Why didn't they film the Follies revival?- Page 3

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 11:28am

Dolly-MOST shows are not filmed because of the cost (in addition to the many other reasons detailed already.) A thousand T-shirts cost about $1800 to manufacture. A thousand mugs cost about $750. A thousand DVDs cost well into 6 figures to manufacture.

Brian-yes it is a variation on the same argument. Obviously, the thinking has not evolved the same-at least not yet. Content owners and controllers are not always as quick as enthusiastic fans to embrace technological change. Look at the recording industry, the newspaper industry. It's not all that different.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:04pm

I would think that the Into the Woods and Sunday in the Park with Georges recordings actually greatly helped both properties.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 4:22pm

"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. "

I get the argument, Hogan's, but still frankly don't buy it. Sure, all of us writing here as you point out are already theatre fans (though I suspect a number of people even here became big theatre fans because of a filmed production.) But you're more likely to *create* a theatre fan, especially outside of big theatre cities, by giving them access to filmed productions of plays and musicals. I really don't think that point can be argued.

[artscallion]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 4:35pm

Theatre was completely outside my radar until I stumbled upon the filmed New York City Opera production of A Little Night Music in 1990 and a year later Into The Woods. I had been completely unaware that theatre could be adult, intelligent AND fun. I now see more live theatre than is reasonable for one person to see. This may never have come to pass had it not been for these filmed performances. So I'm all for them.

[darquegk]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 5:52pm

There ARE arguments, albeit rare ones, against cast recordings as well. One of my professors as an undergrad lamented that recording the music from shows, and the performances of the original cast, had killed the tradition of the encore- when you can hear Patti LuPone sing "Rose's Turn" on your iPod anytime you want, you don't need to scream for her to sing it four or five times so that you never forget it.

[SidebySidebyLogan]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 6:35pm

Didn't see this thread going in this direction when I started it but very happy with the conversation it sparked. Count me as one of those whose love of theater sprang from my DVDs of Sweeney Todd, Into the Woods, and (once I'd caught the bug) Company with Raul Esparza's Being Alive as the point of no return. And because of that I've introduced and in turn infected a lot of my friends.

When I asked about Follies, my line of thought was probably based more along the lines of building a Sondheim library. I truly believe he's an important enough artist, all of his shows deserve to find their way to recorded distribution. Maybe through scholarly grants rather than a traditional business model. It's been touched on earlier, I'm the type that thinks in terms of the "grandiose traditions of the theater" rather than what makes economic sense. But it seems to me that in cases of shows that have a limited shelf life on Broadway, as Sondheim unfortunately seems to, DVD sales would be an added venture to recoup investments. I don't know how the legalities of this would work or if money made from DVD sales could be counted as money towards the initial investment. Really, all I know is that as someone who puts musical theater at the top of my list of favorite things, all the talk of money and red tape makes me dizzy... but that's the way the world works . I'm just happy I had the chance to see the final performance at The Kennedy Center and meet all of the gracious, amazing talents involved. Still the highlight of my 25 years, even if I did babble like a giggling queen to Bernadette Peters.

As someone stated earlier, as far as we've come in adapting to the technological advancements of the past 30 years we still have a loooong way to go. I think one way to start getting the theatrical material distributed we want is Kickstarter. It has been successful in the past & was just mentioned in the A Bed & Chair thread as means to get an album. I'd like to see a campaign to get Merrily released for purchase as I live in an area where I would've had to traveled quite a bit to make a screening.

A few questions:

Are there studios/companies that specialize in filming live performances?

Is there any different technology used for capturing a stage performance versus a performance intended for the screen?

How did the Widow Goldman get so much control over her husbands work or are all copyrights that stringent and she's just especially merciless when dealing with Follies?

All said, whatever your opinion I love the debate and I'm very interested in how the theater will react to the changing atmosphere. I understand that Broadway is a billion dollar business and that it must service it's investors by earning money but by continuing to give audiences dumbed down shows with inflated ticket prices it will just hurt itself in the long run. I think there is a next generation of theatrical artists waiting to take over that will find creative solutions to the cost effective production issues to telling smart, compelling stories that audiences, both highbrow and low, will want to hear. I sure hope anyways. And I REALLY hope I can be one of them

[HogansHero]

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

It's interesting that the discussion of recording shows focuses almost entirely on Sondheim, and also interesting that much of it has a non-profit angle to it.

Could projects be crowd sourced? I suppose, but the amounts involved in a first quality undertaking make it unlikely, which is also why there is a huge roadblock to the bsuiness decision to undertake these projects (apart from all the other considerations). That kinda answers the question about studios/companies specializing in this-there just isn't enough money to make it into a viable business. There are folks who have experience in doing these things, and they become the go-to people when it is done but it is not a separate business per se-not even as much as the small recording companies who do obscure cast recordings. There are certainly tricks of the trade in terms of how to do these things (although what I consider the best of the best, Spike Lee, did it outside of the conventional approach), but no I don't think there is unique technology involved. It's really more about a unique vision of how to produce and direct the project. Finally, re "the widow," most all rights holders can shut down anything they want. The negative sentiment toward her is probably partly based on personality, part on the fact she is an "heir" and not the artist and part on the fact that she's a scapegoat. Theatre people tend to avoid being cast in the light she's allowed for herself, so it ends up shining more light on her. Part of what prompted me to post originally was that there was an impression that she was a lone wolf, and she's not. There are a number of people who say no in this situation, but most of them lurk in the shadows. Thanks for bringing all this up. As you say, who knew it was gonna take the turn it did.

