Why didn't they film the Follies revival?- Page 2

[PianoMann]

Posted: 11/12/13 at 7:58pm

I think the argument that film doesn't capture the experience of a live show is pretty obvious, and I assume most people that have ever been to a live show would understand it! Certainly is unconvincing to me...

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/12/13 at 8:01pm

Yeah, I think that is always has been an absolutely ridiculous argument. It's like saying that watching a video of "It's A Small World" on Youtube isn't the same as going on the ride yourself.

DUH.

Why not use that argument and say that you really shouldn't go see GRAVITY because it's nothing like going into space for yourself.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/12/13 at 8:44pm

Piano-I think the point is that you have been to a live show but many folks have not, and many of them never will if they have easy access to what they think is a reasonable substitute.

Jordan-those are not really comparable. You're free to think it is a ridiculous argument, but it is extant, and influences a lot of people who have more at stake than I presume you do. Obviously, theatre fan boys (and girls) want videos of everything. But the stewards of the theatre have more complex issues to consider. And (as I said) two of those issues are that filmed stage shows do not represent the art form well, and also ought not to be viewed as a reasonable facsimile of the live event.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/12/13 at 8:52pm

So if Lincoln Center opened up its archive today and made all those shows available for sale, you wouldn't buy any of them?

I call major bullshlt on that.

And your argument is still like my Disney comparison. It doesn't represent what the ride is actually like and you should still go on it if you can.

My major problem with anyone who makes the argument that you're making is that every one of you is a hypocrite. I'm honestly not saying that to be rude, but you know it's true. If you honestly believed what you said than you would never watch any televised theatrical event (South Pacific, Company, Light in the Piazza, Sweeney Todd etc etc etc) and you couldn't pay me enough money to believe that you never have. And the second you sit down to watch one of those, you prove your argument a hypocritical one.

[PianoMann]

Posted: 11/12/13 at 9:14pm

Sure, not everyone has had the chance to go to the theater!

I think if you gave a fan a choice between seeing their favorite actor a) on a movie screen or b) live and in-person, they'd hands-down pick the latter, no matter if they've been to the theater or not!

I think that does an adequate job refuting the argument: sure, there might be a fear that the magic of Broadway is lost in translation to the screen, but even those that haven't seen a real show know there's a difference in quality. I would always chose seeing a performer in person over on a screen, and I think everyone would agree.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/12/13 at 9:19pm

Jordan-First of all, I was conveying the arguments as I have heard them made, not my own position, which is at best a variation of what I expressed.

Would I buy any of the archive? Probably. Would I watch a show that's on TV or available digitally? Yes. But I'm not the target audience I'm talking about because I would likely have already seen the show and I don't need convincing that live theatre is worth the price and that there is no substitute. (I also don't think Disney is at risk of having people think they have been on a ride they have watched on film any more than a person would think they'd been to Europe because they've watched the Travel Channel.) The issue for those who would not release a filmed version of a show (and they represent a pretty substantial clique within the world of commercial producing) is a marketing issue, and a broad one. You may think that's hypocritical; you'll have to take that up with them.

Personally, I think there's a way to accomplish the marketing objective without an embargo on filmed versions of shows. I do think there are quality issues in what's filmed, and that crappy video often does more damage than good. (And no way I'd support releasing the LC archive, which is not intended for mass consumption.) The problem with doing quality film shoots of stage shows s that the cost lots of money, and there isn't enough of a market to support that for many shows. But if what Spike Lee did with Passing Strange is the model, sure I'd buy into that.

Piano-I understand your sentiment; as I say above, I'm just passing along what I've heard people say, and for better or worse, many of those folks are the ones who get to decide. Updated On: 11/12/13 at 09:19 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/12/13 at 11:07pm

I simply don't think a significant percentage of people who catch, say, Into the Woods on PBS and love it, would then consider that there was no reason to see it live. If anything I think these filmed productions act as advertisements for the show. I know when I was 10 or so, I already knew who Sondheim was from books I would get from the library (I constantly had Gottfried's big coffee table book on Broadway Musicals with Chorus Line on the cover out from the library.) Honestly, his shows seemed weird to me, and certainly no local theatre company I was aware of had staged any. Then I saw Act II of ITW on PBS and became obsessed. Back then the production wasn't on video, only on laser disc, which I couldn't play, and I must have caught one of our local PBS' last repeats of the show -- so I became obsessed, getting all the cast albums of his I could at the library where they also had the published scripts of many of his shows and my obsession took off from there. I suppose I'm obviously someone who grew up being taken to the theatre, so could be seen as an exception, but it didn't stop me from seeing several (good and bad) local productions of ITW at any chance possible, etc.

