therapy. (As if anyone today would believe one time in the woods with Deborah Kerr would shift sexual identity. We can observe "that ending" with clear-eyed understanding, and recognize the pressure on the protagonist without accepting Anderson's coda as psychological absolute. Now, we see, too, the rank misogyny in the Hollywood adjustment in Kerr's character, that she's rendered morally tainted. It doesn't negate what we learn from the story before. And in today's society, alas, these issues aren't fully exorcised. What we often fail to accept: audiences are smart. They can look at stories penned in another era and view them through a modern prism. The idea that points of view voiced by characters represent a fixed sociopolitical opinion in the work of art itself insults audiences. We learn, we appreciate cultural growth, the distance we've come. And we also see what hasn't changed. I won't belabor Tea and Sympathy, but its depiction of fetishized masculinity as infused with homoeroticism makes it a striking study today. The Erickson character's obsession with insular male rituals, always excluding women, is probably more fascinating today than in the 50s. But it's true of many stories. We see all that's changed, but also much that's stayed the same (Exhibit A: Florida trying to outlaw any positive mention of LGBTQ+ history in education. It's not far from the world Anderson dramatized in a boarding school.) Mainly, and many disagree, the constant fiddling with others' work invites a bigger, more dangerous issue: who is the decisive arbiter? These fixers are invariably self-appointed, which makes me most nervous. I say, open up the past for examination. What we don't like provides a teachable moment like few others. Note: I went off on Tea and Sympathy, only because we all seem to have individual experiences with pieces that others want to ban or revise. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Does anyone still serve up 'Tea and Sympathy'? | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 04:56 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: finally - Delvino 08:04 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Next year, ''Tea and Sympathy'' turns 70 years old. In 2007, the Keen Company did an Off-Broadway revival of it. Anyone catch it? Does the 1956 movie turn up on TCM? The role of Tom earned John Kerr a Tony and a Golden Globe (for Most Promising Newcomer). As for the play, it's dated nowadays, but in the '50s, it must've been kinda groundbreaking to deal with this topic sympathetically. ''That ending'' wouldn't fly today, but its curtain line still has got to be one of the most quoted ones in Broadway history. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| TEA AND SYMPATHY -- the Play vs. the Film (Spoilers, I Guess) | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:05 pm EST 02/18/22 | |
| In reply to: Does anyone still serve up 'Tea and Sympathy'? - WaymanWong 04:56 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| The original 1953 play is somewhat dated although still relevant, since it openly confronts the topic of sexual orientation among 17-year old boys at a New England prep school. The word "homosexual" is used in the text, which had to be pretty shocking back in '53 and still packs a wallop even today. I saw the '07 Keen production off-Broadway as well as a 2012 staging in Chicago. One of the characters in the play, a teacher named David Harris, is forced to resign over an incident with Tom Lee, a student, involving nudity, which is described but not staged. I saw the film for the first time at a local cinema in 1957 when I was 9 years old. It made a strong impression on me. However, it is considerably tamer than the play. The Harris character is not in the film, and sexual orientation is not discussed. Tom is portrayed as being gentle, shy, interested in music and theatre, and thought to be less masculine than the other guys. Shortly after seeing the film, I went to a local library and checked out the play. I was pretty stunned about what I read because at the time I had never heard of homosexuality. TCM shows the film pretty regularly, multiple times a year, generally whenever they do a retrospective on the careers of either Vincente Minnelli or Deborah Kerr. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: finally | |
| Posted by: scoot1er 10:09 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
| In reply to: finally - Chazwaza 10:03 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| As do I. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: finally | |
| Posted by: steven_carter 09:23 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: finally - scoot1er 10:09 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| Beautifully said, Delvino. I can see where a piece like TEA & SYMPATHY might be more interesting now than it was at the original time of the production. And the differences between what was presented in the theatre and the insidious and oh-so-reflective of the censorious times changes made for the movie version....all that teaches us so much, not only about the piece, but about the context of how it was presented and received. I think that so many pieces, while they may not seem fully realized and admirable to social justice warrior audiences of the 21st century, are so interesting for what they tell us about the times. They are of sociological interest, perhaps even more than of dramatic interest. And I too don't like it when self-appointed fixers decide they will change (lyrics, dialogue, plot points, themes) as if they know better than the original authors. If the piece seems too "unwoke" to you, then don't produce that piece, do something else. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: finally | |
| Last Edit: FinalPerformance 10:44 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: FinalPerformance 10:42 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: finally - steven_carter 09:23 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Gigi was a show that was ruined in the last revival on Broadway. I thought the changes made destroyed the story. I wasn't so happy with Carousel either. As with Encores I now think twice before I invest in a ticket. You may not agree with the original shows books but they were real for their time. This sugar coating takes the truth out of times past. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Does art reflect its time? | |
| Posted by: peter3053 05:14 pm EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: finally - FinalPerformance 10:42 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure that artworks, including drama, tell us a lot about their eras. They certainly tell us some things, but mainly from the point of view of the artist. Many others of an era not within the imaginative scope of the artist went on with sometimes quite divergent attitudes and action. A collection of artworks of an era, yes, that may begin to say a few more things. On the wider issue, concepts of human rights, justice, racial equality, gender equality, and the notions that love and peace should be driving values of a healthy society are reasonably new to humanity; they've been around for only about 2000 out of the 100,000 or so years of us being on the planet. Oscar Wilde, I think, said that nations are like individuals in slow motion. Individuals are born self-centred, totally needy, self-absorbed, egotistical - understandably, they're babies. As they mature, it is hoped that they acquire a developed sense of the needs of others; sympathy; then, by age and experience, empathy. In most cases, this is what happens - enough, at least, to make society possible. If this be true, America has done better than most in its development. It has seen the end of slavery (admittedly after England and Europe - although Europe got rid of slavery twice, once in the late ancient world, once in the 18th-19th centuries); indeed, it went to war so seriously it took the evil; it has seen the coming of civil rights, and women's rights, and gender rights; it has welcomed immigrants as much as possible; it has elected a colored President twice. In other words, as an individual, it has wrestled with its bad qualities and grown to be better. Its traditional musicals have reflected that: Harold Hill is healed through love, not hate. What I think has happened is that it has lost its belief in a better future, spiritually. Progress has always been spiritual progress. When Annie sings the sun'll come out tomorrow, its power to move is its power to believe; the metaphor is all. If one is hopeless, one won't want to sit through most of the classic musicals. Porgy and Bess? Carousel? South Pacific? My Fair Lady? Camelot? Les Miz? Phantom? Even Cats! We look back now, older, the parents to the new generation. I always felt that one doesn't develop a child by berating them for the mistakes that we hate; hatred breeds hatred. Look at Sweeney Todd. The challenge is always to recognise our own failings first, remind ourselves of the good, and work towards it together. What is the old saying? "Remove the log from your own eye so you can remove the speck from your brother's." America, like a complex individual, can choose to hate itself or remind itself of its moral accomplishments - which are considerable, and still possible if built upon love, forgiveness and hope. Wasn't it Oscar H. who, in Me and Juliet, said the mission of the theater was to send out the giant "a nicer giant than when he came in"? But only point the finger, and the giant will stomp away to do more damage. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.182313 seconds.