Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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: 0.040209 seconds.