Older shows vs. how they’re received today - Page 3

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 10/15/19 at 5:20pm

joevitus said: "Agree Hammerstein is unappreciated. My comments should not be taken as dismissing his influence or his importance, just pointing out a weakness in his dramaturgical skill. No one's perfect. Hammerstein is the central figure in the development of American musical theater from a lighthearted diversioninto a serious art form. He wasa skillful lyricist and librettist, and his sentiments are--to me--still moving and inspiring. But he stumbled sometimes inhis his work. No biggie."

And I agree with you about the treatment of the Judd character and that the exchange in Carousel about being hit hard and feeling no pain was probably a mistake. Going into the script sheds some light on the encounter between Billy and Louise. He finds his sad little girl desperately sobbing and he wants to comfort her with his gift of the star and give her some positive feelings about her father, but he only succeeds in frightening her and making things worse.

Following the stage instructions in the script "Impulsively, involuntarily, he slaps her hand." (page 175)

"Involuntarily." If hitting her was not voluntary than it is not his responsibility. That leaves the questions of who is responsible and why did the slap cause no pain? Well, we are in the middle of a supernatural scene. The Billy that struck Louise is a dead man. This is weak, but the audience knew that Billy didn't want to hurt her so we are told that the slap did not hurt her and Julie had seen Billy (also supernatural) and understood his good intentions and accepted the star so we can all go off walking on through the rain.

This statement would not be so troublesome if it were not at the absolute peak moment of the drama. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/15/19 at 7:53pm

LizzieCurry said: "Substitute "PC" for "reasonable" or "polite" in nearly every sentence and see how it feels after that.

The people who cry about non-existent "PC police" are probably the same ones who haven't appreciated being called out for using the word "Oriental" in the past 10 years.

EDIT: LOL https://twitter.com/rodimusprime/status/1182677397474365446"

I was always the first to say that political correctness ("PC" hereafter) in universities was greatly exaggerated, per my long, long experience as a grad student and professor.

But several recent books (from progressive academics) suggest PC has become more and more a problem since I retired 15 years ago.

To reply more specifically to your post: who says art is supposed to be "polite" or "reasonable". Brecht, of course, would say quite the opposite.

And based just on threads concerning DEAR EVAN HANSEN on this site, I don't think the "PC police" are by any means "non-existent". Not any more.

Updated On: 10/15/19 at 07:53 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/15/19 at 8:07pm

Deleted because I realized I had already responded to Kad's post.

Updated On: 10/15/19 at 08:07 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/15/19 at 8:22pm

joevitus said: "GavestonPS said: "joevitus said: "GavestonPS said: "My point about Hammerstein's personal life was that CAROUSEL and the rest of the R&H canon grew out of his personal worldview. The showsare exactly what Hammerstein wanted to see on stage. (Even--no, especially--ALLEGRO.) His worldview was far more idealistic than Stephen Sondheim's, but both artists know exactly what they are doing. They aren't failures just because you don't like a line here or there.

And if I remember the libretto of CAROUSEL correctly, it's only suggested that Billy backhanded Julie once in a fit of pique. I'm not suggesting that is excusable and of course we don't want women to justify the abuse dished out by the men in their lives, but Julie's response about a slap feeling like a kiss may be a more sophisticated understanding of marriage than one is apt to find in GUYS AND DOLLS or CALL ME MADAM.

Hammerstein's greatest contribution to musical theater is allowing characters to sing in their own voices, rather than his. CAROUSEL is no light musical comedy. Even if we are horrified at Julie's justification of Billy's anger-management problem, that doesn't mean she isn't saying things a woman in her position in that era might indeed say and think."

Hammerstein rewrote scenes and lyrics in South Pacific while it was running on Broadway. He said of Me and Juliet "I hate this show," and found the first twenty minutes of Flower Drum Song boring but somehow uncuttable. He turned to re-write Allegro when he discovered he was dying. So no, his plays aren't all exactly what he wanted to see onstage. And even if they were, that itself wouldn't mean they are as good as they couldbe.

I don't want to go to the library to transcribe dialoguefromCarousel (I will if you want), but I remember it well enough that Julie says specifically he hit her (not just backhand her)because he's unhappyand tells Lousie in the next to final scene that someone can hit your really hard and it not hurt at all. This is just not great writing. It's a bad, sentimental approach to a serious problem, and it obscures the drama of a man who is on some levels very likable but on others disturbingly violent and deeply in need of redemption.