Filmed stage productions simply aren't something I think people with zero real interest in seeing live theatre, well live, would have much interest in tracking down. And I do think the best filmed of these productions - such as the Sondheim shows (and I include Pacific Overtures there) still offer up enough of the magic of the live production to make them valuable in their own right.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 11/12/13 at 11:14pm

To the poster who said they had a small but passionate audience. There are many things that are filmed that could be considered "small" (Passion comes to mind)…

I said it and my point was that there is already a concert version on video. Not so with PASSION.

But I'll happily admit I wasn't at the meeting and I'm just guessing.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 11/12/13 at 11:18pm

Well, since most stage musicals are based on movies these days, SOMEBODY is paying $100 to see what they already saw at the multiplex for $8.

So I think we can assume a lot of people understand the difference between film and live theater.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/12/13 at 11:23pm

I guess everyone knows this, but I feel the need to point out the Concert footage is excerpts--they didn't film the entire concert. I've read the footage simply doesn't exist. I am ot thrilled with the concert anyway, and find the behind the scenes stuff more interesting so I don't really mind, but... (Of course Passion did get a filmed concert later but it wasn't released to DVD being a Live From... special -- whatever happened to the announcement some years back that some of those Live From performances would finally be getting a release?)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:02am

The question Gaveston, is not that folks don't understand the difference between film and live theatre, but that they don't appreciate the difference. Seeing a film of a stage show is not the same as seeing it live. The magic that happens in the room, breathing the same air as the actors, cannot be explained; it has to be experienced. Seeing a film of any show is not a reasonable substitute, but if we provide audiences with a free (or cheap) video version, they will think they have "seen" the show. That's the argument, whether you chose to buy it or not. And of course, seeing the movie that was made first really has nothing to do with what's being discussed.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:10am

I'm sorry HogansHero, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

If you're saying that people are too stupid to realize that if they watch the Lincoln Center SOUTH PACIFIC at home that they don't know that they didn't go to the theater to see it live, well then I'm just at a loss as to what to say.

Seriously, this argument against filming shows because it's not "the same" is getting a tad ludicrous. I watched the Presidents inauguration on TV and still "got it" even though I wasn't in the crowd there smelling the people and watching it "live and in person". But since I couldn't be there this is the next best thing.

And also, saying that if you watch a show on TV or in the theater that you haven't "experienced" it is, again, ludicrous. I'm sorry but it just is. I "experienced" INTO THE WOODS when I was 11 years old and it changed my life. I "experienced" it again last week at 2am and it I still had the "experience". Maybe I couldn't smell Chuck Wagner but I'll somehow live and be happy with the fact this exists and let countless other people "experience" it and change their lives.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:12am

I don't think most audiences will think they have "seen" the show, and I don't think I'll ever be convinced that filming a show does any harm to it. We have the technology, we have the audience, so why not? You can talk of the magic of the moment but all you're really saying is that if you don't have the (fairly enormous!) privilege to see the show then you can just go take a **** in a hat and that's the end of it. I'm sure when records began to come out many people argued the same thing, that to hear an opera or a symphony or a performance on disc is to allow a crummy simulacrum to take the place of the real thing, when we all know that having cast albums and audio recordings only boosts attendance. Obviously EVERY show doesn't need to be filmed and released to the public but it seems like a shame to skip a lot of very good productions, particularly those with no official release.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 1:06am

Jordan-you can call it ridiculous or ludicrous or whatever other like words you want, but that's not going to convince a person who has their money at stake, and feels quite the opposite. It's fine for a bunch of theatre fans on a website to pine for copies of every show, but my point was that many of those who have to take the risk so you can see these shows have strongly held concerns about making these films. my only point in chiming in was that the discussion seemed oblivious to that. No one suggested you have to agree with them, and obviously you don't. But sometimes, understanding reality a bit is enlightening. By the way, no one is calling anyone stupid, but until one has experienced something (in this case, live theatre), one cannot appreciate what one has not experienced. (One cannot appreciate what sex is by watching porn either.)

Charley-I think, like many things, these attitudes will evolve over time. But right now, that's the reason (aside from funding) why a lot of shows are not filmed for distribution. Your point about audio recordings is a useful one because I think it leads to the same point (and also explains, perhaps, why videos will eventually evolve too.) We often hear folks talking abut cast recordings as if they are the show. ("I didn't like x." "When did you see it?" "Oh, I didn't; I listened to the recording and didn't like it.") They aren't. One of the good and bad things about theatre is that it is ephemeral. You gotta show up to see it.

