Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: The Life...and the Death of Encores | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 07:10 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Life...and the Death of Encores - KingSpeed 05:17 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
|
|
|
| Political correctness is a good thing only insofar as it is synonymous with plain old-fashioned politeness, good manners, respect for others, and common decency. But people who have been taught politeness, good manners, etc., don't need p.c., because for them it's simply redundant: Of course one calls people by the name that they want to be called by, one cares about others, one respects their rights and their personal independence, and so on. It seems that most often in actual practice, however, p.c. is taken by the untaught to be the blueprint or automatic plug-in for how wise people behave. Behavior, if it is to be deemed acceptable, must be made to conform to the blueprint. What the untaught don't understand is that there is no blueprint to wise behavior. Wise people judge every individual case on its own individual merits, considering the specific causes, context, and consequences of the matter. This applies to real life and also to the worlds of fiction and the other arts. One size does not necessarily fit all. P.c. becomes a positive evil when it is used as a gag or a club--as a means of censorship or of beating people with opposing viewpoints into submission or silence. That is a bad thing. And coming back to The Life, no arts organization has any business whatsoever systematically rewriting anything. No one is forcing Encores, or anybody else, to revive anything they don't think is worthy. If you don't like the play you're reviving, don't revive it. If you don't like what the play is saying and want it to say something else, then write your own goddamned play. Leave other people's work the hell alone and write your own damned play. Of course, it's always so much easier to deface somebody else's work than to create your own that I won't be holding my breath waiting for all this bowdlerization to stop. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: The Life...and the Death of Encores | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 08:30 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Life...and the Death of Encores - keikekaze 07:10 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
|
|
|
| By the estates that control the rights authorized this new vision, so what harm is there? | |
| reply to this message |
| re: The Life...and the Death of Encores | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 10:55 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Life...and the Death of Encores - Singapore/Fling 08:30 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
|
|
|
| So, harm is not done to the work as long as the right people are getting paid? You must be a simply INSPIRING teacher of theatre arts! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:12 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Life...and the Death of Encores - BruceinIthaca 10:55 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, Mean Bruce is back, nice to see you again. I actually am an inspiring teacher of theater arts, so that part of your comment is true. We get two major arguments on this board as to why revisions/re-imaginings/rewrites are so terribly, terribly wrong. One tends to be, "oh, the creators didn't want this or wouldn't be behind it", but in this case, all of the creatives signed off on this through the entities that have been entrusted with preserving their work. The other argument tends to be, "oh, now people will think that this is what XYZ wrote and it's not", but in this case, few people (if any) are still producing The Life as it was written, and I don't think anyone's going to produce this version outside of these five days, and everyone who watches it right now knows precisely the ways that it is not what was original written - and they were forewarned in advance, so no one should be suprised when they arrive at the theater. So by both those measures, this is a harmless production which has provided a great platform for some phenomenal performers to tell a trans story with a trans actor on a big, New York City stage, which to me - and I would think to you, based on your publication history - can only be a net positive. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: borneback 02:47 pm EDT 03/21/22 | |
| In reply to: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - Singapore/Fling 12:12 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think that posters and audience members have identified three issues, none of which have to do with viability and diversity of stories. First, this rewrite was pretty terrible. Everything that kept the Life around for 20 years has been removed. The joy was sapped out of the production, and without that joy there is no way this version will ever have a life after this weekend. Plus the reorchestrations sapped the show of any musical diversity...every song basically sounded the same. Where was the gospel of "You Can't Get to Heaven"? Where was the cakewalk of "Easy Money"? I missed them so much. Second, the rewrite centered Queen and gave her much more material. And unfortunately, the actress playing Queen was not really up to the challenge. She was perfectly fine, but, at least to me, she had neither the vocal or acting chops to make the audience want to follow her for three hours. There were so many times that I yearned for the voice and star quality of Pamela Isaacs in the role. And the duets with Ledisi amplified this so much. I couldn't believe how "My Friend" seemed to become a solo. And third, I don't think it's fair to say this show was a net positive because of the inclusion of a trans character. This show was not good, and it caused many walk outs and grumbles during the show. They didn't leave because there was a trans character on stage...they left because the show containing the trans character - and the actress playing her - just were not compelling. (Also, I'm pretty sure the original production also had a trans character). