henrikegerman said: "52889j said: "I Could Have Danced All Night was 100% Scottish."
I'm trying to imagine how that could even be possible. How exactly would one accomplish that, even if one wanted to?"
I mean...easily. You place the word 'could' further into the mask (right at the sides of your nostrils), something similar with 'done' and hit the r's with almost a bit of a roll. I've been doing it at m
To be clear, I'm happy with anyone trying whatever with the pieces. In 75 years this will be in the public domain and anyone will be able to really f*ck it all up!
Just don't get me started on on the changes to the revival of CAROUSEL.
No...you're the one hung up on costumes...as if that's the actual problem with the piece feeling dated or too tied to the original production. The problem, as I described above, has nothing to do with the costumes or the references in the songs or even the orchestrations and choreography. The problem comes when the strong hand of an actors' director is not apparent in the process. Michael Bennett was a son-of-a-b*tch who did what he had to do to pull the performa
'I just used a generic example and basically mean OTHER/new costumes can work too.'
That's the problem. What you suggested was generic when the costume actually needs to tell us why she's special. I'm not going to say 'Nothing could ever be as good as Cassie in a red leotard and dance skirt.' but...no one else is offering anything up. Let's face it...it's iconic and does a masterful job of telling the story long before the character
nasty_khakis said: "raddersons said: "How in the world could you re-imagineA Chorus Line? It's as stripped down as it could get. Not trying to be a hater here, because I love a re-imagined work... but unless they completely change the context, I'm not sure what you can do."
I don't think people want a version set in a spaceship in the future. People just want to see new staging, new choreography, new costumes. It's literally always done w
I find it a little odd criticizing the play about exploring the world of white, gay affluence when it's being seen through the prism of a queer playwright of color. As if representation only happens on stage rather than behind the scenes. We've seen that conversation happen here about how 'representation' means the actors on stage and the not the voices of the playwright, directors or the producers moving projects forward. I find that a little tough to swallo
No musical should concern themselves with universality. Hell...plays should not concern themselves with it either. It's the delving into the specifics of character that and how truthful the presentation of that exploration that can make a work of art 'universal.' Ferber wrote this epic with Magnolia and Gaylord at the center of it. Yes...Julie is a peripheral character. But she's, in many ways, the most fleshed out...Hammerstein was simply very ec
Julie's life is destroyed by the white patriarchy of the time. And as recently as last week, we've seen a woman whose life has been destroyed by the white patriarchy. Julie's story is what makes Show Boat profoundly relevant and profoundly American. Alter one word of it and the show ceases to be vital for audiences today.
I'm not a huge fan of SHOW BOAT. I find the show unwieldy. But...that said...
What is exactly 'problematic' with Julie's story? That has always seemed the most riveting, compelling, relevant and essential part of this sprawling epic. Seeing the concert at the Geffen Hall a few years ago, it still shocks and moves me...more than anything else in the show.
I tend to agree that exploring problematic musicals means we should deal w
I hope so, Kad. That one change is why Chakiris has an Oscar. Otherwise, Bernardo doesn't have much of an impact.
Sorry to be a stickler, but Action has always been a character in the musical. Action sings the lead in Gee, Officer Krupke in the stage version. The invented character is Ice who basically replaces the character of Diesel from the stage show. Ice sings lead in Cool where Krupke would be in the stage show. It will be interestin
I only got to meet Ms. Mazzie once when we both performed in the 54 Below Sings BIG RIVER concert. She was stunning on stage, and gracious and lovely off. I've said this over the last few years to friends, but that was one of the top three nights of my performing career. Nothing but joy, and watching Marin and Daniel Jenkins recreate magic from almost 30 years prior was an extraordinary thing. I opened my Facebook this morning and was reminded that the co
But...no one is arguing that distasteful conversations are illegal. They are simply acknowledging that those types of conversations memorialized in writing among members of place of business and, most particularly, those who help fund that place of business are absolutely grounds for termination based on the company's terms of employment. That's so basic as to wonder why anyone is questioning this.
What may actually have legal consequences is the recording and
John Adams said: SonofRobbiej's post (above) struck me in avery enjoyable way - like I was hearing a character speak those lines in a contemporary play.
Well that's because, in my mind, I'm always on stage of the Walter Kerr. :) :) :)
'But, I think that pieces written before the 20th Century aren't rooted as much in their times like like current things are.'
I kind of believe that, too...but then I'm someone who was alive for the last quarter of the 20th Century...so my vision of what makes us special is clouded by the fact that I actually think we are special. Which, in the end, we're not. I'm certain Antigone had much to say to the Greeks of that day. And I'm
I mean...I don't really care. I wouldn't do it myself because I think it's probably most effective set in its time period. But as MisterMatt points out, many great works have been set successfully in time periods different from where they are set. At some point we'll all be dead, everything will be in the public domain and companies and directors will be having at everything everyone thinks is sacred. So, who cares? So what?