[FlowerChild67]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 1:50am

Sorry, HogansHero, but I'm not buying your argument. I think that anyone who would bother seeking out filmed plays/musicals is aware of the difference.

I also disagree with the (frequently made) argument that filmed shows will discourage people from going and seeing it live. If anything it would ENCOURAGE them to see the show in person, if able. Even if that were the case, then where's the harm in releasing it after the show has closed? The writer's fear that people won't see regional productions, or something? I doubt it.

Anyway, to follow these arguments, I could argue that cast recordings, especially of sung-through shows shouldn't be released, either.

[binau]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 1:54am

In any case, I don't believe for this specific example the concern was about people not seeing a show live. The show wasn't event recorded for the archive.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 3:34am

Wait, it wasn't even recorded for the Lincoln Center Archives? That's too bad (though I believe they have the pretty good Papermill production and the, IMHO going from a not officially released video, not so good Roundabout production as well as the Encores.)

Hogan, I get that you are essentially playing Devil's Advocate here. But I agree 100% with JC's last post. The argument just doesn't hold weight for me. Certainly, I'd suggest that Into the Woods, to pick it again as an example, being commercially available has helped give the show more life than it would have had otherwise. I can't see any argument against that, frankly (although there is a fair argument to be made about regional productions perhaps ripping off elements of the filmed production.)

[binau]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 3:57am

Oh yes, the thing about the FOLLIES archive videos is you apparently can't view it without the written permission of the widow Goldman. The whole thing is very strange.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 4:44am

Right, I did know something about that -- the Widow Goldman has become such a big part of the Follies mythos.

[tazber]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 6:13am

I'm not buying the "Hogan's Argument" either (I know it's not specifically your argument Hogan, I'm just calling it that for the sake of clarity. No offense intended).

I've watched Into the Woods probably dozens of times on video and if the show came back to Bway with it's original staging and cast I would buy tickets. Several times.

These videos preserve the work of theatrical creatives for posterity.

Don't you wish we had more references for some of Fosse's original choreography. Or that we had Merman's Mama Rose performance saved?

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 7:02am

I don't get the "not real theater" argument either. Of course, it's not the same. But it's like a historical document. Years from now, people will be able to see and appreciate what is going on in the theater world at this time.

I mean I devour like crazy all the written tidbits, random film footage, etc on shows that were on Bway 30+years years ago that I wasn't able to see. It would be a huge gift to know that I could find professional copies of them at the library. Now it's possible.

Isn't it great to think that years from now, people will be able to enjoy professional copies of Billy Porter in Kinky Boots, Bertie Carvel in Matilda, Patina Miller in Pippin, etc. Is it the same as going to the theater to see them..of course not, but it's still a huge gift.

And I am with those who poopoo-ed the idea that if you see the film version, you want want to see the live version. Well of course, there might be some who feel that way. I remember walking in Las Vegas on vacation and heard someone seriously say they no longer needed to go to France because they just saw the "Eiffel Tower" at the Paris Hotel. But for most people, I would like to think it heightens their interest in the theater, not replaces it.

Maybe you don't want to allow the gen public to see a filmed version of a show while it's still on Broadway...maybe. But after that, it should be there. It certainly heightens my interest in seeing something again.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 9:54am

The one thing all of the responses have in common is that they are coming from people who are already theatre fans. But try to put yourself in the mindset of the League, or even more specifically, the theatre owners-folks for whom the existential goal is promoting live theatre in general rather than a specific show (and for whom the vast market that provides their revenue includes those who, unlike us, doesn't "get it.". Likewise, that goal is not to enrich the historical record (as to which the archive is already viewed as a compromise). Add to that the enormous cost of filming a show for distribution. Now hopefully you can understand the "why" of opposition to broad recording of shows. That doesn't mean you have to agree with the reasoning, but it also doesn't mean you ought to dismiss it, since it is the operative explanation for the state of things.

Updated On: 11/13/13 at 09:54 AM

[Dollypop]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 10:49am

i've never understood why most shows aren't taped filmed and sold in theaters as souviners. I mean they sell clothing, coffee mugs and jewelry, so why not sell DVD's?

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 11:06am

Is it not possible to have the same argument with the cast recording? There is no comparison to sitting in the theater and 'feeling' the instruments in the same room as you and hearing the actors belt out those songs.

People still buy the CDs (or equivalents on iTunes etc) and want to hear/see it live.

Better yet...if you can buy an album for a band/rock group etc why would you want to go to their concert without a real performance, costumes, scenery etc?

There will always be an audience for the live version regardless of if the soundtrack, album or video is available.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 11:14am

^^^^ EXCELLENT POINTS. Why indeed, Brian..