Just saw FLOWER DRUM SONG
Milton Demel
never been able to sit through the movie.. So I was able to view this
production on its own entity. For me the weakest thing about this production (
let the flames begin) is the score. Clearly not one of this celebrated teams
most memorable efforts. The cast was great. I hope that on its way to New York
they take a couple of more chances with the theme and story structure and not
worry about being so politically correct. I was totally engrossed for 3 hours
and completely delighted..as the rest of the audience seemed to be. So bottom
line is ..... Very well done. A hit here. Should be a hit in New York.
A side note..... I also had so much fun celebrity watching. Bernadette Peters
sat right in front of us. She looks wonderful and her hair ( thank god) is
shorter. Mathew Perry has put on a little weight . Faye Dunaway was there
with what I assume is her son. Jeff Bridges.... YUMMY! Doris Roberts, Malcom
Gets... and probably some others I missed. It all added to a exciting evening
in the theatre.
Steve and Rhonda
Just saw FLOWER DRUM SONG
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Thu, Oct 18, 2001, 10:20pm
(EDT+4) From: dem...@aol.com (Milton Demel)
<<I have never been able to sit through the movie. For me the weakest
thing about this production is the score. I hope that on its way to New
York they take a couple of more chances and not worry about being so
politically correct. I was totally engrossed for 3 hours.>>
Three hours! With this cut score? (Which wasn't very long to begin
with.)
<< A side note..... I also had so much fun celebrity watching.
Bernadette Peters sat right in front of us and her hair (thank god) is
David Zack
>with.)
The show ran about 2:50 the night I saw it, but that includes an intermission
that ran about 25 minutes.
The show certainly does not feel long, and the score is roughly the same size
it always was. Two songs are cut, two are added.
David
PrestonDL
>thing about this production is the score. I hope that on its way to New
>York they take a couple of more chances and not worry about being so
>politically correct. I was totally engrossed for 3 hours.>>
>
>Three hours! With this cut score? (Which wasn't very long to begin
>with.)
Calm down. It wasn't anywhere near three hours. I know it wasn't over two and
a half and seem to remember it being well shorter than that.
Its pretty great. People who love the original or think shows shouldn't be
revisited will most likely hate it so you should probably not waste your money
on a ticket.
I always loved the score (with a couple of exceptions), thought the book was
beyond limp ("my back is wet!"), and the movie fun only in that jaw dropping
way.
The new book is lots of fun (though not perfect--work to be done) and the
production is full of great heart and invention. The worst song ever written
by R and H (Chop Suey) is there and actually works in this context. "Sunday"
sadly is not, but it shouldn't be--it would have had to have been shoehorned
in. The only big mistep in the structure is the interpolation of "The Next
Time It Happens". It ends the first act and makes no sense for the character
or the moment. "Love Look Away" needs to go there. Casting is generally good
with the exception of Lea Salonga. Just all wrong. Either bad choices, or bad
direction, or simply bad, she was the weak link for me.
But then again, what do I know--I saw it. :)
Personally, I'm glad this show was revisited. Its great to hear some of those
songs that have been in mothballs far too long. FDS is a show that was not and
would not have been done much if at all. And the truth is the original still
exists. It has not been destroyed.
D.
RmadlloLvr
with the exception of Lea Salonga. Just all wrong. >>
I liked Lea Salonga...I thought she was a gentle but spunky Mei-Li, who was
able to show both trepidation and a sense of wonder at finding herself in a
new culture.
I do agree that "The Next Time It Happens" is wrong for Mei-Li but I also
really like the song. Has it ever worked - in other productions in which it's
been
used?
-Karan
Milton Demel
>with.) >>
I meant the whole evening. Sorry about that. The show itself was about 2:30
Doc Bender
>production is full of great heart and invention. The worst song ever written
>by R and H (Chop Suey) is there and actually works in this context.
Wow! This I HAVE to see!
Doc Bender
Steve and Rhonda
size it always was. Two songs are cut, two are added.>>
So thirty five more minutes of book might have explained the orignal
poster's comments about the score being the weakest part if it was
buried inside a 1776 length book.