Sondheim called Hammerstein a man of infinite soul and limited talent, and Rodgers a man of limited soul and unlimited talent. I think he was right."

You don't have to research CAROUSEL. I have a copy here at home. But I made a promise to myself when I started posting here that I would NOT approach posting as a research project. I just don't have the time. So I'm not rereading CAROUSEL and don't expect you to do so either.

I used the word "backhand" not so much literally but to indicate that it seems it was a momentary outburst, not a regular Saturday Night Massacre. I'm not defending either, but there is a difference in the way Billy should be understood and judged. As others have pointed out and despite what Julie says about a blow feeling like a kiss, the musical play as a whole does NOT condone Billy's behavior. So what, exactly, is the problem?

The fact that Hammerstein rewrote scenes and lyrics simply shows he was a consummate craftsman who sometimes changed his mind as to what he wanted or changed his opinion of the effectiveness of what he HAD wanted. It doesn't prove he found the material lacking at the time of writing. He also advised musical theater writers to never show their work to anyone, especially collaborators, until the work was as nearly perfect as it could be. So I stand by my assertion that what Hammerstein wrote was what he wanted to write at the time, no matter how he judged it in later years.

[jo]

Posted: 10/15/19 at 8:40pm

On the other hand - how will the book of the new MUSIC MAN revival be changed, if at all, to sound more realistic to current mores?

*Harold Hill was a con man and his sales pitch is embodied in his songs and dialog. But they pale in comparison with the hype we get for every product or service that is hawked these days.

*Marian's past is only hinted at. In these days, that would not be the subject of too much gossip anymore.

Personally, I would like to see the revival in the original mode that Meredith Willson and his bookwriter envisioned it to be, attuned to the period setting in which the musical takes place.

[AADA81]

Posted: 10/16/19 at 3:36pm

Part of the problem here is that audience expectations have narrowed in a sort of PC-censoring.  Carousel, My Fair Lady and The King and I take place centuries ago, give or take a hundred years.  To complain that these characters portray perspectives or behaviors that we in 2019 find offensive is silly, because people DIDN'T think this way back then.  Like it or not, they just didn't.  To superimpose 21st-century sensibilities on characters living in a different era or century (or culture) is simply an attempt to mollify the audience.  I find it jarring when a female character from another century suddenly becomes a source of female empowerment or when a male character suddenly finds his inner-Alan Alda.  Maybe from now on, instead of committing suicide, Romeo and Juliet should just get a time-share condo and tell the Montegues and Capulets to start family therapy ASAP.

[j.garcia]

Posted: 10/17/19 at 11:41am

As it was said before, art is not created in a vacuum. Any art is a reflection of the society in which it was created, a reflection of both its flaws and strengths. To ask that revivals remain static flies in the face of what makes good art, because it’s mirroring back a time and place that is so far removed from current society that modern audiences can’t conn ct. 

 

Also, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with cutting a part of a musical that no longer serves it purpose due to being horribly outdated and uncomfortable. Those kind of moments remove the average theatergoer from the action onstage,and make it difficult to appreciate the merits of a work. Finian’s Rainbow did just fine without the blackface element. The tricky part is changing things but still remaining true to the spirit and message of the piece. Those elements which seem out of place now were making a certain point in the context of their current society, sometimes to communicate the same idea we have to update our methods. If updates aren’t made, you risk the audience wildly misinterpreting. I’m certainly not into change for change’s sake, but any alterations should serve the piece. 

 

Financial success and long theatrical run are not indicators of quality. We’ve all seen or participated in regrettable fads. Minstrel shows were a very popular form of entertainment for a good long while, but we don’t have them around anymore. Popularity does not equal quality, but it is a useful guide to gauge what a society is currently valuing. 

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/17/19 at 11:53am

YES J. GARCIA!

[Kad]

Posted: 10/17/19 at 12:02pm

AADA81 said: "Part of the problem here is that audience expectations have narrowed in a sort of PC-censoring. Carousel, My Fair Lady and The King and I take place centuries ago, give or take a hundred years. To complain that these characters portray perspectives or behaviors that we in 2019 find offensive is silly, because people DIDN'T think thisway back then. Like it or not, they just didn't. To superimpose21st-century sensibilities on characters living in a different era or century (or culture) is simply an attempt to mollify theaudience. I find it jarring when a female character from another century suddenly becomes a source of female empowerment or when a male character suddenly finds his inner-Alan Alda. Maybe from now on, instead of committing suicide, Romeo and Juliet should just get a time-share condo and tell the Montegues and Capulets to startfamily therapyASAP."