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 08:24 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - Singapore/Fling 12:12 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| And I see smug, self-satisfied cultural-appropriator S/F never left it. I won't comment on your poorly constructed argument--others below have done so, but I will observe that in my experience, teachers who trumpet how "inspiring" they are usually anything but. Their colleagues roll their eyes, their students figure out how parrot back what they want to hear, and they bask in their vanity. Truly inspiring teachers just go about their work nd don't feel the need to self-validate to everyone in hearing distance. It's tiresome. "Inspiring" can also mean full of hot air. I stand by my statement. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 03:00 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - BruceinIthaca 08:24 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Dear God. Nothing wrong with being proud of the work you do. If S/F says he’s an inspiring teacher, I respect his word. Why shouldn’t you? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| 100% Agreed | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 03:03 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 03:02 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - Singapore/Fling 12:12 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for saying it better than I did. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 02:32 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - Singapore/Fling 12:12 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Both of your counter-arguments to the objections you name are specious. For one thing, the creatives in this case didn't sign off on anything, though their heirs and assigns might have. It's not the same thing. It's like saying, "I spliced a few of the more pungent reels of Birth of a Nation into the master of Gone With the Wind because Ted Turner [who now controls the MGM classics library through various mergers and acquisitions] said I could. So it's okay. Margaret Mitchell, Victor Fleming, George Cukor, Sidney Howard and David O. Selznick all signed off on it." (Not that I expect Ted Turner would actually agree to something like that, but it's an analogy.) For the second, it's a strange counter-argument to suggest that doing violence to somebody else's show is excusable because hardly anybody is going to see it anyway. If hardly anybody is going to see it, then why do it at all? People don't normally write--or re-write--plays in the fond hope that nobody is going to see them. At the risk of repeating myself--but it seems I must--if you don't approve of the show you're producing, don't produce it. If you want the script to say something that it isn't already saying, find another show. Or write your own. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| reality check from the sidelines | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:36 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - keikekaze 02:32 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I have not posted in this thread because tbh I am not interested in the show or encores but it's actually your argument here that is specious. You are perfectly free to wish that living people would not fuck with dead people's work product but the fact is that, one way or another, the creatives DID sign off on this. A creative has every right in the world (and, thanks to the Sonny Bono Act, for an obscenely long time imo) to micro-control, through their heirs and assigns, every aspect of the exploitation of their work, but once they do that or don't do that, the heirs and assigns stand in the shoes of the creatives. So when you and others jump up and down about this, let's all understand that we/they are expressing an opinion about what we/they like and don't like, and nothing more or less. (And fwiw let's remember that 99.9% of the approvals of living playwrights et al are made on delegation.) Likewise, how many people and for what duration something is going to be seen does indeed affect approvals by both the living and the dead. Many writers are willing to let changes be made in small scale presentations that would not be granted in first class rights. Plus, it is well to remember that no violence is done to a play by letting someone change it. The original is still there for the future. It's not akin to painting on a Picasso. And in this particular case it would seem beyond unlikely that Porter's effort will ever see the light of day again. Because something "wrong" may have been done, but not something unlawful. Finally, when you say what you say in your last paragraph, you are doing nothing more than expressing an opinion; you have no authority and the people who do have spoken. And fwiw, if it is not clear, I don't think a play needs to become a museum piece of interest only to a dwindling audience as if it is too precious to adapt. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: reality check from the sidelines | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 05:11 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: reality check from the sidelines - ryhog 11:36 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Finally, when you say what you say in your last paragraph, you are doing nothing more than expressing an opinion; you have no authority and the people who do have spoken. And fwiw, if it is not clear, I don't think a play needs to become a museum piece of interest only to a dwindling audience as if it is too precious to adapt. I never claimed that I was doing anything more than expressing an opinion. That's my opinion, and there it is. I don't need outside help to understand what the limits of my "authority" are. But I do wish that any play that's worth reviving at all would be revived with delicacy and respect. And if a play isn't worth reviving--or if one thinks that the play isn't worth reviving without wholesale rewrites (most likely by less competent hands than those responsible for the original)--then why do it? Why bother? Why not do something else that you're more in sympathy with? And fwiw, if it is not clear, I also don't think a play needs to become a museum piece of interest only to a dwindling audience as if it is too precious to adapt--so I'm not going to let you try to put those words (which I never said or implied) into my mouth without objection. By definition, any play worth reviving is not a museum piece. But a crappy rewrite may very well render it one. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: reality check from the sidelines | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:08 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: reality check from the sidelines - keikekaze 05:11 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I'm happy you clarified. As I said, I have no problem with your (and anyone's) expression of opinions, whether I agree with them or not, but the words you chose to use (tamper, excuse, uninvited, etc) suggested more than an opinion. You ask why, why, why. The answer (not one I'm expecting you to embrace) is that some people believe that understanding a play in the present context and from a different perspective is a good thing. Does it always work? Is it always better? No, but no writer knows whether something they write is going to be any good until folks can see it and react to it. That's one of the beauties of theatre. I'm not afraid of that. Also, I have written many times on this board that, in my view, theatre (or any art) must resonate for its audience in order to be good. Resonance is not a static attribute of a work; it changes over time and it changes depending on the audience. When we don't let it breathe, we condemn it to the museum or, more likely, the dust bin. I don't know if the revisions here were good enough. (As I acknowledged, I did not see it.) That's on Encores if they were not. But I also know that one can't judge any production by the reaction of an audience that was looking for one thing and got another. And that's how I read a lot of the reaction. If I thought I was going to see Hello Dolly and the curtain rose on Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg (or v/v :-) ), you could not accurately gauge the production based on my reaction. Finally, as you quoted, my comment about museum pieces etc began with "I don't think...." I'm not sure how you got from my words that I was attributing them to you. I was not and I am sorry if something about the way I wrote it made you think that. And finally finally, if you have any actual interest in understanding the answer to all of your "why"s, the link from Chuck Mee discusses it much better than I ever could. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 03:09 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 03:06 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - keikekaze 02:32 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| “Hardly anybody” is going to see most Broadway shows. Billions on the planet but only 1500 seats in a theater. Also- do you feel the same way about the Company rewrite? Is it different because Sondheim approved? What about the Sam Mendes Cabaret revival? MAJOR changes from the original. Should he have just written a different show? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: borneback 02:52 pm EDT 03/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - KingSpeed 03:06 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| The difference with those two revisals was that the products were coherent and affecting for modern audiences. They were also successful because they adopted a new perspective while retaining the essence of what made those pieces so important for audiences. Here, Billy Porter jettisoned so much of what we all love about the life and replaced it with material that confused and distanced many audience members. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 04:43 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - KingSpeed 03:06 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| [1] “Hardly anybody” is going to see most Broadway shows. Billions on the planet but only 1500 seats in a theater. [2] Also- do you feel the same way about the Company rewrite? Is it different because Sondheim approved? [3] What about the Sam Mendes Cabaret revival? MAJOR changes from the original. Should he have just written a different show? 1. I'm not going to bicker about what "hardly anybody" means, as I'm not the person who introduced the concept into this thread that tampering with a show was kind-of-excused if it didn't run long or wasn't seen by many. 2. The Company revisal is a mess. (But I had problems with the original Company, too--it's never been a favorite of mine.) Sondheim's personal approval removes some of my objection about tampering with other people's work uninvited, but doesn't change the fact that the revisal is a mess that might damage the show's reputation--if anybody remembered it in the future. 3. Mendes did Cabaret no favors (except financially, of course). Major changes, as you say--and all of them for the worse. God forbid that Sam Mendes should actually write anything, but I wish he'd inflicted his directorial damage on something else. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 08:55 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - keikekaze 04:43 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:22 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - keikekaze 04:43 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Elaborating on what I said in a post below, I have no problem with you or anyone having a distaste for revisals. But almost everything you write suggests you are trying to usurp the prerogatives of those in control of the rights and hew the sense of was is "right" to mean simply "in accord with your tastes and preferences." 1. Nothing is "excused." The rights holder may or may not approve anything they choose; it's their property, not yours. A lot of theatre writers are delighted to have others "play" with their plays. Some are not. Again, their choice, not yours. And of course in many cases, this willingness is, at first at least, limited to small scale presentations of the revised/rethought material. If you would like to try to understand the other point of view, I recommend reading some of what Chuck Mee has written on the subject, e.g., https://www.charlesmee.org/about.shtml. 2. No one does anything (unless they break the law) without being "invited." Whether the result is to your liking or not (and I hope you will at least be honest enough to acknowledge that many people including Sondheim did not share your taste on this production), and whether it might damage the show's reputation (a suggestion as specious as it is arrogant, imo), is, respectfully, not your concern, any more than it is your concern if I throw baseballs so hard that I end up needing Tommy John surgery. 