LaChiusa Wild Party- Page 3

[C is for Company]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 4:02pm

Although the Bernarda music is thrilling and those stomps and beats extremely intricate, it is the strength of The Wild Party's score and the reflection of the time it is set in that do it for me. It is haunting, powerful and boasted a just as great, if not better, cast than Bernarda.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 6:32pm

Comparing the music in this show is not a good idea. The only thing they have in common is LaChiusa. The purpose for the music is different in each show. The styles are drastically different. You can't really call one better or worse than the other. They're different. I'm sure you like one over the other but honestly I like Bernarda and WP both for different reasons. Which one would get more play? I think it would depend on my mood. I'd find it very difficult to compare them honestly. Esp if you saw one show and not the other. That's the point. This isn't easy listening or "Car trip" music. To evaluate, you have to look at the purpose of each show and how the music served that purpose in the theatre. I think they both are top notch.

[DefyingEDCT]

Posted: 8/3/06 at 6:53pm

Can anyne give me a brief sypnosis as to what this play and plot is about?

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 8/4/06 at 3:01am

Jon - thanks very much for the info!

Jazzy - I don't know what you are talking about. I listen to TWP wherever I go in the car! HAHA

No, but I agree that they are hard to compare. But there are some very distinctive musical and lyrical styles he uses to emphasize certain parts...brilliant...especially if you are familiar with his music.

[Boq101]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 12:52am

You guys wanna talk about young LaChiusa fans, I picked up (at 13) the recording of Hello Again at a Barnes and Noble because of the CD cover (and Donna Murphy...!) Since then I've progressed into Marie Christine, The Wild Party, See What I Wanna See, and Bernarda Alba. My family is spanish and my mother loves that CD to death, even with all the WHORES Rashad sings every now and then.

[zoran912]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 4:05am

That's awesome!

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 1:14am

I'm just gonna revive this thread by saying that all of the flaws of this show came from George C. Wolfe, who is an extremely talented man, but not the right one for this show. There is a full recording of the show available that I will not link to, but will say it is quite easy to find. The real Tony rob of the show was Bruce Coughlin's for orchestrations. They are so lively and vibrant and brilliant that it was a crime that they weren't even nominated.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 1:38am

14 years since that production and still in my top 3 ever. Definitely time for a revival, (anyone got a few millions to throw away?)

And bringing things up to date, I love the score of 'Giant'. Such a singularly talented man.

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 1:31pm

I totally agree with you, devonian.t. He is one of the best composers and certainly the best lyricist currently working on Broadway (if you consider Sondheim to be in quasi-retirement). It's a shame that most of his shows have weak books, which is no fault of his own.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 1:44pm

Well, he usually contributes to the books of his shows (if not writing them outright, like Marie Christine or Little Fish); I feel that his shows tend to fail because he's not a talented storyteller; as much as one might like the songs heard on a recording, in the theatre, his shows often tend to bore, because the storytelling is so flat and colorless. Or, in many cases, he brings absolutely nothing new to very-familiar narratives.

[darreyl102]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 1:55pm

Two Words: Eartha Kitt.

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 2:09pm

newintown, I would argue that he can write songs that tell a very good story and work extremely well, but he can't string them together very well. His shows could have both beautiful music and a strong book, but his contributing to the book and often times the wrong people writing the books to his musicals are what cause them to not always work.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 2:18pm

I don’t think he’s an untalented storyteller so much as his narratives deliberately don’t adhere to tried-and-true structuring. I often compare him to PT Anderson because they both seem aware enough of the strange dramatic arcs of their narratives for me to give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re consciously breaking rules/traditions rather than writing willy-nilly, oblivious to them.

Now, whether or not that “works” for you as an audience member is a different story.

QUEEN OF THE MIST was herky-jerky in its pacing and felt slow in spots, and I do attribute at least some of that to its unconventional structure. I also thought Andrew Samonsky was boring and miscast, which was especially problematic when he was basically the co-lead with Mary Testa, who was giving a hurricane of a performance. And despite all that, as you say, I’ve played that cast recording more times than I’d care to admit, and my memory of the show has remained rich and fond.

I didn’t see THE WILD PARTY live, but I’ve enjoyed it cough cough secondhand, so I can’t really say how it functioned in the theater. Some of the staging looks a little clumsy, but it also has lots of songs, most of them playlets in and of themselves, which may help make up for any present overall “slowness.”

The Public’s production of GIANT enthralled me with no qualifications. My only regret is that I saw it only once.

