Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: It's. One. Play. | |
| Posted by: ablankpage 10:41 pm EDT 10/07/23 | |
| In reply to: It's. One. Play. - Singapore/Fling 04:22 pm EDT 10/07/23 | |
|
|
|
| It's interesting you say that. I agree that the two plays are meant to be shown in repertory, but in development and original presentation they were two separate plays. Millennium Approaches had a year-long run at the National Theatre in London while Perestroika was all the way in Los Angeles, still under development. It didn't run in London until a full year later, and wasn't nominated at the Oliviers until 2 years after Millennium Approaches had been nominated. Even in the original Broadway mounting, the two parts began performances a full six months apart from each other, in two different seasons. The Pulitzer Prize was distinctly awarded to Millennium Approaches in 1993 and Perestroika was not nominated in 1994. The Tony nominations and wins shook out differently in each season. Because of this, IBDB lists each part separately. I would consider The Norman Conquests, Nicholas Nickleby, The Coast of Utopia, Wolf Hall, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, The Inheritance to be single plays in multiple parts. I would consider Angels in America to be two plays meant to be shown in repertory, as in the revival where both parts began previews and opened in tandem and were considered one piece in nominations that season. |
|
| reply to this message |
| It's. Up. For. Grabs. | |
| Posted by: portenopete 03:13 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It's. One. Play. - ablankpage 10:41 pm EDT 10/07/23 | |
|
|
|
| Certainly its production history would indicate that your argument for ANGELS being two different plays has considerable merit, especially given that it won two separate Best Play Tonys in 1993 and 1994. What seems to be a state of pique and exhaustion in Singapore/Fling's subject heading "It's. One. Play." is a tad misplaced. (I could hear an extended sigh of "How many times do I have to tell you this....?") As far as I know, none of your other suggestions ever ran as single productions, even if it was as a precursor to another play joining it in rep. But MILLENIUM's first production was a year-and-a-half before PERESTROIKA's and in a different city! |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: It's. Up. For. Grabs. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 05:29 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
| In reply to: It's. Up. For. Grabs. - portenopete 03:13 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| The play’s roll out was in two parts, first because Kushner was developing it through productions (not unlike Sunday at Playwrights being mainly the first act), and then because the Broadway producers knew it would be easier to market and sell tickets if it debuted one play at a time, with the bonus of two awards seasons. Once Kushner completed the play - which actually wasn’t until twenty years after the Broadway premiere - it has since been produced in New York twice as a complete play; it is primarily published as a complete play, with that indicated on the cover page; Kushner talks about it as one play; it functions dramaturgically as one play; and it was presented on television as one play (though it was adapted from 8 acts into 6). It’s one play. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's. Up. For. Grabs. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:08 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It's. Up. For. Grabs. - Singapore/Fling 05:29 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| I know you want it to be thus, but it just isn't. The BPP scripts are separately purchased (with a discount for bundling). There have been single part productions around the country (and probably world) as well as productions with different casts for the parts. Moreover, there have been plenty of unbundled productions including, as I recall, the one you refer to above, at Signature. (I recall this specifically because I went back to see one part with the original cast and the 2nd part with the replacements. I don't recall about the Broadway revival [for which I did not have to buy the tickets]). We used to see a lot of one acts bundled but that doesn't make them the same play, nor does the way the author thinks about them. Famously, some playwrights spent most of their lives rewriting the same play. :-) ) Having said all this, I really don't think it matters nor is it worth all of the sturm und drang. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's. Up. For. Grabs. | |
| Posted by: portenopete 05:36 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It's. Up. For. Grabs. - Singapore/Fling 05:29 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for that cogently-argued take. Without the pique (and the periods), it's so much easier to hear :). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Second Pulitzer | |
| Posted by: aleck 12:19 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It's. One. Play. - ablankpage 10:41 pm EDT 10/07/23 | |
|
|
|
| It is my memory that when Part 2 did not get the Pulitzer, members of the nominating committee were ostracized, forever. Three Tall Women was awarded. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Second Pulitzer | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 05:08 am EDT 10/09/23 | |
| In reply to: Second Pulitzer - aleck 12:19 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| I can't imagine why they would be ostracized. "Three Tall Women" is a superb, late masterpiece by one of the US's greatest playwrights of the last sixty plus years. I saw the original and the recent revival and it spoke to me deeply at very different stages of my life (and, yes, as a gay man). In its own chiseled way, it is, for my money, as great an achievement as "Angels in America" (which I also love--I have come to appreciate "Perestroika" more over the years, but was overwhelmed by "Millennium Approaches" from the start). It's not like, to pull another example, the year they gave the award to "Lost in Yonkers" (itself a very good, if hardly innovative play) over "Six Degrees of Separation" (a masterpiece, IMO) or when "Love! Valour! Compassion" wasn't even a finalist. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Second Pulitzer | |