Steve and Rhonda
back is wet!"), and the movie fun only in that jaw dropping way.
act and makes no sense for the character or the moment. Lea Salonga,
just all wrong. Either bad choices, or bad direction, or simply bad. The
original still exists. It has not been destroyed.>>
Well, there's revisited and there's revisited. And as Peter Stone said
about AGYG, you can always see the original in a high school. Of course,
this can't be said any longer about SHE LOVES ME.
Steve and Rhonda
also really like the song. Has it ever worked - in other productions in
which it's been
used?>>
Yes, both in PIPE DREAM and STATE FAIR.
BndLeader
show as an audience member. I LOVED this revival. It's a lovely score that was
great to hear again, despite the exclusion of 2 numbers which would not have
worked in this new framework. The cast is excellent. The plot/book is a little
weak, only in that it neatly ties up everything at the end (not unlike most
musicals from the golden age). But the audience rose to their feet and it
certainly is one of the more pleasant evenings of musical thetare I've seen in
a long time.
Milton Demel
Nicely related. I agree. If anyone happens to be in Los Angeles and wants a
wonderful evening of musical theatre then give yourself a treat and stand on
the cancelation line at the Taper. The show is great and the audiences are
having a love affair with it.
LuvInStuCty
wonderful evening of musical theatre then give yourself a treat and stand on
the cancelation line at the Taper. The show is great and the audiences are
having a love affair with it.
>>
I heard they will be extending the run since it seems they are all sold out.
Beb11572
>about AGYG, you can always see the original in a high school.
Thus, we have come to the point where high schools now have more respect for
the intentions of authors than does Broadway.
Eagle
And yet Shakespeare's works are routinely edited down and toyed with in
productions, but few voice concern that Shakespeare's intentions aren't being
respected. I suppose Stone would say you can always just read a Shakespeare
play if you want the original.
Eagle
Matthew Murray
> And yet Shakespeare's works are routinely edited down and toyed with in
> productions, but few voice concern that Shakespeare's intentions aren't being
> respected.
Rest assured, Eagle, I do. At every conceivable opportunity, as
Steve Newport (and many others in this newsgroup) will be all too happy to
attest.
----------------------------
Matthew A. Murray
matthe...@mindspring.com
http://www.matthewmurray.net
----------------------------
Eagle
Like It Here."
Eagle
Steve and Rhonda
Re: Just saw FLOWER DRUM SONG
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001, 6:52pm (EDT+4)
From: nos...@newsranger.com (Eagle)
says...
Well, there's revisited and there's revisited. And as Peter Stone said
about AGYG, you can always see the original in a high school. Thus, we
have come to the point where high schools now have more respect for the
intentions of authors than does Broadway.>>
I suppose Stone would say you can always just read a Shakespeare play if
you want the original.
Eagle
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My other favorite AGYG Stone comment: (after: it IS broke)-- A couple
came up to me and said, "for all your work, you really didn't make it
any better." I took that as a compliment.
Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to do one of these shows (with
the same cast in rep.) performing both the original and the revisal
versions-- and watching audience reaction? Think CABARET, DAMN YANKEES,
and, um, FLOWER DRUM.
Beb11572
>to
>Like It Here."
I would. One of the most charming songs in musical theatre, IMO. Done right,
that song could make you fall in love with that girl right then and there.
Chris Connelly
"Eagle" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:XD_z7.35763$ev2....@www.newsranger.com...
There's a difference between editing/cutting and re-writing. You can
re-think Shakespeare and place him in any locale, time or setting. You can
cut lines left, right and sideways, but it's STILL Shakespeare, and that's
fine.
In opera, you can also rethink the piece, change the locale/time/setting and
make as many cuts as you like, and it's still opera. However, you CANNOT
transpose keys, re-orchestrate or throw out the old FAUST ballet for new
dance arrangements.
Yet somehow it's considered perfectly viable (by some) to completely
re-write, transpose, re-orchestrate, re-order and generally bastardize any
musical under the sun, but it's still perfectly morally justifiable to call
this new piece of garbage "Irving Berlin's ANNIE GET YOUR GUN" or "Rodgers
and Hammerstein's FLOWER DRUM SONG" etc.