I am (as if this wasn't already clear) someone who supports the live arts, and I am a promoter of exposing folks to the "magic" of live theatre. At a time when we can pretty much remote control our lives from our homes, and avoid venturing beyond, the theatre is one of those rare art forms that really demands getting out. And I believe it offers something truly remarkable that can't be replicated digitally. That said, I do think there is a way to fulfill those goals, and encourage live theatre, without foreclosing video (or audio, etc). The challenge is how to whet people's appetite without compromising the integrity of the real deal.

[ukpuppetboy]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 8:41pm

This has indeed turned into a thought provoking thread and one in which I find myself agreeing, in part, to both sides - though the arguments seem to have broadened into a few disparate areas.

As another whose first introductions to Sondheim were the Broadway taping of Into the Woods I have become a massive fan of the composer and subsequently enjoyed productions of this and other Sondheim shows from the Donmar to the NT to the Royal Opera. Whilst I would have loved to have seen the original Broadway company, and indeed the darker London transfer they had both long since closed by this time and the taping had made a future audience member rather than robbed the original productions of an existing one.

I do completely agree though that it is unfortunate when people feel that they can lay claim to judge an actor's performance or even the stage director's (or any other creative members') input through a taped version of a live production, whether bootleg or redirected for the camera - yet people continually do. YouTube is full of people denouncing original and subsequent casts of long running and historic shows in favour of a performer they saw last week, without any hint of acknowledged bias or lack of imagination that the (for example) 3" grainy VHS transer of Michael Crawford from 1988 maynot quite live up to their recent experience from the *th National Tour. Of course you're always going to have a more fulfilling and rewarding, interactive experience live - but if you are curious to see productions and performances gone by, either for research or fun, library footage is invaluable and should be available without the snobbish restrictions banded about on this thread.

I'd be intested to know however what Hogan thinks of the success of the NTLive (and similar) ventures, considering they are professionally directed (and lighting sometimes adjusted) for cameras whilst still infront of an audience, and given that they are often screened during the run or (in the case of One Man, Two Guvnors and Macbeth) prior to the Broadway engagement).

Updated On: 11/13/13 at 08:41 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 9:04pm

I know the question wasn't directed at me, and I've only seen four or so NTLive cinema screenings, though I don't think they ever release their stuff on home media (do they?) - it's similar to the Met broadcasts 9though a handful of those make it to PBS) and the Bolshoi Ballet Live ones. (That said I have seen torrents of some of these files from people who capture them via the satelite feed so...) Of course PBS' Great Performances lagrely works thsi way too (I believe each PBS is allowed to repeat the program once within a certain amount of time) which means, as I understand it, they don't have to pay as heavy extra fees to the various people involved -- but people can record those.

SidebySide asked: "I'd like to see a campaign to get Merrily released for purchase as I live in an area where I would've had to traveled quite a bit to make a screening. "

I am pretty certain we will see that released to home media in some format. It was recorded by Digital Theatre who primarily releases their product through their online center (I don't think they've had any DVD releases yet) which can be a pain, though I've purchased a few of their productions (the London Into the Woods, the Beautiful Thing revival, Long Day's Journey Into Night, All My Sons) in High Def and if I hook up my laptop to my TV they look and sound pretty great. http://www.digitaltheatre.com/browse/all

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 10:01pm

Puppet-I don't have a problem with them but I say that with 3 important (to me) observations. First, as you may know, the NT project includes a huge amount of interaction between the stage team and the film team. That's critical, and it is not always the case (in fact, it rarely is). Without that, we are getting a film director's "edit" of the stage director's vision, and yet we are also getting it on the stage director's playing field. Two compromises, both inadequate. The NT approach minimizes this. Second, I think there is a danger that this work can become a comfortable substitute for getting oneself to the theatre and I worry that the business side (the revenue stream) may become more important than the promotion of a what I'd call theatrical integrity. Finally, I'd note that the lion's share of this work (NY and otherwise) is originating in a non-commercial environment, whereas my original point was that it is commercial theatre where the contrary sentiment continues to have its greatest force. In my perfect world, these broadcasts and digital projects ought to be the teaser for getting folks into theatre seats, not as a substitute, so I'd probably prefer maximum quality, minimum quantity and some subtle way of communicating to audiences that, as much as they are enjoying what they are seeing, in the theatre they'd get a lot more. I know I don't have to make this point for people here, but the theatre is incomparable, and we ought not throw away our greatest asset. Anyway, you asked for my 2 cents and now you have it.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 11/13/13 at 10:31pm

Well, I for one learned to love opera mostly through PBS broadcasts. It was before sur-titles became common in opera houses and so TV was the only place I could follow the libretto while I heard the music.

I see no reason why many people wouldn't learn to love Broadway musicals the same way (even with sir-titles). Those who think it's too peculiar when characters start to sing on the "street" aren't going to like musicals in any format.