If you could Supervise a Revisal...

[Musical Master]

^I agree those other musicals juggle the tones very well. ANYONE CAN WHISTLE feels like a chocolate pie that was 75% baked, it has something delicious inside but it still tastes undercooked.

Where is James Lapine when you need him? LOL

[mjohnson2]

GavestonPS, are you seriously saying that because a cast recording is more difficult to listen to and less instantly appealing that it is less sophisticated? Sure it's WAY less sophisticated from those cheap hits like HELLO,DOLLY!, HIGH SPIRITS, and 110 IN THE SHADE that opened that same season. No, ANYONE CAN WHISTLE closed so early not because it was ugly but because it was too intelligent for the stupid audiences of the 1960's. ANYONE CAN WHISTLE is an interesting concept for the stage, but the problem was that they had their hearts set on writing a musical, so they wrote a musical. But the problem was that there was no reason to add music to it, so a rewritten play could be quite solid.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Well, I wouldn't strictly call this a "revisal" because the show has never played Broadway before, but... I would supervise a production of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Jim Steinman's Whistle Down the Wind any day.

It's one of the ultimate fixer-uppers, right up there with Candide and Chess. There's a lot of potential for the idea to work, maybe more-so with audiences than critics, This touching and provocative show was such a flop after its world premiere in Washington, D.C. in 1996 that it was referred to as Whistle Down the Drain. It underwent further revision for a successful West End run, and then became one of Bill Kenwright's perennial touring banalities in another version that was revised to ill effect, with a cutesy new song for the children (lyrics by Don Black) that jarringly clashed with the rest of the score and was wholly inappropriate to the characters. As of 2012, it is licensed worldwide in a script that returns to the original West End version, plus or minus a few changes made during the course of that run.

My production would take the best elements from every version and meld them carefully. For example, as maligned as the Washington production was, the designs by Andrew Jackness (sets) and Howell Binkley (lighting) were wonderful. Very simplistic, painterly images; a chamber piece rather than a Webber spectacle. Similarly, having heard the original Washington orchestrations, I do think using some of them in place of the London ones (for particular songs) might be an interesting way to go. Washington's orchestrations were of a more folk/Cajun feel, in contrast to the outright rock that the London production ended up with (the only hint of the Washington orchestrations were in the occasional use of an harmonica and an electric violin). I think using the more rock-orientated orchestrations in the Amos/Candy numbers, as well as those of The Man, would contrast with the more naive Swallow et al., whose numbers should be more folky (although as Swallow progresses through the plot her numbers become more influenced by the rock). I especially love the original Washington orchestration of "Cold" as sung in the bar - it sounds more like something that would have been played in such a dive at the time.

Also, in comparing the OLC to the currently licensed version, there are a few unnecessary trims to the script and score. I'd certainly like to restore elements of the missing material, just because I think it adds more depth, and explains a few moments that now come out of nowhere in the licensed version.

And then of course there's the racial issue. ALW had this hopelessly naive-sounding way of hand-waving the whole thing by saying that "The children would get on, black and white, but at a certain age the cut-off happened and they were segregated." While this is possibly true, casting Candy as a black female needlessly pins the race issue on the show, presumably in an attempt to comment on everything going on in Louisiana circa 1959. In the pre-Civil Rights-era Bible Belt, a black girl would not have intermingled with whites in the casual way the show presented. It seems such a shame that race is such an important issue in such a negative way, but it has to be confronted given the time and location the authors chose for the show, either in relegating black characters to background or by bringing them to the fore.

My solution to this problem is certainly not implausible for 1959 Louisiana: bring them to the fore by re-setting the show in a black community, with an all-black cast. As my company learned when investigating the potential of an all-black production of Godspell in Harlem in the late Nineties, there is a genuine spark and sentiment in the black Christian community that one doesn't easily find elsewhere. Jesus is startlingly real to them, to be blunt and really brief about it. For that reason, I want to see what kind of impact WDTW's plot would have if stripped of the racial prejudice angle that didn't do the London production (or any subsequent production) any favors.