Don't you think that's just a *little* intellectually dishonest?
A good, intelligent director and production team can re-think just about any
show and make it seem alive and fresh and viable. If not, then it's not the
time or at least, not the correct marriage of production team and vintage
material.
I am particularly puzzled by FDS. In the wake of THE PRODUCERS and MAMMA
MIA, it would seem the perfect time for musical comedy and FDS is the
lightest of all R&H fare. I understand this revisal has been in the works
for several years now, but you would think they would want to emphasize this
as an R&H *comedy* instead of bringing in communism et al into it to make
the show more "valid."
Steve and Rhonda
Going to Like It Here.">>
(jaw hitting the floor with a THUD) You've GOT to be kidding! I give
up!!!!!!! That does it, it's FULL MONTY for you, young man.....
Steve and Rhonda
time for musical comedy and FDS is the lightest of all R&H fare. I
understand this revisal has been in the works for several years now, but
you would think they would want to emphasize this as an R&H *comedy*
instead of bringing in communism et al into it to make the show more
"valid."
Bravo! EXACTLY. Those of us who like the original, like it BECAUSE it's,
unlike other R & H shows, an insubstantial MUSICAL COMEDY about a past
(and now, charmingly quaint) generation gap-- and also about who gets
which girl/boy. (Probably still the best musical comedy plot going.) We
used to call it the Rodgers and Hammerstein show for people who prefer
Rodgers and Hart.
We've had MISS SAIGON, already, and it's currently passe. Posters
complain about "the wit thing", i.e. that all musicals are expected to
have a certain amount of humour. NOW there seems to be a post-mega quota
for misery. I don't think anyone would have minded an Asian consultant
mopping up a bit, but....
Trustmuse1
>Thus, we have come to the point where high >schools now have more respect for
the >intentions of authors than does Broadway.
I wonder if their choice is a conscious respect for the author's intention or a
pure lack of choice since generally the original is all they can get from MTI,
Samuel French, etc.?
I think, if given the choice, many high schools, community theaters, etc. would
opt for the revivals.
It would be nice to have the option. In some cases I would choose the
original, and in some the revival. Or maybe mix and match would work best!
Nancy
PrestonDL
>Bravo! EXACTLY. Those of us who like the original, like it BECAUSE it's,
>unlike other R & H shows, an insubstantial MUSICAL COMEDY about a past
>(and now, charmingly quaint) generation gap-- and also about who gets
>which girl/boy. (Probably still the best musical comedy plot going.)
Um, the new version is still about a past, charmingly quaint generation gap and
who gets the girl/boy. Its also very funny.
>
>We've had MISS SAIGON, already, and it's currently passe. Posters
>complain about "the wit thing", i.e. that all musicals are expected to
>have a certain amount of humour. NOW there seems to be a post-mega quota
>for misery.
Um, this show does not resemble Miss Saigon in any way in tone or structure or
much of anything (okay there is one picture of Mao at the very beginning and
there are a lot of asians in it). It could most accurately be described
as....a R and H musical. It is funny, charming, romantic, exotic and
optimistic, plus it has (but does not hit you over the head with) something to
say. Sorta describes South Pacific and several others wouldn't you say?
> I don't think anyone would have minded >an Asian consultant
>mopping up a bit, but....
But what?
It doesn't appear from anything you have written that you have seen it. Have
you?
D.
Beb11572
>>unlike other R & H shows, an insubstantial MUSICAL COMEDY about a past
>>(and now, charmingly quaint) generation gap-- and also about who gets
>>which girl/boy. (Probably still the best musical comedy plot going.)
>
>Um, the new version is still about a past, charmingly quaint generation gap
>and
>who gets the girl/boy.
If these themes are indeed important to Hwang and Longbottom, then the omission
of "The Other Generation" and "Sunday" are even more puzzling. I cannot
imagine how cutting these numbers would not serve to severely undercut the both
the generation gap and the romance, respectively.
