Rocky Horror Show?

[Will Salt]

Am I the only one yearning for a revival of Rocky Horror, especially during the time the world is going through, what we need is a show with amazing music and a funny storyline that expresses diversity! Thoughts?

[joevitus]

Will Salt said: "Am I the only one yearning for a revival of Rocky Horror, especially during the time the world is going through, what we need is a show with amazing music and a funny storyline that expresses diversity! Thoughts?"

Wrong time for any show to be mounted, but the Broadway production was bad. New York has never been a good site for the show, though I don't understand why. Wish O'Brien would scrape off all the re-writes since the 90's, and, though I don't know if its he or Brian Thomson who makes sure the show is never staged as it once was, wish the feud between the two wouldn't stop the show from being what it was, what it could be.

[Plannietink08]

Does the show not tour virtually every year in the US the same way it does in the UK.

Also a special live recording from an anniversary production is available on YouTube to watch.

[brendanotinger]

I think it should be off-Broadway with people like Taylor Mac as Frank and alternative artists/comedians filling out the other roles in an intimate space. On Broadway, I'm afraid it would be stunt casted by pretty faces with no personality who shouldn't touch the show. Plus it'd most likely be a bland recreation of the movie on stage. 

[dramamama611]

No, it does not tour regularly.  

[Jordan Catalano]

joevitus said: "Wrong time for any show to be mounted, but the Broadway production was bad. New York has never been a good site for the show,“

 

What on earth are you talking about? The 2000 revival was PERFECTION in every single sense of the word. And yes the original 1975 production was a massive flop at the Belasco but look what the show turned into after that.

 

[Dollypop]

I saw the revival the day before 9/11. Bad memories.

[Jordan Catalano]

No, you didn't. September 10th, 2001 was a Monday and there were no performances that day. I was in town that month and saw pretty much every performance of the show until 9/9. 


Don't lie.

[joevitus]

Jordan Catalano said: "joevitus said: "Wrong time for any show to be mounted, but the Broadway production was bad. New York has never been a good site for the show,“



What on earth are you talking about? The 2000 revival was PERFECTION in every single sense of the word. And yes the original 1975 production was a massive flop at the Belasco but look what the show turned into after that.

"

The show hasn't turned into much after that in America--it's the film that's the big success, and frustratingly mostly with an audience that tries to sublimate the film to other things (audience participation used to bring out the best qualities of the film,  but since about the mid-80's midnight audiences seem to be competing with and attempting to obliterate the movie rather than interacting with it and making it feel as though the movie has come alive and burst off the screen into the cinema).

And what can I say about you thinking the 2000 revival was "perfection," except you have a very different concept of the word that I have? It was faux-rock, prettified and somehow de-sexed. The orchestrations were terrible, the choice to have two usherettes sing Science Fiction a ginormous mistake (it's a song of personal obsession--giving that to two people to sing side by side ruins that). Cavett was utterly wrong as the Narrator, and the show should be performed without an intermission. To name a few "imperfections."  No connection to the threadbare, sexual and highly original piece the show once was.

[Jordan Catalano]

Yeah, I don’t say this often or ever but your opinion is completely wrong.

[joevitus]

Saying it won't make your opinion right. Also, Sweet Transvestite should come before not after the Time Warp. Stop trying to turn the show into the movie.

[Jordan Catalano]

You mean the movie I’ve seen almost 3000 times since I was 8 years old and the show I took a leave of absence from my job to come to the city and see the final 40 straight performances after seeing it countless other times since it’s first preview in 2000?

Because I think I know what I’m talking about.

[darquegk]

The company I do the show with annually has been doing their unique version since the mid-nineties, a hybrid of the 1973 original, bits of the movie, and bits of the 1990s pre-Broadway licensing version (which used to be called the Australian version, accurate or not). It’s a pretty solid compromise without some of the excesses and bloat of the later licenses versions.

It’s not as wacky on paper as the similarly unique Bucks County version, but individual productions can GET that weird.

[blaxx]

Jordan Catalano said: "joevitus said: "Wrong time for any show to be mounted, but the Broadway production was bad. New York has never been a good site for the show,“



What on earth are you talking about? The 2000 revival was PERFECTION in every single sense of the word. And yes the original 1975 production was a massive flop at the Belasco but look what the show turned into after that.