| Posted by: writerkev 06:24 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
| In reply to: Second Pulitzer - aleck 12:19 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think your memory is faulty. I’m quite sure the Pulitzer committee had considered both parts to be a single play when it was awarded. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Second Pulitzer | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 06:35 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 06:34 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Second Pulitzer - writerkev 06:24 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| aleck's memory is not faulty—at least regarding how it was considered. There were contradictory instructions handed down to the jury: (I'm less convinces anyone was ostracized over it, though.) |
|
| Link | NYT: Confusion Over the Pulitzer (April 15, 1994) |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: It's. One. Play. | |
| Posted by: writerkev 08:18 am EDT 10/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It's. One. Play. - ablankpage 10:41 pm EDT 10/07/23 | |
|
|
|
| Interestingly, Arena Stage presented “Millennium Approaches” last season, and I assumed they’d follow it up with “Perestroika” this season, but that’s not the case. They saw fit to produce just the first part as a full play. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's. One. Play. | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 04:44 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It's. One. Play. - writerkev 08:18 am EDT 10/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| A few years ago, Robert Moss guest-directed a production of Millennium Approaches with a student cast at Ithaca College. Granted, that choice may have in part been dictated by the exigencies associated with an academic theatre department (i.e. need to have more productions of different shows in a season and need to be able to cast more students throughout the year, though a different cast could, i suppose, have been used for each part. The people who planned the season must have decided that MA had enough integrity to stand on its own--and the audience is not simply IC students and faculty, but the community at large. The Hangar Theatre (also in Ithaca)produced MA as a stand-alone in 1996 and could have done both parts had they chosen to (Moss directed that production), so it seem to be an open question--one worth considering. (Except for Singaport/Fling, who has made his pronouncement and all others clearly must be wrong.) My sense is that, at least at one point, people thought MA superior as a dramatic script to Perestroika, and that it was a satisfying experience on its own terms--the opinion may have shifted. Would we consider Henry IV-1 and Henry IV-2 or any of the three parts of Henry VI a single play? (Obviously, a company can produce them together should they choose.) How about Another Part of the Forest and The Little Foxes (granted, there is large time difference between those two plays)? I suppose the rule of thumb is that the first play in a sequence has a better chance of standing alone, as it does not require knowledge that extends beyond the text of that play. An interesting counter-example from the Greeks--Antigone was written (and I think)produced before the other two Theban plays and is quite frequently produced as an entire evening. I think Oedipus the King is also, Colonus less so (though IC did a production of it on its own more than twenty years ago, and there is The Gospel at Colonus); in the time of the Greeks, audiences would have known the stories, in the same way that it was not necessary to produce an entire cycle during the Medieval Period in Europe. I think the simplest answer, though one begging larger ones, is that when MA is produced on its own, it is intended to be a "whole" experience, when done in rep with Perestroika, the company/director/producers may regard them as two very long halves of a different experience. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's. One. Play. | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 03:12 pm EDT 10/09/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It's. One. Play. - BruceinIthaca 04:44 pm EDT 10/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| The question of Greek plays is an interesting one. Gallery Players in Brooklyn just presented a run of Aeschylus' THE ORESTEIA, which is three plays that essentially tell a continuing story. Galley chose to present the plays individually on week nights and all together as a four hour single presentation, with two intermissions, on weekends. I believe that these works are generally considered separate plays, but part of a cycle. And I think they do stand alone in their way, but I'd never have recommended to anyone to just see part of the cycle. I think audiences would get so much more out of the individual parts by seeing how the story functions as a whole. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It was presented in Los Angeles as one play before it opened on Broadway. | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 08:09 am EDT 10/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It's. One. Play. - ablankpage 10:41 pm EDT 10/07/23 | |
|
|
|
| Perhaps "as one event" would be more accurate, as each half had its own title (and many people felt differently about "Millennium Approaches" and "Perestroika"). I always saw the two-season opening on Broadway as a clever Tony ploy, but the history described by some of the posters here reveals a more complicated picture. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.114374 seconds.