PrestonDL
>If these themes are indeed important to Hwang and Longbottom, then the
>omission
>of "The Other Generation" and "Sunday" are even more puzzling. I cannot
>imagine how cutting these numbers would not serve to severely undercut the
>both
>the generation gap and the romance, respectively.
>
>
>
All you have to do is SEE IT and you will understand. The theme is quite well
served as is the romance. The songs were cut because they do not fit in the
narrative of the piece. I love "Sunday" too, but would rather it be gone than
shoehorned in, which it would have had to be in this version.
I just realized that I'm assuming from your post that you haven't seen it. If
you have, please pardon.
D.
Steve and Rhonda
piece. I love "Sunday" too, but would rather it be gone than shoehorned
in, which it would have had to be in this version. I just realized that
I'm assuming from your post that you haven't seen it.>>
The "just try it, you'll like it" argument doesn't fly. This really goes
beyond whether or not THIS revisal works for you. It is possible to
discuss a general practice of basically writing a new show, and using
the songs IT accommodates versus tailoring a new book to showcase an
existing score. (Which was the supposed original intent.) MILK AND HONEY
was another example put forth.
David Zack
Did we learn NOTHING from Green Eggs and Ham??? :)
I don't think the position was "just try it, you'll like it" so much as "try it
before you condemn it."
David
Unknown
****
It's a charming character song that explains Mel Li perfectly. There are
many examples of such character songs that, while not the big hits of
their shows, often give great insight into the character singing them:
"Little Lamb" - Louise in "Gypsy", "Perfect Relationship" - Ella in "Bells
Are Ringing", "It's A Nice Face" - Charity in the film version of "Sweet
Charity", to name a few. By the way, the cut songs in the current FDS
are "Sunday" (a nice tune) and "The Other Generation".
****
Steve and Rhonda
say. Sorta describes South Pacific and several others wouldn't you
say?>>
Yes, but as I explaned earlier, it's appeal as the "step-child" of the
"Big 6" was based in part on the fact that it wasn't like the exotics,
SOUTH PACIFIC or THE KING AND I, in precisely that respect.
<<But what?>>
As old Ross Perot used to ask: a 90 percent solution for a 20 percent
problem?
Steve and Rhonda
That Seuss is too precious to become an "ical?"
<<I don't think the position was "just try it, you'll like it" so much
as "try it before you condemn it.">>
Nope, not the same as questioning the process. (Or evolving processes.)
Or a single piece of casting. (Ms. Saonga being more right for my
father's Linda than my father's Mei Li, all of which is irrelevant now.)
Steve and Rhonda
****
It's a charming character song that explains Mel Li perfectly. There are
many examples of such character songs that, while not the big hits of
their shows, often give great insight into the character singing them>>
And those repeated phrases are brilliant!
A Hammerstein high-point.
Steve ("My back is wet") Newport
David Zack
>as "try it before you condemn it.">>
>
>Nope, not the same as questioning the process. (Or evolving processes.)
>Or a single piece of casting. (Ms. Saonga being more right for my
>father's Linda than my father's Mei Li, all of which is irrelevant now.)
The fact that you think Lea Salonga would be more appropriate for Linda than
for Mei Li, I have to wonder if you've even seen the ORIGINAL!
And I simply don't understand your position, here. You're saying it's
acceptable to denounce a project simply because it was attempted. All the
while, knowing absolutely nothing about it. You don't know what the 'process'
is. You weren't involved. You made up your mind about this project based
entirely on your own crotchety stubbornness.
If you don't want to see this show, then by all means, don;t. I'm sure you can
always entertain yourself by standing on your porch and shouting at kids to get
off your lawn.
PrestonDL
>Yes, but as I explaned earlier, it's appeal as the "step-child" of the
>"Big 6" was based in part on the fact that it wasn't like the exotics,
>SOUTH PACIFIC or THE KING AND I, in precisely that respect.
>
I guess we disagree. My point is that I think FDS is one of the exotic ones.
Its stepchild status would have been because of its quality, not its subject
matter.
D.
MBri00
are "Sunday" (a nice tune) and "The Other Generation". >>
I always thought that "The Other Generation" was a clever song. Personally I
would have cut, "I Enjoy Being A Girl".
