Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 05:50 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 05:49 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chazwaza 04:14 am EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| You may experience a conundrum, but that doesn’t mean there is one for others ;-) When I finally saw “Merrily”, after 20 years of listening to the OBC, my biggest surprise was how perfectly that moment fits Beth. That being said, if I’ve read your other posts correctly, I think we both agree that the show is inherently problematic, so we’re ultimately arguing over how to best fix something that’s not fixable. The one thing I’ll add is that my objection to that song in Frank’s mouth isn’t because he’s a man, nor is my support of Beth because she’s a woman; it’s because she’s the only decent person we’ve met in the show up to that point. One of the core problems of “Merrily” is that the main characters are awful people, and we meet them at their low points. Sure, Frank is entitled, but Mary and Charlie are downright reprehensible in how they treat them, and all three are practically saints compared to Gussy, who dramatically (and inexplicably) risks blinding another women by throwing iodine in her face. Of all of them, I think I have the most sympathy for Frank, especially in a version of the show where he listens to his neglected ex spill out her heart. I think you make a strong case for the subtext that an actor can bring to Frank, but the action you want to play is happening outside of the words that Sondheim wrote. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 06:13 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:04 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Singapore/Fling 05:49 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think we agree on several things, but maybe not as much as you think, ha. I think the show is inherently problematic but does not need fixing. It is the show it is. Or it should have been. The best execution of what the show is, and the most emotional, original, entertaining, and compelling version is the original version. That doesn't mean it's perfect, or that it "works"... I don't care if it works as a whole or not. That's Merrily... hell, many people think shows don't "work" as a whole that I actually think work brilliantly (Sunday in the Park, Follies, Caroline or Change, Passion, Grey Gardens), so what does it matter as long as people are compelled to produce it and people are compelled to see it or glad they did? I think Merrily was only tooled with to the level it was and with the blinders on that it was is because of the very unique circumstances of the reception when it opened mixed with the specific, unique and apparently blinding failures of the Prince production of the original version. But the version wasn't to be blamed, it wasn't even given a fair trial. So we talk about this with the false premise that the show needed massive fixing, fixing that was/is possible, and so something had to be done! And to many, it follows that what they've done must be an improvement, or even a failure to fix a therefor unfixable show, but that it needed the revisions either way to be produceable. I would suggest it didn't need all that much fixing... it was never going to not be problematic as a play. Ah well. Give me the problems, I find them exciting and far more satisfying then what we have now! And often what makes this show a problem is what makes this show worthwhile to begin with. And I also think we definitely don't see the characters the same way - or maybe you're focused on the revised version and I'm thinking of the original. How are the main characters "awful people"? I don't see it that way. And I don't see them as reprehensible, and I don't think when we meet Beth we, or I, think she is the only "decent" person we've met up till then. I think meeting people at their low points is not only interesting for a story or drama, but it is key to some of the best or most successful plays. What's interesting about seeing people at their best or happiest? I do agree the Gussy business with the iodine is terrible. That's not in the original version I'm advocating for. Just one of many examples of how the book because a soap opera in the revisions. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:00 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chazwaza 06:04 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Since two of you have done it now, I'll just step in to say it's Gussie, not Gussy. Thank you. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:40 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chromolume 11:00 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| But is it Charly, Charley, or Charlie? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 11:50 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Singapore/Fling 11:40 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I am not 100% on which it IS, but I know which it isn't... it isn't Charlie. God only knows why. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:23 pm EDT 08/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chazwaza 11:50 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Charley. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It's all gone backwards | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 07:50 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:49 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chazwaza 06:04 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I've only had the chance to see the revised version, so I can't really compare that to the original text. And I do agree that the current form is very much a soap opera, which is one of the main reasons why the characters become rather one-dimensional except when they sing. Meeting people at a low point can be interesting, but generally when that happens, we're given a crash course on how they reached that point, and we're also given facets of them that are appealing/redeeming, so that we can understand who they were at their best. In the current "Merrily", we don't really get that - we just get people being mean to each other for 30 minutes. But then, I also don't buy the central tragedy of this current Merrily, which softens my sympathy for all of them. Despite what Mary and Charly believe, Frank was never that deep or compelling of a writer (in this version), nor is his turn to Hollywood such a hollow, shallow betrayal of his abilities ("Rich and Happy" made the case for that when the movie was bad and Frank was high on fame, but "That Frank" tells us the movie is potentially pretty good and Frank has achieved his goals). Frank's a fine writer of popular musicals who has become a fine maker of popular films and also discovered happiness to boot... and his best friends are angry at him? They're bitter because he, what, is enjoying his life? It's a tough pill to swallow, and I don't think Furth's reliance upon easy laughs (What do I do? I *really* drink) provides the gravitas that the show would need to pull me in to their problems. So in that sense, when we finally get to Beth in the new version, she's a sigh of relief, because she is the first adult I've seen on stage who has emotional maturity and an ability to handle her own problems. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's all gone backwards | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 05:43 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:42 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
| In reply to: It's all gone backwards - Singapore/Fling 07:49 pm EDT 08/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think that you should seek out the original, which is all I can say on that. For all the issues the book had originally, I think they made the characters less dimensional in the revision. I also think a strength of the original book is that it does *not*, to my memory of my experiencing it, give you a crash course on how they got there... it sets up the question of how and then, you know, spends two hours working backwards to show you through scenes and songs. Opening on the graduation I think helped enormously with how the show and tone and characters get introduced and how the audience is eased into the jolting concept of how the story will be told who the people we are going to spend 2/3 of the play with before the become wonderful and in no way irredeemable personalities. I also think there are aspects to the graduation opening that were changed in or for previews that helped even more. And your example of "That Frank" vs "Rich and Happy" is spot on, not to mention that as a song TF pales in comparison to R&H, and a great microcosm of how shortsighted the rewrites were. And while I am basically in favor of the entire original vs the revisions, there are things I like in the revisions... I do quite like "Growing Up", though I'm not sure that it feels like the same score (even though it's based on the same stuff), which maybe is the point and makes it work even more. But I don't like all the Gussie stuff that comes with it, so it's an imbalance. It's so sad to me that George Furth preferred people see this show with this revised script, if anything I think his work comes off notably worse. Not to mention how much they throw out the window any good will or credit they win with an audience, or just the impact of the youth juxtaposition, when the show is performed, as originally intended, with a young cast and the energy and vibe of that to juxtapose the sourness of the people and circumstances. From the major to the minor of the conceptualization and execution of the rewrites, it's just such a mistake to me, even if there maybe have been 25% of it that were improvements or great additions/edits. But I have to guess that I'd review the versions and say 25% is being generous. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's all gone backwards | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:55 pm EDT 08/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: It's all gone backwards - Chazwaza 05:42 am EDT 08/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| It's so sad to me that George Furth preferred people see this show with this revised script, if anything I think his work comes off notably worse. I tend to wonder if it was all much more a very complicated ugly emotional reaction to the process and reception of the original show, than a preference for the revision. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.026027 seconds.