| 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 | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Singapore/Fling 05:49 pm EDT 08/25/22 |
| Next: | re: I think there is a conundrum... the one I laid out. ;) - Chromolume 11:00 pm EDT 08/25/22 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.018264 seconds.