PrestonDL
discussing the merits of eivisals" argument. The truth is that he has a big
ole opinion about the CONTENT of something he has never seen and doesn't want
to cop to it.
I'm happy to discuss the merits of rivisals with anybody. I'm happy to discuss
the content of the current FDS with people who have seen it. They really are
two different subjects.
D.
Um...sigh..whatever
Steve and Rhonda
ones. Its stepchild status would have been because of its quality, not
its subject matter.>>
We do disagree about its status being based on its quality. (I think
it's a better CONSTRUCTED show than THE KING AND I.) Many, many, many
other factors involved here. When it was done in summer stock it was
often the only show in a season without stars, because if James Shigeta
wasn't available, there weren't any. (Ditto John Bubbles for PORGY AND
BESS.) Isao Sato reportedly got the second largest (and Tony nominated)
role (in the 70's in PACIFIC OVERTURES) at an open call. Even though
most of the big 5 R & H shows weren't written for stars, they served
stars well over the years. Certainly that played some part. That it is
one of the exotics, of course. But it is different from the other two.
Or it was.
Harlett O'Dowd
"PrestonDL" <pres...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011019213442...@mb-mb.aol.com...
>
> Um, the new version is still about a past, charmingly quaint generation
gap and
> who gets the girl/boy. Its also very funny.
Perhaps. What it is NOT, however, is Rodgers and Hammerstein.
> Um, this show does not resemble Miss Saigon in any way in tone or
structure or
> much of anything (okay there is one picture of Mao at the very beginning
and
> there are a lot of asians in it).
You have Lea Salonga running away from the commies. That's close enough.
Perhaps she could sing "I Would Die For You" in lieu of "The Next Time it
Happens" which currently appears (even to those who have seen and liked
this) to be a bad choice for an act one closer.
Again, my argument is not against this particular production specifically
but the revisal concept in general. If the people involved were REALLY
interested in showcasing our American Musical Theatre heritage they would
find a way to re-think them without re-writing them.
America has been in the forefront of forging two art forms - film and
musical theatre. Finally there is a commitment by some (David Shepard, Kevin
Brownlow, et al) to save, reconstruct and restore our film heritage to the
creators' ORIGINAL INTENTIONS.
Perhaps the day will come when those working in the theatre will have the
same sense of pride and respect for the giants of of musical past as film
preservationists, opera companies and those who work in classical theatre
have for their material.
Until that day, alas, we have to endure this mad scramble for awards and
"new and improved" versions that can be packaged and released on an
unsuspecting, largely uneducated public. After all, royalties are far more
important to Stone, Hwang and the R&H organization than preserving the
artistic intentions of the likes of Rodgers, Hammerstein, Berlin, Porter,
Bennett .....
Steve and Rhonda
Re: Just saw FLOWER DRUM SONG
From: davi...@aol.com (David Zack)
than for Mei Li, I have to wonder if you've even seen the ORIGINAL!>>
And these comments make me wonder the same about you. Let's see, Mei Li.
Minimal vocal talent required. (pre "Love Look Away.") Just a charming
actress of Oscar calibre. Judging from Ms. Salonga's work in MS and
REDWOOD CURTAIN, she comes up short in both departments.
<<You're saying it's acceptable to denounce>>
You guys and that word. Chill.
<<a project simply because it was attempted. All the while, knowing
absolutely nothing about it. You don't know what the 'process' is. You
weren't involved.>>
But I do know that the original project as announced, stated that the
score would be retained, while the book would be altered to make it
closer to the source. You don't have to have seen it yet (especially if
you've read the novel) to know that neither of these things happened. I
may not know why, but I can question that decision as a matter of
general practice and precedent when it comes to future revisaling. As
I've said, this isn't about FDS only. (CRAZY FOR YOU and others could be
brought into this discussion.)
<<You made up your mind about this project based entirely on your own
crotchety stubbornness. If you don't want to see this show, then by all
means, don;t.>>
I plan on seeing it if it comes to NY.
<< I'm sure you can always entertain yourself by standing on your porch
and shouting at kids to get off your lawn.>>
I think you have me confused with Cheri Oteri. Actually I like children.
