Threaded Order Chronological Order
| i'm tired of Patti bashing the very acclaimed/popular/revived/recorded "male" version in order to promote this production | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 12:56 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 12:40 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
| In reply to: Patti LuPone shares her 'View' on theater etiquette, 'Evita' and more - WaymanWong 04:05 pm EDT 03/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| Talking about this production of Company she says, people love it because "it's gender bent. Women get asked this question, men do not. What's wrong with a 35 year old man boinking beautiful women unmarried? Nothing. What's wrong with a woman doing the exact same thing? Plenty! The clock is ticking... there's... -- and so it's much more poignant with a woman." This is not true. There's nothing wrong with it either way. But plenty of men feel pressure to be married by 35. But it was written in 1970... so let's call it 40 now, as it may as well be changed to. Just because it's slightly older now doesn't mean men don't get that. But that is the refrain from friends, it's not what the show is "about." Guess what Patti, the female Bobbie resonates with women, and the male Bobby resonates with men... "it's much more poignant." ... No. It is poignant also, for those of whom it actually makes sense to. It is not "much more" poignant. Because the show is ABOUT CONNECTING AND BEING VULNERABLE not about finding a partner before its too late to have children naturally. She says people who've never seen Company before "don't understand HOW the show could be done with a man!" Oh please. Some, I'm sure. But the way she talks about it, it's like the original show never worked and was just a hallow almost-show that they FINALLY cracked with this production. I've even heard her say that the Bobby/Joanne scene never made sense until Bobbie was made a woman, and it was Joanne offering her husband to Bobbie rather than asking when the two of them will "make it." That speaks far more to either her inability to understand a very understandable scene (including when she did it in the high profile filmed production with Neil Patrick Harris), or her willingness to buy what Marianne pitched her about the new take at the expense of ever acknowledging the worth of what it was before. (Frankly, the scene makes much less sense now and not having Joanne ask "when are we gonna make it" to Bobbie is a very disappointing cop-out, and I do not think "Ladies Who Lunch" actually works as a warning monologue delivered directly TO Bobbie) It's like Marianne Elliott and the show's publicist gave her a list of talking points. And I've heard/read her say this same stuff many times, or maybe she has points on the backend and wants to make sure this version is the only one ever licensed again? Why not just sell this production without undermining and insulting the previous version that worked to millions of people for 50 years. She also has a consistently revisionist view of Evita... claiming the show glorifies a fascist dictator who harbored Nazis... when in fact the show is not only critical of her throughout (criticizing her and her husband in every scene and mocking the countrymen who fell for her show and the global community who did too), it exists only entirely to be that. And Prince's production, more than any, is extremely critical of her and her opportunist rise as she manipulates the people and media around her and the media manipulate the people, and does not glorify her (unlike, what I'd say, the broadway revival did by presenting it like a biopic about a great woman of history). She also claims she "could not sing the role", despite being one of the only people who could sing it at the extraordinary level she could. Of course that doesn't mean it was easy to sing or even possible some of the time, but she most certainly could. She talks as if they cast her in order to destroy her. God forbid they be convinced by her auditions and consider her acting skills strong enough to let her perform it. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Bingo.... | |
| Posted by: bway1430 05:16 am EDT 03/19/22 | |
| In reply to: i'm tired of Patti bashing the very acclaimed/popular/revived/recorded "male" version in order to promote this production - Chazwaza 12:40 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| That is why I think her memoir should have have been titled "Why Everyone I Ever Worked With Tried To Destroy Me And Why It Was Never My Fault". I adore her talent and ability to sing the hell out of a score but her constant pissing all over EVITA and Harold Prince (who is no longer around to defend himself) really says more about her than it ever will about the show or Mr Prince. Classy, she ain't. |
|
| reply to this message |
| "It's about this nurse..." | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 10:07 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
| In reply to: i'm tired of Patti bashing the very acclaimed/popular/revived/recorded "male" version in order to promote this production - Chazwaza 12:40 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, actors tend to see shows through the prism of their own productions. This is neither unexpected nor a cause for undue consternation. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i'm tired of Patti bashing the very acclaimed/popular/revived/recorded "male" version in order to promote this production | |
| Posted by: IvyLeagueDropout 05:27 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
| In reply to: i'm tired of Patti bashing the very acclaimed/popular/revived/recorded "male" version in order to promote this production - Chazwaza 12:40 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| I'm a huge Patti fan, but your points have merit. I will say, however, that theatre people are often self-centered and histrionic. Add time and you get self serving and rehearsed narratives. Her very enjoyable autobiography is almost a transcript of her telling the same anecdotes I've heard a hundred times in the past from her. I love her despite her. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| also | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 01:07 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