But those are the only ones I’ve seen, and of course just those three examples do not a complete experience of his work make, even though I love the recordings of everything. I hope to see great or at least very good productions of all of his shows someday, though. A problematic LaChiusa musical is infinitely more interesting to me than well-structured Lippa musical.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 2:29pm

I wasn't bored at all with Hello Again, See What I Wanna See or Marie Christine. My only issue was with the clarity in the first act of See What I Wanna See. It's a difficult narrative to follow, especially if you've never seen Rashomon, and setting it to music (not to mention adapting it to a new period and locale) adds another layer of complexity to the already challenging piece. I really enjoyed it, but I felt like it needed just a bit more work.

A problematic LaChiusa musical is infinitely more interesting to me than well-structured Lippa musical.

Oh dear God, YES.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 2:58pm

Every show has its fans, and no statement about any art is universal; however, it can't be denied that LaChiusa's shows haven't found much favor with a large audience.

Expounding upon what I mentioned above, about LaChiusa not bringing anything new to familiar narratives (although that, too, is subjective - many people may not have even heard of Medea, Rashomon, Giant, or The Wild Party) - when I saw Hello Again in previews, not knowing anything about it, I realized in the second scene that it was yet another take on La Ronde, and wondered what LaChiusa would bring to this old chestnut that hadn't been brought before. And other than setting each scene in a different decade, I didn't really see much. I thought some parts were fun, but was mostly overcome by what I found to be rather bland lyrics and the repetitive structure of 2-character scenes where one character wants more than the other wants to give.

With Marie Christine, as noted in an recent thread, one waited for her to sing through her hysteria for a few ours before killing the kids. Because, really - who doesn't know that Medea kills her kids?

R shomon, I felt, didn't add anything substantive to the basic narrative of Rashomon, merely resetting it in New York on the night of the movie's premier.

And I think that may be what I see as his shortcomings in the storytelling department - he feels that it's enough to merely change the setting of a familiar story and then add music. And to some, it might be - but he has yet to speak to a larger audience.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 3:07pm

'I'm just gonna revive this thread by saying that all of the flaws of this show came from George C. Wolfe, who is an extremely talented man, but not the right one for this show.'

I'm not even sure how to wrap my head around this statement. Wolfe provided one of the most memorable, scintillating stagings I've ever had the pleasure to witness. The work he got out of each of the actors (and I saw an early preview where Patinkin was behaving himself...he was fantastic) was nothing short of revelatory. It was a thorny, dissonant show that was hard to love, but I did nonetheless. I'm not a huge LaChiusa fan...but this was spectacular.

[darquegk]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 4:23pm

I'm always dramaturgically fascinated by the difference between the two shows. Lippa's was truer to the story's plot and characters in terms of book and lyrics and tone, but divorced from the era in terms of music. LaChiusa's music was more accomplished and of a piece with the era, but used the plot and characters as merely a jumping-off point to discuss the impact of systemic racism in the 1920s.

In Lippa's play, like March's poem-novel, the characters are all mostly perverse, nasty, vaguely predatory cartoon characters. In LaChiusa's, they're victims, one and all, black, white, gay, straight or other, of the racism inherent, almost subconscious, in American society.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 5/28/14 at 5:10pm

What a strange gift that year was, to see 2 radically different musicals built from the same piece of literature, practically side by side. I personally was never engaged with the Lippa version, despite powerhouse performances, and that disengagement led to boredom pretty quickly for me.

The LaChiusa/ Wolfe production grabbed with me with both arms from the get go, and had me on the edge of my seat for most of the 2 hours. After a series of show stopping specialty numbers, when Queenie and Eddie simply stood on the balcony and sang "People Like Us", I was in musical theater heaven. The entire night wasn't quite that good, but the best work was equal to the best I've ever enjoyed on a Broadway stage.

[Fan123]

Posted: 5/29/14 at 6:22am

Speaking of problems with LaChiusa cast recordings, if you want to get totes outraged over the cuts made to Giant, the post linked below provides details towards the end. To be exact, I think many/most of the cuts were made to the show itself rather than to the recording per se.

I didn't even see the show so don't really know what I'm missing, but really wish I could have heard more of the music on the recording.

(Edited to add the word 'totes' above, to make it clearer that I'm not really advocating getting outraged over this.)

Finishing the Chat post Updated On: 5/29/14 at 06:22 AM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 5/29/14 at 7:19am

Wait. You think people should be outraged that the show was recorded in its final form? How is this different than every other show?