(So much so that I'm giving out OCRs of the original FDS with my
Halloween candy.) It's just young "adults" who write things like those
above that I despise. I know you're going through an awkward age, David.
So I'm graciously sending you one of my "Not Yet 37, Pay No Attention"
T-shirts.
Steve and Rhonda
Oh that again. And you can't even spell it yet? Add it to the list
immediately!
<<truth is that he has a big ole opinion about the CONTENT of something
he has never seen and doesn't want to cop to it.>>
I do indeed on this aspect of the subject. How have I not copped? I've
flatly stated that making the content any more serious seems unnecessary
and makes it more like other R & H shows.
<<I'm happy to discuss the merits of rivisals with anybody. I'm happy to
discuss the content of the current FDS with people who have seen it.
They really are two different subjects.>>
Yes they are. And you and a couple of others seem to want to narrow it
to THIS production. (Shades of Eric McCormack.) There's even a third
subject, which is how this whole thing really started with my FATHER
KNOWS BEST post. The unnecessary need to trash the original when redoing
a show. With AGYG (which BTW is not originally "perfect" either-- just
really badly handled this time out) it came back, critically at least,
to bite Stone in the ass because enough people had seen the original or
Lincoln Center versions somewhere on stage. Those of us who think the
original FDS is not at all as bad as it's being painted, and worry that
far fewer people here have had an opportunity to see it play on its own
terms onstage, are here to derail the propaganda. And you can bet that
every time "not your' father's" is used about a show here, a couple of
us "radicals" will
be there to mock it.
KAR
"Harlett O'Dowd" <ccon...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9qsum6$19t$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "PrestonDL" <pres...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011019213442...@mb-mb.aol.com...
> >
> > Um, the new version is still about a past, charmingly quaint generation
> gap and
> > who gets the girl/boy. Its also very funny.
>
> Perhaps. What it is NOT, however, is Rodgers and Hammerstein.
Well, actually it is, according to its title; the organization that licenses
the material seems to agree with this position. While I feel they did a
disservice to Annie Get Your Gun in allowing it to be rescripted to the
point of pointlessness, it was certainly more their legal right do so then
it is correct to deny this as a fact. You may disagree with this right,
that doesn't negate its reality. That's why there are estates; to make good
and bad choices about the material possessions of the estate. Denying a
legal right is not a fair argument and is not a true statement. What it is
NOT, certainly, is the original script. I will be seeing it next week and
will comment on whether it is a good version of Flower Drum Song. A priori
objection around these parts seems to be the real issue and the division
lines seem to be between those who say all texts are sacred, those who say
all texts are fair game and those who say a revised work should be seen
before it is judged (I, needless to say, based on my argument) fall into
this latter category. A writer may transcend or be unworthy of his
particular suitability to an assignment. In this regard, I would certainly
argue that on the surface, David Hwang's integrity to the Asian,
particularly Chinese, concerns about the problems of the previous text are
potentially more suitable to the text than Pater Stone's integrity to Native
American concerns. The casting of a (re-)writer is a producer's most
significant task, particularly when dealing with a piece of stature. I'm
curious why other production aspects such as choreography, sets and costumes
are never argued over nearly as significantly when discussing restaging a
show (orchestrations frequently are). Why is the book (paticularly in this
case, in which in my opinion, the book to FDS is weak and all over the
place) the line one may not cross and other areas are free for the
transgression? A bad revisal of Annie Get Your Gun is an argument against
that bad revisal of Annie Get Your Gun, and not necessarily an argument
against revising other shows. I think it would be lovely if someone (other
than Peter Stone, because of his record at this) tried to get Finian's
Rainbow on Broadway. I believe if the current book were used, it would
never happen; it's still one of the great musical theatre scores of all
time. And while I would miss it, were it necessary to the writer to drop,
say, "The Begat," in order to make it happen, I'd still judge the show on
its merits. (My concern about Peter Stone is that he would drop all black
characters rather than deal with the problem of the antiquated albeit
well-intentioned book.)