| In reply to: i'm tired of Patti bashing the very acclaimed/popular/revived/recorded "male" version in order to promote this production - Chazwaza 12:40 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| And more on her feelings on doing Evita... she is entitled to feel however she felt and remember it however she did. But again, while Prince is known more for casting the actor his thinks is the exact right fit and letting them give their performance rather than coddling or micro-managing... and I'm sure he could be abusive in some ways or negligent in others, and intimidating whether he even meant to be (though he also has a rep from many people for being very warm as a director) .... and I can't know what it was like for her nor can I doubt how she felt. But despite how she talks about it, Patti she was not an inexperienced child plucked from obscurity and thrown into a tornado musical when she was hired for Evita (hired... for a job she auditioned for, not a role she was blackmailed into taking). She talks as if she were Linzi Hateley in Carrie... but Patti was a *30 year old* seasoned actor by now, with many great plays under her belt, a graduate of Juilliard, and had already gotten a Tony nomination for her work in a musical *4 years prior* to being cast in Evita. There is plenty of reason to think Prince thought she was good to go. I'm sure she needed some directorial help or attention he didn't give her, but come on, a little perspective. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: also | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 04:44 pm EDT 03/18/22 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 04:42 pm EDT 03/18/22 | |
| In reply to: also - Chazwaza 01:07 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| All true. I have the LuPone memoir in front of me: Her discussion of Evita begins on page 104 out of 316 pages outlining her career, ending on Gypsy. She had been on Broadway and on the road with a new musical in trouble: The Baker’s Wife. Which she dubs Hitler’s Road Show. The travails of creating a theater piece from the ground up was in her extensive professional experience by the time Evita arrived. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: also | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 08:43 pm EDT 03/18/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:34 pm EDT 03/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: also - Delvino 04:42 pm EDT 03/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| So being young and able, but very experienced and trained... she found the experience of creating a musical from the ground up awful AND also awful was the experience of going into a show already written and a hit in London and being essentially re-staged from existing staging by the director who made it a hit already... I grant her that The Baker's Wife seems like an abnormally difficult process, and Evita is an abnormally strenuous role for any actress... but... just pointing out, she doesn't seem to enjoy either a rough new musical or a challenging established musical (who can blame her, but neither show was out to get her). I mean what can compete with doing Fantine in Les Miz or Reno is that Anything Goes revival... but being a working actor in musical theater, those kinds of dream scenarios of Les Miz and AG are probably just as unlikely to happen as are the abnormally difficult scenarios of Baker's Wife and Evita. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: also | |
| Posted by: bobby2 01:13 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
| In reply to: also - Chazwaza 01:07 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| There is a video of her on youtube on Joan Rivers' talk show. She sings I Dreamed a Dream. When asked if she liked doing Evita she immediately responds with I Loved it! (or something close to that.) I think all this Evita hate is Post-Sunset Blvd firing trauma leaking into her brain. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: also | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 02:15 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 01:42 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: also - bobby2 01:13 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| I've seen several interviews from her during and soon after the run of Evita where she is not saying anything remotely resembling the experience she says she had now. Of course she could have absolutely been saying what she thought people wanted to hear, what she should say to keep working... ALW and Prince were two of the most powerful men in the biz (well, Hal... Webber not as much as that point, but still a big writer). But she also would say over and over how she's an actor's actor, an actor first, how she approached it as a play not a musical, how she doesn't care about or even want fame she just wants to work hard and give a good performance for that evening's audience... etc. It never sounds like she's the actress who's learned the lines they'd like to hear, to quote Eva. But who can say! Not only can no one know for sure but her... she is not the same Patti today that she was in 1980 or 1990, etc (no one is)... so she may feel very sure her current feelings and memory are accurate, and they may contradict what they were then. Who knows. But either way, there are observable truths about the situation of her as an actor at that time, of Hal, of her in the show, of the show... and of what the show is saying about politics, society, Eva herself, as well as the reaction to it (the Times review by Kerr is not bashing it for glorifying a dictator who hid nazis, or forcing a girl out of her element to sing a score she can't sing... it is a mixed review with plenty of good (including about her), criticizing mainly the generally dramatically inert narration and "talk don't show" most of the show is written in.... and adore it as I do, and as great as it is as a score or concept album, as a musical this is not an unfair criticism, and that is why Prince's production is the only one I've seen that works, and why the movie and revival absolutely do not despite that on the surface they kind of seem like the do. Which isn't to say all productions should copy his staging, but they should consider the *intentions* behind Prince's direction (vision/concept/staging) as part of the writing of the show.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i'm tired of Patti bashing the very acclaimed/popular/revived/recorded "male" version in order to promote this production | |
| Last Edit: Roman 12:56 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
| Posted by: Roman 12:55 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
| In reply to: i'm tired of Patti bashing the very acclaimed/popular/revived/recorded "male" version in order to promote this production - Chazwaza 12:40 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| The show has been about a man since it’s inception, fifty years ago. She is not to be taken seriously. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i'm tired of Patti bashing the very acclaimed/popular/revived/recorded "male" version in order to promote this production | |
| Posted by: OldTheaterGuy 12:51 pm EDT 03/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: i'm tired of Patti bashing the very acclaimed/popular/revived/recorded "male" version in order to promote this production - Roman 12:55 am EDT 03/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Of course, a lot of this could be avoided if the people involved in this version of Company (and those supporting it) would simply admit that this is a brand new show vaguely related to the original rather than simply a recast version of the original. Even though the powers that be refuse to list a book writer, this is NOT George Furth's work. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.030860 seconds.