No one is arguing that the shows aren't a product of their time. However, revivals are a product of THEIR time, too. The world is not magically returned to 100 years ago because that's when the piece was written. 

I think putting up productions of older works uncritically, hiding behind the defense of "oh well it's 100 years old, what can ya do?", and then getting bent out of shape when people question what you're putting in front of them is questionable. 

Shakespeare is an odd example to bring up; the plays are 500 years old and routinely produced in every corner of the world in every conceivable way, from faithful Elizabethan recreations to modern-day translations to musicals and opera to pared-down prison tours to Stoppardian riffs. The preciousness of Shakespeare has been (largely) abandoned and people are free to explore those texts, to engage with them critically, and shape them for audiences centuries removed from their origin.  Even the most problematic of his plays are regularly seen. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/17/19 at 2:44pm

No one's hiding. They are able to enjoy the show while being able to separate Then from Now.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 10/18/19 at 11:20am

Any art is a reflection of the society in which it was created, a reflection of both its flaws and strengths. To ask that revivals remain static flies in the face of what makes good art, because it’s mirroring back a time and place that is so far removed from current society that modern audiences can’t connect. 

This is why God and the lawyers invented intellectual property rights. Since Congress redid the copyright law in 1978, with some exceptions a book or a play or a film retains copyright protection until 70 years after the death of the author. So if his or her work is to be torn into shreds, at least the author won't be around to see it. Copyright protection for a newly minted play of about a century. The play must be licensed from the holder of the copyright, who can put conditions on the license contract.

To go on a bit with Jane Austen and Pride and Prejudice (her best known noble was cited as second most popular book after Lord of the Rings in the UK. It was voted best novel ever written by Australians five years later in 2008). It has themes limited to the time. One could specify in his or her will that the person's estate go only to a male from that family. Also, running off to elope with a man of questionable character and no money resulted in the whole family being on the out socially. But I think that the long and lengthy popularity of Pride and Prejudice pretty much shows that historical setting is not a problem.

I suspect that other shows only get in trouble when they deal with issues that are still hot button right now.

Abuse of women or racial minority or sexual minority -- sexually, physically, financially or verbally. 

Feel free to add others.

(Physical attack on whites by racial minorities is OK, as I found out on Human Kindness Day 1974 when I was punched, kicked and robbed of my grandfather's 18 kg retirement watch by a group of four or five young teens on the Mall in Washington solely because I was white. ("human kindness day."

So how do you decide whether an instance of one of the above?

I really don't feel qualified to make the determination and I would not want to be part of the decision making. I say case by case because this is something close to the best we can do when there are hardened positions on both sides. Negotiate. 

In the infamous "spanking" episode of the late Kiss Me, Kate (and Ivy is going to be all over me for bringing this up again), I am in a pretty good place to judge since I saw the first preview, the last preview, and the handling of the scene at the end of the 2012 London revival which originally featured Marin Mazzie but ended with Rachel York. (The DVD of this is available on Amazon for $12.89).

At the first preview the scene was chaos. There was no attempt to make the spanking, although it was threatened, but the parties just kind of circled around each other seemingly not knowing how to end the scene. The curtain did not abruptly fall and the performers in front of the stage did not appear.

I loved Rachel York in the London show. Rachel landed a whole bunch of slaps and kicks, but finally Brent Barrett grabs her and gets in four or five spanks before the curtain falls abruptly and the poor performers did their jig as ordered in front of the curtain. Meeting backstage, Rachel got in a hard last slap that left Brent whining about his eye bleeding as Rachel walked proudly away.

So what they wound up with in Roundabout was pretty much adapting the London scene very closely, but when Will went to grab her to put her over his knee, Kelli ended up sailing over his leg and falling to the ground as the scene ended in chaos, the curtain fell, and the funny dancers did their bit in front of the curtain.

A beautiful compromise, I thought.