Wishing that you could hear cut material is one thing, but being outraged that cut material wasn't included on the cast recording makes no sense.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/29/14 at 9:12am

All I ask of life is that I'm sent a handsome man who likes LaChiusa as much as I do. Cause dating someone who doesn't like his music just ain't gonna work.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/29/14 at 3:44pm

And other than setting each scene in a different decade, I didn't really see much. I thought some parts were fun, but was mostly overcome by what I found to be rather bland lyrics and the repetitive structure of 2-character scenes where one character wants more than the other wants to give.

I do find that odd. I mean, the 2-person structure and central theme is inherent in La Ronde, so I'm not sure how this show is at fault for that, but I did not find the structure repetitive at all. In fact, the scenes are mostly (and purposefully) quite different in structure and tone. And as for the lyrics, like certain melodic phrases and even some of the props, they rather brilliantly reappear from scene to scene. It's not as apparent on the cast recording however, which is missing loads of material.

With Marie Christine, as noted in an recent thread, one waited for her to sing through her hysteria for a few ours before killing the kids.

"One"? As is just you, right? Or perhaps, "I"?

Or maybe WE can just say ONE is fascinated with the events and relationships that lead up to the climax of Marie Christine, including those already familiar with the story of Medea.

What precisely do you require LaChiusa to add to his adaptations that he didn't? In the case of Hello Again, setting the stories to different eras (and making all the characters American), added another unique layer to the book in which the characters' motivations were not only driven by who they were, but by the social/political context of the era. And Marie Christine goes way beyond the plot narrative for Medea. The plot of Medea actually begins about halfway into second act of Marie Christine. Marie Christine's character and story are a combination of Medea and Marie Laveau's daughter.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/29/14 at 3:59pm

You make your points very clear. As noted elsewhere, there are no universal agreements in art, and you and I seem to disagree on how much constitutes a "significant" contribution to an adaptation. What I see in LaChiusa's storytelling is merely cosmetic application to the essential narrative he adapts. You see more than that.

"I mean, the 2-person structure and central theme is inherent in La Ronde, so I'm not sure how this show is at fault for that..."

My point is that LaChiusa basically wrote the same thing La Ronde (and its many imitators) did ages ago, but didn't bring any substantive idea to the source that transformed it into something new. I understand that you feel otherwise about the piece.

I think we also disagree about where Medea and Marie Christine intersect, but the show was so long ago, and left so little impact on me, I can't really explore that.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/29/14 at 4:24pm

I think we also disagree about where Medea and Marie Christine intersect, but the show was so long ago, and left so little impact on me, I can't really explore that.

If you don't know, how can you disagree? The play starts after Jason has arranged to marry Glauce. That doesn't occur until well into the second act of Marie Christine.

My point is that LaChiusa basically wrote the same thing La Ronde (and its many imitators) did ages ago, but didn't bring any substantive idea to the source that transformed it into something new.

Except it was something new. It wasn't strictly "La Ronde". La Ronde was about classes of society (specifically in Vienna). Hello Again took it a step further and illustrated the ageless manipulations of sex transgress not only the boundaries of class, but of time. But I guess you have a different opinion on what constitutes a "substantive" idea to an adaptation, or the fact that it is somehow required of any adaptation. What would you like to see in an adaptation of La Ronde? It sounds as though you may have some idea of what you were hoping to find.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/29/14 at 4:53pm

Well, yes, as I said, we have differing opinions here. About Medea, of course the story starts long before the play does (the same can be said for Oedipus and the other Greek plays, which is how we learned the difference between "story" and "plot" back in our university days.). But when I refer to the Medea upon which Marie Christine is based, I'm referring to the entire myth, not Euripides' work alone.

"What would you like to see in an adaptation of La Ronde? It sounds as though you may have some idea of what you were hoping to find."

Oh, no, I have no expectations of an adaptation of La Ronde. I like the original (or rather, the translations I've seen/read) fine. And, although I have no particular examples at hand (nor do I have the interest or time to consider it further), La Ronde has been adapted many times already. All I can do is reiterate what I've already written - to me, a good adaptation is one that departs from and adds to the source in substantive rather than cosmetic ways - look at how The Matchmaker and Hello Dolly depart radically from The Miser, for instance. Even My Fair Lady, adhering rather closely to Pygmalion, still has a very different feel, adapting Shaw's Anglo-Irish Socialist sensibility through an American lens. But, as we've noted, we perceive "substantive" differently, at least when it comes to LaChiusa's work

I think - and here's a new thought - one problem with LaChiusa's work is that he doesn't seem to like dialogue much, and dialogue is the best way to communicate a lot of ideas to an audience. Most folks simply can't process lyrics quickly enough to take in more than parts of a through-sung show, unless (as in most opera and shows like Les Miserable) the lyrics are repetitive and simplistic.