What if black kids raised in the church, "washed in the blood," who've witnessed speaking in tongues and dancing with snakes and heard that Jesus lives and will send them to Hell if they don't believe in him their whole lives, discovered this guy in their barn? It takes only minor emendation of the script at best to keep the bulk of the show while jettisoning the unwelcome moments (for example, rather than race issues, it's puritanical views that keep Candy from flirting with Amos in the bright light of day -- certainly no stranger to this show, given the lines about sexual sin in "Wrestle With the Devil"; now there is no incongruity of Edward, a black man, singing "Cold" in a mostly white bar). Plus, just imagine the vocal power you gain for the hymn ("Vaults of Heaven") and the revivalist number ("Wrestle...") with an all-black cast.

[Elfuhbuh]

I second the Jekyll & Hyde notion. The show needs to be campy, but not the kind of camp that you see in the original Broadway production. (Let's not discuss the newer one, since there were SO MANY things wrong with that one.) It needs to be the kind of camp that takes itself a bit seriously, more along the lines of the Sweeney Todd film.

A good place to start for the song list would be the 1994 concept recording. There are a few songs, such as Jekyll's "Once Upon a Dream," that I believe could be switched in with other songs currently in the show. (I was thinking Jekyll's version of "Once Upon a Dream" could be the song that transitions into "Confrontation," but I'm probably in the minority here.) In regards to the debate over "Bring on the Men" vs. "Good N' Evil," I say we should scrap both and have Wildhorn write a new song. "Bring on the Men" is something a prostitute would more likely sing, sure, but "Good N' Evil" makes more sense in terms of giving Jekyll the epiphany to go on with his experiment. I think we need a song that sends out both messages evenly, and I really don't feel that either of the current songs do this.

The show, I feel, should be more sung-through. The speaking parts kind of separate the show into clumps, and they ruin the flow of the piece. Some lyric rewrites are in order, too, especially for songs such as "Murder, Murder." Wildhorn also needs to scrap the idea of this being a rock piece. It just sounds stupid when presented that way, and again, the music should reflect the classic tone of the 1994 recording, with only a few speaking parts here and there.

[DigificWriter]

I'm going to take a slightly different approach to answering this question by focusing on two shows - Les Miserables and RENT - where everything by and large works, but that I think could benefit from changes/revisions that were made when they were adapted to mediums other than the stage.

Director Tom Hooper took what was already an incredibly strong narrative and enhanced it by requesting that the song "Suddenly" be written and by having the songs "I Dreamed a Dream", "Stars", and "On My Own" shuffled around, and I'd love to see a stage version of the show incorporate all of those alterations/additions.

I would also love to see a stage version of RENT that adheres to the template of storytelling progression utilized by Chris Columbus' film, particularly as it concerns the songs "Today 4 You" and "Out Tonight" (the alternate lyrics in both make far more sense in the context of the story than the originals do, at least IMO).

[luvtheEmcee]

Cabaret (not because it doesn't work, because I'd like to create a hybrid of the different versions), Taboo, Chess.

[MichelleCraig]

KING OF HEARTS? I remember seeing it in Boston and it went on to open on Broadway during a newspaper strike. I still find myself going back to the CD after all these years.

[Gothampc]

Company - drop Marry Me A Little (which doesn't belong in the show and is the worst Act 1 ending in history) and add Tick Tock Dance (which balances the girlfriends contributions). Whamo-Blamo you have a great show on your hands.

[darquegk]

I disagree- Marry Me a Little shows some movement away from stasis, coming off his ill-advised proposal to Amy. It marks the change between the Act 1 Bobby, who is relatively attached to the single life and to his friends, and the Act 2 Bobby, who begins to attempt small changes- a slightly more serious relationship with April, questioning the validity of his friendships, and so on.

[Gothampc]

"I would supervise a production of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Jim Steinman's Whistle Down the Wind any day."

Part of the problem with Whistle Down The Wind is that ALW changed it from a British location to an American location and added the racial issues to the piece. The original movie was set in the UK. I don't think the racial stuff is necessary as it wasn't in the original short story or movie.