 

 

 

[j.garcia]

Posted: 10/18/19 at 11:38am

Plenty of productions hide because providing a well executed, true-to-spirit update is extremely difficult. It requires nuance, a strong familiarity with the work, deep knowledge of current society, and creativity. If a production contains a scene so anachronistic to current societal norms or values, to the degree that it’s so jarring as to remove the audience from the piece, then the scene should be seriously reconsidered and revised. 

 

Of course people know the difference between Then and Now, it’s condescending to imply that if people don’t like an outdated and possibly offensive reference that they lack the intelligence to separate the two. I would posit that if you are unable to change and grow as society does, and as art does, you might be the one with the issue. 

[j.garcia]

Posted: 10/18/19 at 12:13pm

Kiss Me Kate at the Roundabout was, I think, the strongest way to currently present that piece. It’s a tricky one, but the buoyancy of the score and that cast were able to keep things moving. 

Every one of these scenarios is a case by case, highly nuanced conversation, the kind of conversation most people want to avoid. This year, the high school I teach at is doing the Drowsy Chaperone. As one of the few Asian staff members, and the only minority woman with any involvement in the drama program, I was asked to weigh in on Message from a Nightengale. I am adamant that we are not doing it at the second act opener, these students are not able to perform it satirically as it should be and our school student audience will certainly only read it as a racist minstrel show. Incidentally, I saw it on Broadway and was fine with professional adult actors performing the scene because it’s a totally different scenario. Instead, the department and I brainstormed some ways to convey the same joke and idea to a different audience. It’s an uncomfortable discussion, but one that should be had. 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 10/19/19 at 12:24am

j-garcia -- you seem like a good person to ask. Do you have any other shows or scenes within shows that you think can't be saved and others that can be or have been saved?

 I know, that's a very general question.

Do you think that the inclusion of "Western People Funny" at the beginning of the 2nd Act of The King and I counterbalanced suggestions of Western superiority elsewhere?

 

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/19/19 at 3:50am

j.garcia said: "Plenty of productions hide because providing a well executed, true-to-spirit update is extremely difficult. It requires nuance, a strong familiarity with the work, deep knowledge of current society, and creativity.If a production contains a scene so anachronistic to current societal norms or values, to the degree that it’s so jarring as to remove the audience from the piece, then the scene should be seriously reconsidered and revised.



Of course people know the difference between Then and Now, it’s condescending to imply that if people don’t like an outdated and possibly offensive reference that they lack the intelligence to separate the two. I would posit that if you are unable to change and grow as society does, and as art does, you might be the one with the issue."

Do people re-write Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Shaw when their plays are revived? Odd that no one would dare re-write Pygmalion, but they will change the end of My Fair Lady for a revival. Taming of the Shew isn't touched, but Kiss Me, Kate must be altered because it's "problematic." It isn't that people don't know the difference between then and now. It's more some musical theater audiences (mostly in New York, it seems) are apparently too close-minded and narcissistic to watch anything that doesn't recreate all previous works in the light of Right Now's do's and don'ts. It's absurd, and adults, even teens, should be able to place a work in perspective and enjoy a classic for what it is, not for what it (to them) lacks.

Updated On: 10/19/19 at 03:50 AM

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 10/19/19 at 9:07am

joevitus said: "Do people re-write Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Shaw when their plays are revived? Odd that no one would dare re-write Pygmalion,but they will change the end of My Fair Lady for a revival. Taming of the Shew isn't touched, but Kiss Me, Kate must be altered because it's "problematic."Itisn't that people don't know the difference between then and now. It's more somemusical theater audiences(mostly in New York, it seems) are apparently too close-minded and narcissistic to watch anything that doesn't recreateall previous worksin the lightof Right Now's do's and don'ts. It's absurd, and adults, even teens, should be able to place a work in perspective and enjoy a classic for what it is, not for what it (to them) lacks."

Maybe not Shaw (yet), but people cut, edit, and re-order Shakespeare all the time to fit their concept and vision of the piece. Aeschylus will shift based on the whims and views of the translator/adaptor (which makes it a little harder for a random director to edit or rewrite because while the original plays would obviously be in the public domain, each new translation would still be subject to copyright laws and licensing agreements).

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/19/19 at 9:13am

Well, only if they publish it.^

[Dollypop]

Posted: 10/19/19 at 9:34am

I have nothing to add to this discussion but have to say this is one of the most thought provoking threads I've read in a long while. Thanks to all who contributed.

