Interesting phenomenon: fan revisions

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

Posted: 6/19/13 at 10:48am

(Those who would seek to use this thread to troll at my expense would be best advised to take their sour persimmons elsewhere.)

Many of us are aware of the phenomenon of "revisals." For those who have been living under a rock and somehow missed what that term means, it's a portmanteau of revision and revival (while at the same time also being an actual word in the English language that means something entirely different than the meaning we ascribe to it). Basically, it's the "house flipping" of theatrical revivals:

1) Pick an old show
2) Gut it
3) Refurbish it, to render it more palatable to modern audiences and reap intended benefits (mostly economic)
4) Sit back and watch as the production gets talked about, though not always as intended

We've seen revisals that were excoriated but still did business (Diane Paulus' Porgy and Bess; the David Henry Hwang rewrite of Flower Drum Song; and, as Stephen Sondheim put it, West Side Olé Olé). We've seen revisals that shined a new light on an old piece and found something new to share (Cabaret '98; ...Superman in Dallas, the latter to the extent that they were able to advertise it as a "world premiere," thanks in no small part to its completely new script).

And try as we might to insist that the original is best (and sometimes we're right), I don't think anyone can say they want contemporary directors and producers to be completely straitjacketed about how they handle a classic text. (At least not with a straight face.)

But what of the intriguing new phenomenon of "fan scripts"? As a hobby, and with a great deal of hubris, increasing numbers of fans of musicals have begun to create their own unique visions of a show they love, which arguably fall under the revisal umbrella in many instances. Sometimes they re-work the piece from a director's perspective, making significant changes to the script and altering the score (or at least the song list). Other times, they throw out ideas as simple as (to use a Wildhorn example) "put 'Bring On the Men' back in the show." Usually, they make disclaimers that this is for reference or for fun, and that they make absolutely no claims of ownership on the source material. Some even go so far as to send their versions to the authors, as though their rendition is worthy of professional attention. (I'm not gonna lie, I'd say there are a few examples I've seen that maybe deserve it.)

This is no new phenomenon. We've even seen at least one fan revisal posted on our forums. (I've linked below; the script he links to is now gone for reasons he explains in the edited original post, but I have that script if anyone wants it.) My opinion is that if the professionals can take a crack at it, why not someone who loves the show, and has closely studied its strengths and weaknesses, sometimes through several versions? (Looking at you, Wildhorn fans.) Opinion is subjective, and as a result, one may wind up with several different versions based on each fan's respective opinion. But I think that's the magic of art -- this is just the next level of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

What do you guys think? Do you have an opinion at all? If you've come across a fan version of any show that you like, share it here!

"Lolita, My Love" Re-envisioned

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 11:56am

People often have ideas of how shows they like could be improved or of why shows they didn't like missed the mark. It's natural to imagine what the show would have been like with the changes one might suggest. Any theatergoer with an analytical mind and the inclination can be an unsolicited script doctor.

Whether the dramaturge manque is a professional or not, sometimes the proposed revisions might be beneficial, at other times no. In turn, whether yea or nay is a subjective determination by a third party assessing the reassessment. That third party might be right or wrong according to a fourth, etc.

Beyond that, the work is protected, which means anyone mounting a production has only certain leave to make changes. Directorial vision and tweaking within lawful bounds (as defined by licensing) are one thing; turning Diana Goodman into Siamese twins with two husbands, two daughters and two dead sons, or J.P. Finch into a Talmudic scholar with multiple personality and Tourette Syndrome might be quite another.

Revising a script for one's own personal edification and as a libretto writing practice is a different matter entirely, and might be a very good exercise.

Updated On: 6/19/13 at 11:56 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 12:08pm

There's also the argument that those who "revise" the original work of other artists (even if that original work is an adaptation from another medium), are unable to create their own original work.

But in a day when 50% of the commercial theatrical fare on Broadway is comprised of re-runs, I doubt that many people subscribe to that argument. Original thought is passé, right? (Or maybe just too hard.)

Updated On: 6/19/13 at 12:08 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 12:23pm

Everyone has their "influences".
Some might ask whether there truly is such a thing as "an original work" (is there anything new under the sun?).

In any event, adaptation is an art.


Where Will got his shit Updated On: 6/19/13 at 12:23 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 12:27pm

True, but there is a big difference between adapting one work into a significantly different work, and merely tweaking.

For instance, what Masteroff, Kander, Ebb, and Prince did with The Berlin Stories and I Am a Camera was hugely different than what Sam Mendes did with Cabaret.

