Amanda Dehnert's ANNIE

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/15/18 at 6:12pm

I was going to post this to Ivo Van Hove thread, but it's been locked...I was fascinated by the "It was all a dream" Annie and had to Google it. Not only did it actually happen, Martin Charnin got wind of it, flew in, and made them cut it out.

I don't have any moral objection to what Amanda Dehnert did, I just find it hilarious that she tried go all "serious theatre artist" with friggin' Annie.

https://nypost.com/2003/06/13/annie-go-get-your-gun/

 

 

[Solipsist234]

Posted: 7/15/18 at 6:20pm

For most theatre-goers, an ending where Annie's time with Warbucks was all a dream could be seen as being "horribly awful", considering (like Baritone said) it's freaking Annie, or "intriguing", considering a production like this Annie with this concept had definitely never occurred before.

Does anyone have any video of this that they could share? I definitely want to know more about it...

[astromiami]

Posted: 7/15/18 at 6:21pm

Strauss liked it enough to specifically want to work with Dehnert on his next project after.

 

[(Insert Clever Name)]

Posted: 7/15/18 at 6:23pm

I like the more realistic ending, but it is a child’s musical, and I get that parents were upset, along with the author! He had every right to totally shut it down because if book changes

Updated On: 7/15/18 at 06:23 PM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/15/18 at 7:00pm

Exactly. When I direct a Shakespeare play, I will cut the hell out of it, reorder scenes, combine or eliminate characters, and make all sorts of self-indulgent directorial choices. However, when I'm doing a licensed property, you really have to just do the damn show - especially something like Annie where everyone is coming in with their kids expecting the same thing they've seen before. Some plays are meant to be like McDonald's, where you get what you've ordered 100 times before - and that's okay.

[yfs]

Posted: 7/15/18 at 9:00pm

I don't think ANNIE is like McDonalds, which is an insulting thing to say about anything (other than maybe Burger King, which is rather like McDonalds), but I do believe that ANNIE is a work with its own integrity;  trying to create a subversive production which undermines the work itself (which is what Amanda Dehnert did) is a dangerous thing to do -- you better be as good or better than the original work to pull it off. In the case of this particular ANNIE (which I saw) Dehnert simply turned the work into a train wreck. ANNIE, it turns out, makes no sense as an ironic commentary on itself. It shows a director's contempt for the work's intentions, but doesn't succeed in doing anything more than that. We'll see where the new WEST SIDE STORY lands, but It doesn't seem like an easy work to re-imagine with any intention other than the one that the authors and director had in mind. And Maybe van Hove will simply find a new way of expressing those intentions, which would be great. Dehnert, by contrast, was actually trying to undermine ANNIE and its values and intentions, and the work itself simply wouldn't go there. 

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/15/18 at 9:24pm

Well, I actually really like McDonald's.

I agree with you about supporting the intention of the work. If you are doing Shakespeare or the Greeks, you often have to "do something" with it to bridge the gap between the centuries, but if you try to make, say, A Midsummer Night's Dream a serious commentary on the nature of love, it's not going to work. It was clearly written to be a silly comedy, and should be performed as such.

However, generally speaking, the "younger" a play or musical is, the less "help" it needs, provided it was well-written to begin with. Maybe in the year 2400, Annie will need to be "reinvented," but it seems to do just fine on its own merits for right now. And even then, it should still be a heartwarming, family-friendly musical comedy. That's the DNA of the piece and trying to change that is just pointless - not to mention insulting to the authors and to the ticket buyers.

It was fifteen years ago that this production happened, but since it was brought up, I thought it was worth discussing. Anyway...

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/15/18 at 9:35pm

The irony is that the pro-FDR, anti-Hoover musical IS an ironic reimagining and commentary on the original, which was radically conservative to the point that Warbucks died of a broken heart when a liberal president was elected.

[Ravenclaw]

Posted: 7/15/18 at 11:34pm

I've always been fascinated by this production. Directors often add framing devices to pieces and no issue is usually brought up if no text is changed, and this didn't change a single word of the script. But this framing device seems like it didn't serve to contextualize but to contradict. Part of the project of the text is to inspire the audience (particularly young girls) that through compassion and optimism, they have the power to change the world around them. What does this production say about that? I guess I am more curious how exactly the added scene was played--I've typically heard it describe as a harsh, upsetting yanking back into reality, but in the article The Distinctive Baritone linked to, Dehnert describes Annie as being hopeful in the final scene, believing that what she dreamed was possible. I can't tell if that's honestly how it was intended or if that's just something said in defense after the fact.

On a related note, David Cromer has publicly said several times that he would love to direct a production of Annie. Apparently he was up for the 2012 Broadway revival before the producers ultimately decided to go with James Lapine. Cromer's take would be another production I'd be really curious to see.

[yfs]

Posted: 7/15/18 at 11:36pm

Yes, as I said, the musical has its own integrity, which is quite different than the comic strip that it was based on. But the musical is a new work, not a production of the comic strip itself. Dehnert's production was not a new work, it was the actual musical-- same words, same music. So no adaptation had been done, merely a tearing apart of the show while doing the show -- which was insulting to the show and its creators, and a nonsensical 2+ hours for the audience. 