"

The 2000 revival was awesomeness. From cast to direction, it was pure perfection. There was no weak link in it and the design was raw and beautiful. One of the strongest revivals from the new century.

[temms]

Agreed. I saw the revival with both Tom Hewitt and Terrence Mann and it was great both times. I loved that it wasn't the movie but was its own thing. Dick Cavett was wonderful, and the crazy thing is that I saw Kristen Lee Kelly as Columbia both times, except the first time she was doing the Joan Jett version of the role and the second time she was doing the Ana Gasteyer version. I was a huge Rocky-head in High School and know all the versions and variants and thought the revival totally captured what I wanted out of the show.

That said, I'd also love to see a version that's as rough as the original. I liked the UK cinema broadcast but it seemed a bit slick. I thought the Broadway revival captured the freaky anarchy a lot better, though David Bedella is one of the best Franks I've seen and I love that he does it with an American accent. The less said about the Fox version the better. Now that was an example of missing the point.

[joevitus]

People here clearly don't understand the show. Just one more example: when you have the Narrator performed as sort of ironically amused (and for some reason doing stand up before the show), you clearly have a production that doesn't know what the show is about or how it works. Guess I'm glad you all liked this abysmal production that barely ran a year and has mostly been forgotten by long-time fans of the material.

Did all of you like the Tommy Tune production of Grease, too?

[blaxx]

joevitus said: "People here clearly don't understand the show. Just one more example: when you have the Narrator performed as sort of ironically amused (and for some reason doingstand up before the show), you clearly have a production that doesn't know what the show is about or how it works. Guess I'm glad you all liked this abysmal production that barely ran a year and has mostly been forgotten by long-time fans of the material.

Did all of you like the Tommy Tune production of Grease, too?"

You sound like you'd be a lot of fun to hang out with.

[darquegk]

JoeVitus, speaking to your concerns about the show's tone and presentation, Rocky Horror is a fifty-year-old show that, unlike Grease, is in many ways speaking to cultural signifiers that have been absent and forgotten for decades (and in many cases, never really made it to the United States at all). I can talk about this with a certain amount of expertise: I did some scholarly work on the different Rocky Horror variants, and even compiled an "annotated script" with every significant variation between major edition.

As far as the stuffy, plummy and upright Narrator, Richard O'Brien would have been familiar with the British tradition of the "Christmas ghost story," in which great orators and Shakespearean actors like John Gielgud gave immensely dignified and serious readings of dry horror writers like Charles Dickens and particularly M. R. James as a stage or radio treat during the holidays. Much of the joke in the original staging, and in the film, is the disconnect between the elevated, Jamesian quality of the Narrator's prose, and the occasional youth vernacular things he is forced to say in the songs. But fifty years later, the Christmas Ghost is no longer a cultural touchstone, unless someone like Patrick Stewart is doing a live version of "A Christmas Carol."

On the other hand, particularly in America, we never had the Christmas ghost story to relate to. Instead, the cultural touchstone that imprinted itself upon the role is the television "horror host." And sure, there were gimmicky, campy and hacky hosts like Elvira and Zacherley the Cool Ghoul (to say nothing of outright parodies like the Cryptkeeper), but almost no one will argue that the definitive, iconic horror host is Rod Serling. On "Twilight Zone" and "Night Gallery," Serling could be serious when called for, but his default tone was a hip, cool ironic detachment. "Little did they know," his tone always seems to say with the hint of a suppressed smirk, "...but you know, and I know." Dick Cavett was very clearly shooting for something close to a Serling feel in the early days of the run. 

[Jordan Catalano]

darquegk, I love what you just wrote. And also, now all I want is to see Patrick Stewart as The Narrator.

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

While I disagree with the tone in which joevitus is expressing their opinion, and I certainly wouldn't expect others to agree with me without question or believe that my opinion is the only correct one, I must confess that personally I don't really disagree with that point of view.

To clarify what they said about the show not being staged like the original production anymore... the way I've heard it, the original Rocky was created in a lab / workshop type environment, with damn near everybody, including the show's future music publisher, contributing ideas to the soup, and Richard O'Brien really only tossing in the songs and the early germ of an idea, or occasionally setting material to order based on what was suggested in rehearsal. (Not unlike the process on the original Broadway Hair, with the difference being Hair had a prototype version that played Off-Broadway as a base.)

