Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.049219 seconds.