3. Again, your observations about Mendes are within your rights to say but are nothing more than an expression of your personal taste). To many people, what he did was a great favor artistically as well as financially. But any damage you might think occurred is, guess what, nunya. It never ceases to amaze me how many people on this board cannot or will not distinguish between their own taste and everything else. But such is life. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 10:35 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - ryhog 05:22 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| ryhog, everything that everybody says on this board that isn't strictly statistical is their own personal opinion. It isn't just me. And I swear I cannot fathom what makes you think I don't know that my opinions are my opinions. When, even once, have I ever said otherwise? Do you want me to footnote every sentence, with a reference down at the bottom saying "(1) The author's opinion. (2) The author's opinion. (3) The author's opinion, etc., etc."? Well, I'm not going to do that, as I assume that, as is the case with everyone else, it's taken for granted. You don't have to like my opinions, nor do I expect you to. But I don't know what you think you're gaining by forever telling me that my opinions are my opinions. Of course they're my opinions--who else's would they be? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:20 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - keikekaze 10:35 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| {sigh} It's not really worth either of our time to continue this since you are not getting my point. I was pretty clear about the connotation of your word choices that I found to be more than "your opinion." It has nothing to do with labeling or footnoting. And I was pretty clear that whether I agree with your opinions or not is irrelevant to what I said, but that seems to have flown by you too. No worries. Let's move on. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: scoot1er 10:09 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - KingSpeed 03:06 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Joe Masteroff was my best friend, and as such, I was very much aware of the changes to the Mendes Cabaret. But, aside from adding "Maybe This Time" and "I Don't Care Much," there were no major book changes. Yes, the change in attitude and approach were very diferent from the original production, but, as for changes in the book? They were minimal. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Minimal? Not true. | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 02:51 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 02:35 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - scoot1er 10:09 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| There were more changes than you speak of. Big changes. The biggest was that Sam Mendes put us (the audience) in the cabaret . In the original, the cabaret (including its patrons) is onstage and they sing “The Telephone Song”which was cut by Mendes. By the end of the show, the patrons are wearing swastikas. You and I in the audience weren’t so the story is affected. Also different was the conception of “Tomorrow Belongs To Me” sung by waiters in the original. Not a boy on a record player. “Meeskite” was also cut. All these cut songs affected the book even if many of the the lines were intact. Then, of course, there is the movie which is an entirely different story. But I don’t hear anyone say “If they hate the source material, maybe they should have written their own show.” |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Minimal? Not true. | |
| Posted by: scoot1er 07:15 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Minimal? Not true. - KingSpeed 02:35 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| As I said, the changes were primarily directorial choices. The book itself was not rewritten. And, yes, the changes in the actual words were minimal. The concept, however, was not minimal. Sam Mendes showed great respect for the written word even though his directorial choices were radical. Yes, he put the audience in the cabaret, but he didn't have to re-write the show to do it. And, for the record, Joe did not like the movie at all. But that's another story. And Christopher Isherwood liked the movie but not the show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Minimal? Not true. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 08:53 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Minimal? Not true. - scoot1er 07:15 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| He cut three major songs. That had a major impact on the book. A book isn’t merely the lines. It’s the entire structure of the show. You being friends with Joe doesn’t change that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Minimal? Not true. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:50 pm EDT 03/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Minimal? Not true. - KingSpeed 08:53 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| The 1987 revival directed by Hal Prince, with which the authors were closely involved, cut ”Meeskite” and ”Why Can't I Wake Up?” The latter was replaced by ”Don't Go.” It also combined the original ”Money Song,” aka ”Sitting Pretty,” with ”Money, Money,” with the latter making up a larger portion of the combined version. The production also added ”I Don't Care Much,” in the same place as the Mendes-Marshall version. This version was then licensed, along with the original 1966 version. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Minimal? Not true. | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 05:18 pm EDT 03/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Minimal? Not true. - AlanScott 02:50 pm EDT 03/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for the info. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Minimal? Not true. | |