I saw the original in London and thought the show was so weak. I think all the Candy/Amos stuff should be thrown out completely. There's no need for it. "Tire Tracks and Broken Hearts" and "Kiss is a Terrible Thing to Waste" 1980s power ballads don't belong in the show.

"Long Overdue For A Miracle" and "When Children Rule The World" is too much saccharine for one musical. Cut one of the songs.

ALW gets a good song going and then adds all that recitative. "Unsettled Scores" has some great material "there's a prayer for everyone, but there is no prayer for me." Then he ruins that momentum by all the other plodding recitative.

[newintown]

"Marry Me A Little" says the exact same thing as "Someone Is Waiting" - that is, "I'm ready for a relationship, but only a kind that doesn't really exist." That makes it redundant. But it's got some nice legato lines, and your Bobby can look cute and soulful if he sings it while looking up into the lights, and therein lies the charm for most people. It wasn't even ever written to occupy that spot in the show.

[luvtheEmcee]

Marry Me a Little is vital, and drives the power behind Being Alive. Someone Is Waiting, Marry Me a Little and Being Alive are the three major pegs in the structure of the entire show.

[starlightlocamotion]

Starlight express
Vanities
Wonderland
Chaplin

[Gothampc]

"Marry Me a Little shows some movement away from stasis, coming off his ill-advised proposal to Amy."

While I see what you are saying, I think the song unbalances the act. It's too introspective for the close of Act 1, especially with Someone is Waiting already in Act 1. It's the swinging 70s, Bobby has three girlfriends and in Act 1 all we get from him are "mood ring" songs. Whether you want to play Bobby as straight, bisexual or gay, there needs to be a "24 Hours Of Lovin'" song from him where he just lets loose and gets his groove on. And that's why I miss "Tick Tock" because the musical as it plays now sheds all sex from the show.

Also, I think it's just a dreary song and doesn't close the act properly.

[darquegk]

I agree that the three songs are the emotional pegs of Bobby's arc.

Someone Is Waiting: There could be someone out there for me, but they'll have to find me and show me that they are perfect for my life, and until then I'm waiting.

Marry Me a Little: I'm ready for a relationship, but it has to be on my terms. Why doesn't anyone else feel the way I do about commitment?

Being Alive: I have to compromise if I want to be loved, and I will never get exactly what I've always wanted, and maybe that's okay.

I think what really drives people down about the songs (and the character, and the show) is that all three songs- every song in the show, in fact, is a passive one. It's a show full of nothing but I want and I am numbers, with no "I will," no "I do" and no "And then" songs. The only "And then" number, "Getting Married Today" sets up a plot point that does not come to a climax, but fizzles out instead.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Part of the problem with Whistle Down The Wind is that ALW changed it from a British location to an American location

Actually, I think it was a terrific choice. Webber and Steinman were never going to add anything to the musical theater canon that we don't already know about Yorkshire, and there's already a musical of Whistle Down the Wind that hews closely to the original location. It was written for the National Youth Music Theatre of England, and it's a treacly pile of crap. I agree that the racial stuff isn't necessary, but there are one of two ways to handle it: you avoid turning Amos and Candy into an ill-fitting subplot by cutting her relation to Edward and making her the slinky bleached blonde white girl she was in the D.C. production, or you make 'em all black and lose that layer altogether.

I don't share your complaints about the score -- I really enjoy "Vaults of Heaven," "Cold," "If Only," "Tire Tracks and Broken Hearts," "A Kiss is a Terrible Thing to Waste," and "Nature of the Beast" in all its forms and permutations throughout the show in particular. I'm not quite so sure it's one of Webber's better scores, but, recycling and all, I feel the lyrics rank among Jim Steinman's best work. No false rhymes, or at least very few, and everything (even when recycled) seems to tie perfectly to character, and does not seem like the voice of another story peeking through (as many of his early drafts of the American rewrite for Dance of the Vampires seemed to be). As far back as the Variety review in D.C., critics apparently agreed: "Jim Steinman's lyrics are consistently on the money. They're clever and precise, offering the evening's only attempt at humor and furthering the story by bringing home its central themes."