>
> > Um, this show does not resemble Miss Saigon in any way in tone or
> structure or
> > much of anything (okay there is one picture of Mao at the very beginning
> and
> > there are a lot of asians in it).
>
> You have Lea Salonga running away from the commies. That's close enough.
> Perhaps she could sing "I Would Die For You" in lieu of "The Next Time it
> Happens" which currently appears (even to those who have seen and liked
> this) to be a bad choice for an act one closer.
That's an emotional and invalid argument. And while it is sarcastic, it
would be better to argue that she might want to sing "Boys and Girls Like
You and Me." No point taking an absurd point of view in your sarcasm as it
renders your argument easy to negate.
>
> Again, my argument is not against this particular production specifically
> but the revisal concept in general. If the people involved were REALLY
> interested in showcasing our American Musical Theatre heritage they would
> find a way to re-think them without re-writing them.
Having not seen it, I ask purely out of curiosity if you feel the same way
about the recent "Kiss Me, Kate" production in which, I understand the
Harrison Howell character was reconsidered and "From This Moment On" was
interpolated (wasn't it? at least for a period of time). Again, though, I
believe that unlike film, theatre is a more fluid medium and because it is
live in performance, it asks to be considered. Modern times allow for the
preservation of the original text for current and future generations to make
judgments about. They will, I suspect, find the Peter Stone "Annie Get Your
Gun," ridiculous and irrelevant. I will have my own suspicions about FDS
soon enough. I rather enjoy the opportunity to look at a work not as a
museum piece but as something that is part of an ongoing dialogue. I may
shout back, but at least it's an involving process.
>
> America has been in the forefront of forging two art forms - film and
> musical theatre. Finally there is a commitment by some (David Shepard,
Kevin
> Brownlow, et al) to save, reconstruct and restore our film heritage to the
> creators' ORIGINAL INTENTIONS.
But even that is a PRESUMPTION. Re-release Orson Welles' (alleged) intended
cut on Touch of Evil and film fans will argue relentlessly as to Welles'
actual intent. Re-release "The Godfather," reconstructed and the Director
will tell you his cut of the film chronologically (which HE did) for
television was no good, which in turn will have some argue that it was
better or at least no less valid. Remaster the sound for Dolby and create
all new arguments. While I'm glad that Ted Turner was shouted down by the
crowds for trying to colorize classic black and white films, it was that
very effort which gave film preservationists a valid criterion for a
dialogue about restoration. Or for purely commercial purposes, sell a DVD of
Shrek with a new ending, thus suggesting to your audience that what they saw
in the theatre was not (someone's) original intent. Hard and fast, in my
opinion, is for closing times at the bar. Or some of the people around here
were objecting to new releases of refined CDs with original or rawer takes
(i.e., the remastered "Gypsy") because that's not what they were used to.
>
> Perhaps the day will come when those working in the theatre will have the
> same sense of pride and respect for the giants of of musical past as film
> preservationists, opera companies and those who work in classical theatre
> have for their material.
"The Seagull" that played recently in NY Public had a great comic bit during
Konstantin's play in which Arkadina's chair squeaked. It was, IMO,
fabulous. It certainly is not called for in the text and is unprecedented
in my experience with "The Seagull." In the context of what I considered to
be a thoroughly grand evening, I loved it. The Shakespeare argument is very
valid. What is the "correct" way to do Hamlet? In period Danish clothing?
In Elizabethan garments? With bear-baiting? I doubt I've ever seen the
whole text. Thank God. One of the best production conceptions I ever saw
was the entire text done by 5 actors in a readers theatre format. Theatre is
NOT film, which is one of the reasons I have trouble watching most filmed
theatre performances. It's about the immediate moment.
>
> Until that day, alas, we have to endure this mad scramble for awards and
> "new and improved" versions that can be packaged and released on an
> unsuspecting, largely uneducated public. After all, royalties are far
more
> important to Stone, Hwang and the R&H organization than preserving the
> artistic intentions of the likes of Rodgers, Hammerstein, Berlin, Porter,
> Bennett .....