[Gorlois]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 12:32pm

"The Little Mermaid" is my favorite animated Disney film, and when the Broadway show premiered I was dismayed by the word of mouth I heard on message boards, so I wrote my own "treatment" which basically changed the entire ending where Ursula took over Eric's kingdom & turned everyone into fish creatures ala Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean 2. Of course, Ariel still saved the day. I was probably thirteen or fourteen when I did this, but it was really awful. I even wrote lyrics for new songs-- and I am not a lyricist in any definition of the word!

There was one idea I had that I still like: instead of having Ariel sing when she's human, leave her mute and have her dance her thoughts and emotions out.

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

Posted: 6/19/13 at 1:05pm

Guess I'll have to start with extant samples.

Here's an example of one fan revisal that I don't really like, because as much as I... like? tolerate? ... Jekyll & Hyde, I'm definitely a fan of the opinion that less is more. This guy... clearly does not believe in that axiom.

Four years of blending nine scripts, fifteen bootleg videos, all of the commercially released recordings, two sets of unreleased demos, and hundreds of bootlegs produced this "completist's script" to J&H. God help us, it's a four-act monstrosity.

(errors in link title intact in original)

Jekyll-Hyde Completist' script

Updated On: 6/19/13 at 01:05 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 1:10pm

What Mendes and what Jay Presson Allen and Fosse did before him for film were very different than what Masteroff and company did.

The original Cabaret was groundbreaking and also flawed. But with due respect to Masteroff (whose She Loves Me remains IMHO the greatest musical of all time), both Allen (adapting for film) and Mendes (revising for the stage) improved it.

[StageStruckLad]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 1:27pm

The Dallas rewrite of SUPERMAN was definitely not an improvement. Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa is clearly a comic book fan, but just inserting Lex Luthor and other famous Superman villains into the show did not improve it. Nor did shuffling the songs to other characters. The original show is fun and kind of charming. The revised version was neither. I'm glad that it died in Dallas.

[newintown]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 1:57pm

I like the film, too - another good example of adapting a source into a significantly different other thing, rather than just applying some cosmetic tweaking.

But you must know that, although she retained credit, little of the film Cabaret was written by Jay Presson Allen. (This, of course, is a part of an entirely different conversation about the pitfalls of attributing the quality of a work to the names officially on the title page...)

I think it's too easy to look back after 50 years and say that Masteroff's book doesn't measure up to our so-much-more sophisticated 2013 standards; at the time, it was considered 1st-class. Just because it doesn't appeal as much to those who came much later, doesn't automatically make it "inferior."

Which ties in to the bigger topic of this particular thread - the idea that, as time progresses, we all get so much more sophisticated about what "good theatre" really is, empowering us to be able to "fix" those pesky old shows that have so much promise, but aren't as good as they ought to be (by our "modern" standards).

Updated On: 6/19/13 at 01:57 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 2:27pm

I didn't know that about Allen, thanks. My belief that Masteroff's book doesn't fully succeed (while still recognizing it's groundbreaking nature) didn't come to me today. I've felt that way since the first time I saw Cabaret on stage. Not 50 years, but still a very long time, ago. After I had seen the movie, but a good 20 years before I saw and loved the 1998 revival.

I also am not so sure I'd agree that our 2013 standards of what makes a great libretto are nec. all that, if any, more sophisticated than those of 1966. Great and innovative things were being done then. As they are now. There also was, is, always has been, and likely always will be, a lot of crap.



Updated On: 6/19/13 at 02:27 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 2:36pm

"I also am not so sure I'd agree that our 2013 standards of what makes a great libretto are nec. all that, if any, more sophisticated than those of 1966."

Of course not - that was semi-sarcasm. Of course we're no more sophisticated than writers were 20, 50, 500 years ago; most of us just think we are.

Nevertheless - consider how your prior experience with the screenplay of Cabaret may have colored your judgement of the pre-existing script for the stage version. Do you perhaps judge Masteroff's work because you prefer the (extremely different) movie?

And what's the aesthetic hierarchy for you of the novel, Van Druten's play, the film of the play, the first stage musical, the film of the musical, and the revival? How is that hierarchy colored by what you saw (and loved) first?

Updated On: 6/19/13 at 02:36 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 3:24pm

The power of the film may have indeed colored my reception of the show when I first saw it. Still I think I approached my assessment of the show with fairness and objectivity. There were still things I love about the show, even when I first saw it, that are very different than the movie. Things that worked beautifully in Masteroff's libretto which would not have been right for Fosse's vision of the material. The story of Fritz and Natalya is right for the film, the story of Schultz and Schneider, and the portrayal of Kost, are very right for the show.