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

On another note...

As long as we're speaking of Steinman, I suppose we can't avoid one of my pet topics when it comes to a revisal. If I had my thrall and ruled the world, I'd bring back Tanz der Vampire in an English version that restored Roman Polanski and Michael Kunze's original story and libretto respectively, and scrapping the much-altered, ultra-campy, more "Americanized" Broadway version.

However, I would not make it a total clone of the European version. I've never escaped the feeling that a lot of the European productions the show has seen over the years felt overproduced. Too lavish, too up-market. I've always felt Tanz owes more than a debt not just to European mega-musicals like The Phantom of the Opera or the Yiddishkeit of Fiddler on the Roof, but also to the mother of all mondo musicals, The Rocky Horror Show. Thanks to the unfortunate (and, might I add, well-deserved) reputation of the American rewrite, its fans think Tanz does not equal funny. Well, they’re right and they’re wrong; yes, compared to the American campy romp, the European version is a dark, brooding opera, but (and this is solely my opinion) no, it was never meant to be taken seriously. Much like The Fearless Vampire Killers, its forebear, sent up all the Hammer horror films about vampires, Tanz is a look with a wink (rather than DOTV's leer) at mega-musicals, with some other musical theater tropes mixed in. People just don't notice because they aren't bashed over the head with the humor. (Think about it, folks -- among other things, you are asked to take "Total Eclipse of the Heart" seriously as the opening number of Act Two, a love duet between a vampire and his victim no less. It's kitsch regardless of what version you stage it in, but it's kitsch that people go bananas for in the right form.)

I would tour the show in a market of non-traditional intimate venues, specifically Goth-themed nightclubs. Many young individuals known in common vernacular as "Goths" are part of the show's fan community; they feel a certain affinity with the piece. I also think the audience participation and natural levity that one finds in a club venue would augment the show's vitality and thrill.

The overall design would be stripped down, with vampires looking like they'd stepped out of the pages of Frank Miller's Sin City (with some more over-the-top outfits for moments such as the Act Two finale, which I picture involving a lot of sexy black leather and outfits that would be the rival of any of the cream of SoGoFest or Convergence), and the peasants would be slightly less "Shubert operetta" and more something about what they're wearing suggesting "these are the peasants in the little village." The Hammer Horror aspect is important to hearken back to, but not so much that the audience is beaned over the head with it. The set would be an easily adaptable unit piece not unlike the show's 10th anniversary concert in Vienna.

I also picture a reduced cast (Krolock, Sarah, Alfred, and the Professor are the only leads that don't double as ensemble), a smaller orchestra of 6 to 8 musicians that focuses largely on the rock elements of the score, and a low-ball advertising campaign not unlike the lurid clips for Hammer films of old ("SEE VAMPIRES BITE! SEE VAMPIRES KILL! SEE VAMPIRES... DANCE?").

[Elfuhbuh]

I always imagined an American revival of Tanz der Vampire to mimic the original Vienna production. ^ I think, in terms of size, the show HAS to be big, because otherwise certain numbers such as "Stärker als wir sind" and "Carpe Noctem" don't work nearly as well.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

We'll agree to disagree. I feel that every production, from Vienna, to Germany, to Poland, to Hungary, to Japan, has been severely over-produced in terms of design.

In terms of cast size, the numbers work equally well with a smaller group. "Carpe Noctem" is a nightmare sequence, and as long as its main thrust is intact, the size and scope of the dancing doesn't matter. As for the red boots/prayer sequence, I've always thought that would be more effective as a a number for a smaller group of voices (namely, the characters who are absolutely necessary to the scene), especially since the ensemble part kinda comes out of nowhere.

[Elfuhbuh]

I guess it's all a matter of taste. :) I actually enjoy the "over-produced" side of the show; it adds to the camp. (Then again, I'm a sucker for mega-musicals, so meh.)

[broadwaysweetheart]

Summer of 42! beautiful music.