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 10/19/19 at 12:30pm

The Shakespeare example is a poor one. In Shakespeare's time the character of, say, Shylock would have been looked at 100% as a villain. The audience would have laughed and cried with the Christians in the play, and Shylock being converted to Christianity would have seemed like a very merciful, humane punishment. There was no such concept of religious tolerance in Elizabethan England. 

Today we can't watch Merchant of Venice and be horrified by the anti-Semitism of the "good people" and we also can't help but notice that Shakespeare himself humanized Shylock in such a way that the story has shades of gray that original audiences likely would not have seen. Modern stagers of Merchant of Venice make Shylock the central character, because he is the most compelling character of the play. But is that something the original audience would have thought?

We can't turn back time on all the pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, and look at Merchant of Venice as this happy play about good Christians outwitting the evil, greedy Jewish moneylender. No production of MoV today is going to have that POV.

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/20/19 at 4:15am

I'm not sure how Shakespeare's a bad example. Merchant still has never been performed in Israel. Women today (and women of at least two generations) often have a problem with Shrew. But no one is going to re-write these shows to make them acceptable. That's my point. We accept them as they are, whether aspects of them speak to our time or not because most of what they contain does still speak to us--that's what made them great in the first place. We should treat our classic musicals the same way. 

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 10/20/19 at 10:00am

Shakespeare onstage is almost always done with cuts that abridge the play and change it to fit the director's needs. An uncut Hamlet would be about 5 hours without intermissions.

But my point is no one is going to watch Merchant and think this is just a happy rom-com about the Christians outwitting the evil Jew. Too much has happened for us not to be horrified by the anti-Semitism of Antonio. Most audience members probably also find Bassanio to be a wastrel and a moocher, and Jessica stealing all her father's money to elope is very heartless. So directors have to take care and be mindful of how offensive the text is. I have seen Merchant done and Shylock always dominates the play in a way I doubt he would have in Elizabethan times.

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/20/19 at 10:11am

Dollypop said: "I have nothing to add to this discussion but have to say this is one of the most thought provoking threads I've read in a long while. Thanks to all who contributed."

I'm glad I finally contributed something worthwhile to the boards!

[j.garcia]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 1:47pm

I truly think there’s no “unworkable” show, with proper thought anything can be made to work. It’s just so difficult to get right, especially on pricklier shows. I’m really curious to see the new Millie because they’ve signaled that this production will address the uncomfortable racism that sits at the show’s core. I think the key is changing the power dynamic of the disenfranchised class or group. If the group who is being mocked is somehow in on the joke, the it becomes an audience laughing with and not at. 

Kiss Me Kate came close to getting it right, but I think overanalyzed itself. Baldwin sold the hell out of the more aggressive Kate, but it felt off when she had to have her meeker moments in th second act. Carousel tried to “modernize” but fell into the classic pitfall of going halfway, thus pleasing no one and drawing more attention to its perceived flaws. 

Peter Pan is a show that has never quit got it right, and I’m not sure how it can be because I lack the expertise in both the show and I’m not a Native American so I’m not sure how that can even be handled respectfully. 

 

It takes a ton of effort, time, and money to attempt to revive and update a show and there’s no guarantee that you’ll even get it right, but I always appreciate producers who at least try. It’s much preferred to a revival that’s exactly the same at it was in 1940 and hides it’s  laziness behind the, “it’s just how things were,” argument. 

[Kad]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 1:56pm

joevitus said: "I'm not sure how Shakespeare's a bad example. Merchant still has never been performed in Israel. Women today (and women of at least two generations)often have a problem with Shrew. But no one is going to re-write these shows to make them acceptable. That's my point. We accept them as they are, whetheraspects of themspeak to our time or not because most of what they contain does still speak to us--that's what made them great in the first place. We should treat our classic musicals the same way."

Productions grapple with these problematic texts in many ways, involving reframing the entire play into new contexts. The last major production of Shrew in NYC, at Shakespeare in the Park, featured an all-woman cast and used an elaborate directorial conceit to address how unpalatable the story seems to be to a modern audience. They don't and can't remount them without critical engagement of what they contain, lest they be seen as endorsing it.  

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/21/19 at 2:21pm

No one says Shakespeare is problematic. No one says Shakespeare needs to get with the times. People may choose to alter things for a production, but this isn't surrounded by press releases and commentary about how inappropriate Shakespeare is.