| Posted by: scoot1er 10:39 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Minimal? Not true. - KingSpeed 08:53 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don’t need a lecture on what the book of a musical is. The structure of the show did not change. The point of view is the show did not change. Add songs or cut songs—the book of the show stayed pretty much the same. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Minimal? Not true. | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 02:09 am EDT 03/21/22 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 02:04 am EDT 03/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Minimal? Not true. - scoot1er 10:39 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Initially, you said the only change was the addition of 2 songs. You have yet to respond to the fact that 3 songs were cut. When THREE songs are cut, the book by definition is changed. Not a lecture. Just a fact. My mistake. “Sitting Pretty” was also cut. That’s 4 songs. Wait- was “Why Should I Wake Up” cut too? Now we’re talking about a dramatically different show! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Let me tie this together | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 02:54 am EDT 03/21/22 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 02:53 am EDT 03/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Minimal? Not true. - KingSpeed 02:04 am EDT 03/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| The argument being made about Billy Porter and Encores was if you “hate” a show in its original form, write your own show. I added Cabaret to the discussion because the revival made radical changes to the show. Should Sam Mendes have written his own show? I disagree. I’m not big on rewriting shows, especially ones I love, but I give Porter credit for taking a risk with a show that is never done. And obviously Mendes was commercially successful. I did not like the Cabaret revival because the original version means a lot to me for many reasons. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| You're neglecting a very important factor re CABARET... | |
| Posted by: Seth Christenfeld (tabula-rasa@verizon.net) 11:54 am EDT 03/21/22 | |
| In reply to: Let me tie this together - KingSpeed 02:53 am EDT 03/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| ...all three writers were very much alive at the time and able to participate in the rewrites. Seth, who'll never stand in the way of someone rewriting their own work even when he disagrees with the changes |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:41 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - keikekaze 02:32 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Ok, A) You don't gotta bring "Birth of a Nation" into this. That movie is some racist trash, and it does not belong in this conversation, especially when we are talking about a Black creative reworking a musical written by White men. I'm sure you meant no harm, but that is an extreme and entirely inappropriate reference. B) No one has done violence to "The Life". Please give some more thought to your language. Billy Porter re-ordered some songs, wrote some new scenes of varying quality, restored what he says was the original intent to have a trans character in the show, and funked up the music. No violence was done... which again is a strong, and I daresay inappropriate, word to use when we are talking about a show that is dramatizing the experiences of a Black trans woman, a community that is on the receiving end of daily, actual violence in this country. We can have a reasonable conversation about what Billy Porter has wrought, but let's do it with some respect. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 08:24 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - Singapore/Fling 02:41 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Teacher, school thyself about "respect." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Life...and the Death of Encores | |
| Posted by: BroadwayJunky 07:13 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Life...and the Death of Encores - keikekaze 07:10 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
|
|
|
| Bravo - well said. 100% agree. re-writing other people's work is not a precedent I want to see happen in our community. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Life...and the Death of Encores | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 09:00 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Life...and the Death of Encores - BroadwayJunky 07:13 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
|
|
|
| I also think there's a huge difference between a reconceptualization of a canonical play (say, setting Macbeth in Axis Germany, as Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen have done), a re-thinking of a text, but authored by a new writer and or director (say, something akin to A Doll's House, Part II or Mourning Becomes Electra), and just rewriting a text because you wish to "correct" the author's lack of "progressivism" (according to the so-called revisionary author). The former two can be fascinating and productive (and still show some modicum of respect and desire for open dialogue), the latter just seems to me cannibalistic. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Life...and the Death of Encores | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:40 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Life...and the Death of Encores - BruceinIthaca 09:00 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| "just seems to me cannibalistic" Just curious: do you really think that was Porter's motivation? (I am not looking to debate the point; I just found it surprising in light of what I have read.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Life...and the Death of Encores | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 01:49 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Life...and the Death of Encores - ryhog 11:40 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Fair question and one to which I have no answer. What I can say, and here I may have been unclear in my posting, is I wasn't actually thinking specifically or only of Porter's "The Life." (I haven't seen and obviously will not as it closes today, right?) Some of the reviews seem to suggest that might be what he is doing--that may not have been his intention (who can know intention--as Jung suggests, the unconscious is far larger space than we may think). As Octave says in Renoir's "The Rules of the Game": "That's the awful thing about life: Everybody has their reasons." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Life...and the Death of Encores | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 07:17 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
| In reply to: re: The Life...and the Death of Encores - BroadwayJunky 07:13 pm EDT 03/19/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, BroadwayJunky. I agreed with your comment farther up above, too--apparently we were writing them at the same time! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.120279 seconds.