People like designer Brian Thomson (who talks about it here) and director Jim Sharman shaped the material a great deal with their contributions, and many argue Rocky became the success it was in part because of these contributions. These men, with established careers and rather a run of success, graciously decided that O'Brien could take the writing credit in order to establish him on the scene, in return for earning a quiet royalty.

However, and again this is only gossip passed down the line over the years, Ritz began to believe his own press and develop an ego of commensurate size. (One version of the story has it that Sharman took a strong hand in co-writing the screenplay for the eventual film in part to ensure his role in the writing was credited somewhere.) 

Eventually, when the Rocky Horror Company (UK) Ltd. was established to control the show (Jordan, you may remember a credit for them in your Playbill), Ritz bought out anyone with a claim and went on to rewrite the stage script to more closely resemble the most popular iteration, the film, as he strongly resented suffering the plight of every author of a hot property, namely getting screwed by a movie studio when it came to profit participation. At least now, with a revised version closer to the film, he could sort of make money from it, and since the film was so popular and widely imitated, the original production style -- which he was sensitive about not really being his work in total, after initially attempting to claim credit in the licensed materials pre-1999, including leaving Brian Thomson's name off a thumbnail sketch of the set and claiming he'd done it himself in prefatory matter -- would fade into the background.

That aside, Rocky is successful elsewhere because of the play, where in America it's successful -- to the extent that it is -- because of the film. I've seen so many versions that more or less ape the film, in material content if not in style, that I think the most revolutionary step a new production could take would be to go back to the original design aesthetic, staging, and material completely, if only for novelty's sake. In the context of the original, joevitus is absolutely correct, however acid their tone.

[Jordan Catalano]

While I’ve always said I’d kill to see a remounting of the ORIGINAL production of the show, I’ve never been able to even imagine a world where it would be financially successful. Much like the Chicago production of the original “Grease” a few years ago, it would be a novelty and for diehard fans and those curious about the history of the show.

[temms]

I never made the Cavett-Serling connection before but you’re right, there was definitely an element of that. I’ve always thought it would be fun to see the Narrator done like a TV horror host a la Count Floyd or Bela Lugosi in “Glen Or Glenda” with a Romanian accent and Increasingly overly dramatic intonation.

But then again I apparently understand nothing of the show that shaped my adolescence.

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

Again, not wishing to speak for them (and please elaborate if you're out there), I don't believe joe's point is that we don't understand it, necessarily. A lot of "OG Rocky" purists feel that the way we understand it is different from the understanding of the people who conceived it; it's not that we don't understand it, it's that we interpret it from a different standpoint and the fact that some of us assume that's the only way to interpret it is what they disagree with.

Commentators like Scott Miller, for example, read a lot of "direct commentary on American life, the Sexual Revolution, etc." into a show that, if it touched on that, did so by coincidence. Richard O'Brien and the other creators didn't grow up in America, and would not have consciously noticed -- or commented on -- the effects of any of those things in their lives except in retrospect. This show was just a tribute to a steady diet of American sci-fi B-movies, and to the extent that our culture is reflected in them, then that's how it touched on those things.

[temms]

Directly quoting joevitus from this thread: “People here clearly don’t understand the show.”

Which reminds me of my favorite Rocky thread - I think it was on this board - when someone posted “I’m directing the show and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions of old science fiction movies I should watch to get the style and the references.”

To which someone replied “Seriously? How about ‘The Day The Earth Stood Still’, ‘Flash Gordon’, ‘The Invisible Man’, ‘King Kong’, ‘It Came From Outer Space’, ‘Dr. X’, ‘Forbidden Planet’, ‘Tarantula!’, ‘Day Of The Triffids’, ‘When Worlds Collide’… are you sure you should be directing this show?”

It is my contention that when the score is given its proper due, everything you need to make the show what it is is right there. It’s a deceptively brilliant score that does the heavy lifting in a way few new musicals with “better” scores do. I didn't love all the 2000 arrangements but that score never fails to transport me. 

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

I know what they said, I'm just trying to get at what they meant. As I said earlier, I do not agree with their tone, but I can see where their general thrust may be coming from, and to a certain extent I agree with it.