[GavestonPS]

GavestonPS, are you seriously saying that because a cast recording is more difficult to listen to and less instantly appealing that it is less sophisticated?

No, Mr. mjohnson2, I said the exact opposite. To my ear, the score of ANYONE CAN WHISTLE is more difficult to love, for the average fan, than HELLO, DOLLY!, because it is MORE sophisticated, not less. (This is not an attempt to bash Jerry Herman, who has done very well in his own right and creates the musicals he wants to see and hear. More power to him.)

I was responding to someone's claim that the WHISTLE music is "ugly", a claim I find ridiculous, but I was trying to be polite. I never said "60s audiences were stupid", but as someone who was a teenage member of that set, I will admit that the first time I heard WHISTLE, I found the harmonies and rhythms odd. But then I only knew COMPANY and had seen FOLLIES once at the time.

The claim that WHISTLE didn't need to be a musical is IMO equally nonsensical. Politics-as-show-business may be cliche today, but the Mayoress and her nightclub numbers were not so obvious in their day. (Yes, I realize Kaufman & both Harts and others had done it before, but the 50s and early 60s were rather reverent times.)

Without his music, Hapgood would be too distant for Faye or anyone else to love; without hers, Faye would just be strident and dreary.

I've spent decades thinking about how to fix the show and I admit I have no solution. But that doesn't mean somebody else won't. Removing the music, however, is NOT the answer.

[mjohnson2]

Actually, I meant to say that scores like HELLO, DOLLY! are more sophisticated, but it just came out wrong. ANYONE CAN WHISTLE has a score that I have never liked and despite listening to it again last night, I hate the more I hear it. If removing something so vile and difficult to sit through from the show wouldn't fix the show, than certainly nothing can. I feel the same way about a lot of Sondheim's shows, though.

[GavestonPS]

Oh, please. I seriously doubt there is a single measure in ANYONE CAN WHISTLE that isn't more musically complex than DOLLY!'s title song.

(I don't want to make this into the usual Sondheim v. Herman debate, because there was always room for both and I think several songs in DOLLY! are quite smart. But "Me and My Town", "Simple", "I've Got You to Lean On", "See What It Gets You" and the Cookie ballet all require a more sophisticated ear than "Sunflower".)

[GavestonPS]

I think what really drives people down about the songs (and the character, and the show) is that all three songs- every song in the show, in fact, is a passive one. It's a show full of nothing but I want and I am numbers, with no "I will," no "I do" and no "And then" songs. The only "And then" number, "Getting Married Today" sets up a plot point that does not come to a climax, but fizzles out instead.

darquegk, I'm not quoting you to disagree, but to ask how you define your terms. (I went through a couple of well-known musical-theater-writing programs, but that was decades ago and the terms tend to blur for me now.)

I know what the "I am" and the "I will" songs are, of course.

But how does "I do" differ from either? Is it merely a case of present rather than future tense? "Marry the Man Today" v. "I'll Marry the Very Next Man"? If so, isn't the second chorus of "Being Alive" ("Somebody hold me...") an "I do" song? I know some disagree, but to me the difference between "Someone to hold me" and "Somebody hold me" is a very wide dramatic gulf, from detached analysis to painful entreaty. I thought that at 17 and still think it today.

And what is the "And then" song? Is it merely a catchall for list songs? Wouldn't "Ladies Who Lunch" apply? Why isn't "Not Getting Married" an "I will (not)" song? (I'm assuming each of these categories includes its opposite: "I am not" is an "I am", "I will not" is an "I will", etc.)

Please don't make me read Lehman Engel again. I give the man his due as conductor AND historian, but I find his list of "rules" so confining as to make creativity impossible.

Thanks in advance. My writing partners and I are always looking to clarify the terms we use for communication.

[mjohnson2]

GavestonPS, because I like you as a poster and have no wish to get in a fight, I will just end this whole thing by saying that ANYONE CAN WHISTLE is more musically complex without question, but I don't think complex and sophisticated always come together. I mean, just take a look at the scores of ANNA KARENINA or WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN if you refuse to look at Sondheim.