 

 

[ggersten]

Posted: 7/16/18 at 10:43am

The Distinctive Baritone said: "I was going to post this to Ivo Van Hove thread, but it's been locked...I was fascinated by the "It was all a dream"Annieand had to Google it. Not only did it actually happen, Martin Charnin got wind of it, flew in, and made them cut it out.

I don't have any moral objection to what Amanda Dehnert did, I just find it hilarious that she tried go all "serious theatre artist" with friggin'Annie.

https://nypost.com/2003/06/13/annie-go-get-your-gun/

"

Dehnert's explanation makes no sense - there is a difference between an abandoned or empty theatre and an orphanage. Would an audience really mistake the two?  And what does Annie do to make it hopeful?  Just smile?  Sing another chorus of Tomorrow but change "tomorrow" into "today"?  Get up from her seat and take a proud Matilda like stance?  Pulls out a red wig from her bag and puts it on?  You can't have Daddy Warbucks enter the scene and smile at her, because that could appear rather creepy.  

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 7/16/18 at 11:34am

It’s not like this was done at a community theater. It was produced at Trinity Repertory Company in Providence, RI. It’s a theater I grew up attending. The fare they produce is very adult and very conceptual most of the time. They chose to do Annie not to appeal to the community of children, but to examine an American work in a new light as they do with every musical or play (they also famously mounted West Side Story with no set and a floor to ceiling chalkboard surface to create locations, as well as the original staging of Dehnert’s dueling piano My Fair Lady). I can understand the writers objecting to a framing device they didn’t pre-approve, but I don’t object to a traditionally family-friendly musical being rethought for a more mature audience of open-minded theatregoers.

Updated On: 7/16/18 at 11:34 AM

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

Posted: 7/16/18 at 12:05pm

^ Didn't Trinity's West Side use some of that chalkboard surface as a running scoreboard for the Jets and Sharks as well? (Warwick resident, and frequent Providence visitor, here.)

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 7/16/18 at 12:18pm

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "^ Didn't Trinity'sWest Sideuse some of that chalkboard surface as a running scoreboard for the Jets and Sharks as well? (Warwick resident, and frequent Providence visitor, here.)"

Hey, fellow native Rhode Islander! Yes, they did use it to keep score between the Sharks and Jets.

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

Posted: 7/16/18 at 12:40pm

If memory serves, that was probably pretty helpful to anyone confused in the audience, considering both gangs were played by mixed-race performers (and the girl playing Anybodys doubled as a Shark girl)...

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/16/18 at 1:30pm

Good lord. Why? I always thought masturbation was meant to be done at home with your junk, not in a theatre with someone else’s play.

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 7/16/18 at 1:41pm

Thanks for the nightmares, Distinctive Baritone...Lol

The 1st half of that NY Post article had me rolling. The salt, man...you could season a steak dinner with it. I will say this much- for whatever course her life takes, Ms. Dehnert has solidified her place in theatre lore. And isn't that half the battle we face as artists?!

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 7/16/18 at 10:08pm

How is it masturbatory? If you’ve ever seen a production by Amanda Dehnert, you know how thrilling it is. In particular, her Fantasticks and Edwin Drood (both at Trinity) are very, very strong highlights of my theatregoing. She loves a high concept, yes, but she deploys it expertly.

[yfs]

Posted: 7/16/18 at 11:28pm

ColorTheHours048 said: "How is it masturbatory? If you’ve ever seen a production by Amanda Dehnert, you know how thrilling it is. In particular, her Fantasticks and Edwin Drood (both at Trinity) are very, very strong highlights of my theatregoing. She loves a high concept, yes, but she deploys it expertly."

Peter Brook's Midsummer Night's Dream was high concept. Amanda Dehnert's Annie was just silly and insulting. Brook understood the skeleton of the play and how it could be exposed in a new way. Dehnert wanted Annie to be something it manifestly is not -- the opposite of what it is, in fact. And, as the saying goes, "the first requirement for a revisionist production is a dead playwright." Martin Charnin was and is very much alive, luckily for Annie. I believe you are mistaking a bold but foolish and sophomoric experiment for a revelatory conceptual discovery. Annie simply doesn't say what Dehnert wanted it to say, and so both came off looking bad. 

[astromiami]

Posted: 7/17/18 at 8:00pm

yfs said: "C I believe you are mistaking a bold but foolish and sophomoric experiment fora revelatory conceptual discovery. Annie simply doesn't say what Dehnert wanted it to say, and so both came off looking bad."

Did you see it early or late in the run? I saw it the first week and I am shocked that you could say this--so maybe the show changed?

It was a surprisingly emotional production when I saw it. Annie's unquenchable optimism seemed almost heroic this production. The ending (which I know was changed later in the run) really was MORE optimistic rather than less. After Annie realized where she was, she did not crumble but stuck out her chin and you could just see her thinking about the sun coming out Tomorrow.

The show was more old-fashioned but less corny than other productions I have seen of this show. 

I have seen productions that cut Hooverville--which really does seem a violation of the show's spirit. But this one did not.

What did you find so sophomoric? Just the last two minutes? Or the way they played Grace (which I loved).

Updated On: 7/17/18 at 08:00 PM