I can't put each version into a complete aesthetic hierarchy. The stories are personal, lyrical, heartbreaking. The experience of reading them is very different from that of watching any of the adaptations. The movie is in the pantheon of adaptations of a stage musical to the screen, and is the work of a great director and choreographer at the top of his game. The show's use of subplot is very different than the movie's, but I enjoy them both. In Mendes's hands, the show gained in stature significantly.

I haven't seen I Am A Camera on stage and could only watch a little of the movie before I got very bored.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 3:27pm

"Four years of blending nine scripts, fifteen bootleg videos, all of the commercially released recordings, two sets of unreleased demos, and hundreds of bootlegs produced this "completist's script" to J&H. God help us, it's a four-act monstrosity."

HAHAHAHA!!!!! I have that version saved on my computer!!! It's a goddamn trainwreck!!!

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

Posted: 6/19/13 at 3:44pm

But you must know that, although she retained credit, little of the film Cabaret was written by Jay Presson Allen. (This, of course, is a part of an entirely different conversation about the pitfalls of attributing the quality of a work to the names officially on the title page...)

Yes, while we're on that subject, let's give Hugh Wheeler his due. Allen kept grinding out drafts, but Fosse was having none of them, so after months of rewrites, she called in Hugh, a previous collaborator, who contributed a great deal to the final film. Due to WGA rules, he was unfortunately deprived of a richly deserved co-author credit on the script, but is listed in the extended credits of the film as a "research consultant."

More on topic... our own CATSNYrevival is privately a regular Wildhorn fixer-upper. He's got his own drafts of J&H and Dracula which you can ask him about; he's also done fan brush-up work on the R&H Cinderella and on Disney's Aladdin. (Without his permission, I'm not giving out anything of his that I have. Ask him, honestly.)

And, as a fan of Tanz der Vampire, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the work of Vamptanzen, who created a lovely rendition of the show, keeping what worked from the English version, and substituting what she could as necessary to create a faithful adaptation from the German original. Is it perfect? No. But it does give a closer picture of what such an adaptation would be like.

Vamptanzen's "Tanz der Vampire" Site

[jwsel]

Posted: 6/19/13 at 11:05pm

I would love to do this for Leap of Faith. Every time I listen to the OBC, I get incensed about how bad the book is. And having seen the pre-Broadway run in LA, I actually find the revisions they made for New York made the show even more of a muddled mess. It infuriates me, because I think a lot of the score is phenomenal and the cast is incredible. And whenever I listen to it, I wonder why nobody fixed what seem like such obvious problems which I think could have been solved fairly easily in ways that give the characters more definition and inject more drama and logic into the narrative.

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

Posted: 6/19/13 at 11:59pm

Well, let's hear it, jwsel. How would you have fixed it?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/20/13 at 12:04am

I believe Phyllis Rogers Stone has a version of Follies somewhere that solves the show's much-discussed problems.

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 6/20/13 at 12:12am

Really? I would love to read that!

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

Posted: 6/20/13 at 10:30am

Seconded! Let's hear about it.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 6/20/13 at 11:34am

I'm not entirely sure this is a new "phenomenon," since fanfiction has been around forever. Some of it is original stories using existing characters/circumstances, but some of it rewrites the material entirely. For example, there's a really great version of the end of Mockingjay (the last book in the Hunger Games trilogy) out there that actually improves quite a bit upon the epilogue that is in the book.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/20/13 at 3:28pm

Ha! What PJ speaks of is a crack I took a few years back at writing a screenplay for Follies (for the hell of it, mind you). Funnily enough, I actually found a print copy of it when I was going through some papers this morning. I'm not sure I still have a digital copy anymore (nor am I really sure I want anyone else to read it!).

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

Posted: 6/20/13 at 4:43pm

I dunno, PRS; I've shared a couple of fan edits I found online here, and while no one's really talked about their contents, you posting anything would be no more embarrassing than that.

Trust me, if nothing else I have to say convinces you, try this on for size... nothing you could come up with would be worse than making Wildhorn's Jekyll and Hyde a four-act, several-hours-long trainwreck.

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

Posted: 6/20/13 at 4:47pm

You know what? I'll sweeten the pot. You post yours, I'll post mine. I have several fan scripts of my own sitting around that I would find potentially embarrassing, and if you share, I'll share. People comment on the positive and negative aspects of the work, we'll both gain a little insight. Sound fair?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/20/13 at 4:53pm

You hang onto that script, Phyllis. Some people need to learn that no means no.