What is the basis for suggesting (ad hominem) that Flower Drum Song is about
a mad scramble for awards? This is yet another specious argument based on
nothing except a reaction to the thought of reworking the text. Why are you
denying the stated reason for its creation: (paraphrasing here) that it is
unfortunate that the show has been in mothballs unlike most of the R&H
canon, and the people involved in this production felt that was because of
book which while well-intended is no longer practical because what was
considered quaint about it, is now hard to take seriously for contemporary
audiences.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
PrestonDL
>> Um, the new version is still about a past, charmingly quaint generation
>gap and
>> who gets the girl/boy. Its also very funny.
>
>Perhaps. What it is NOT, however, is Rodgers and Hammerstein.
Well, this is just a silly statement. Of course it is.
>
>> Um, this show does not resemble Miss Saigon in any way in tone or
>structure or
>> much of anything (okay there is one picture of Mao at the very beginning
>and
>> there are a lot of asians in it).
>
>You have Lea Salonga running away from the commies. That's close enough.
Another silly statement.
>Again, my argument is not against this particular production specifically
>but the revisal concept in general.
That is something that I think would be a very interesting discussion. I have
my own doubts about the practice. IT is a different discussion, however, than
whether or not this production of FDS works or not.
If the people involved were REALLY
>interested in showcasing our American Musical Theatre heritage they would
>find a way to re-think them without re-writing them.
First, I don't recall anyone ever stating that this version of FDS was done to
showcase the Amercan Musical Theater Heritage. I believe it was done to breath
life into a musical that has little or no chance of serious revival. As far as
re-thinking without rewriting, I think that should always be the first choice.
But what about shows that defy that? Just let 'em languish?
>
>America has been in the forefront of forging two art forms - film and
>musical theatre. Finally there is a commitment by some (David Shepard, Kevin
>Brownlow, et al) to save, reconstruct and restore our film heritage to the
>creators' ORIGINAL INTENTIONS.
>
>Perhaps the day will come when those working in the theatre will have the
>same sense of pride and respect for the giants of of musical past as film
>preservationists, opera companies and those who work in classical theatre
>have for their material.
But the original musicals are still there. They haven't been destroyed.
>Until that day, alas, we have to endure this mad scramble for awards and
>"new and improved" versions that can be packaged and released on an
>unsuspecting, largely uneducated public. After all, royalties are far more
>important to Stone, Hwang and the R&H organization than preserving the
>artistic intentions of the likes of Rodgers, Hammerstein, Berlin, Porter,
>Bennett .....
Do you really think D.H. Hwang did this for the royalties?
Just as a sidenote since you bring up Stone. I thought the revision of AGYG
was terrible. Made a PC mess of it--besides not making any sense. FWIW, FDS
is an infinitely better rewrite.
D.
PrestonDL
>I do indeed on this aspect of the subject. How have I not copped? I've
>flatly stated that making the content any more serious seems unnecessary
>and makes it more like other R & H shows.
This is exactly how you don't cop. How do you know the content is more serious
than the original? You haven't seen it. The truth is its a lot funnier than
the original--which I have seen several times.
As far as AGYG goes, I thought the rewrite stunk too.
D.
Um...sigh...whatever
Steve and Rhonda
version of Flower Drum Song. A priori objection around these parts seems
to be the real issue>>
According to some. But only one of them, which no one seems to get.
<< and the division lines seem to be between those who say all texts are
sacred, those who say all texts are fair game>>
Again, an assumption that's being made. I don't necessarily see either
of those positions here.
<<and those who say a revised work should be seen before it is judged
(I, needless to say, based on my argument) fall into this latter
category.>>
Again, a separate issue.
<<I'm curious why other production aspects such as choreography, sets
and costumes are never argued over nearly as significantly when
discussing restaging a show (orchestrations frequently are).>>
Sorry, but all of the above seems quite logical and understandable. What
I'm "curious" about is the willingness to accept total changes of intent
in our musical classics (I'm not talking FDS here) even if they are
greater than the actual changes in the text.
<<in my opinion, the book to FDS is weak and all over the place>>
In your opinion.
<< other areas are free for the transgression?>>
Your choice of word. Actually the respect for original orchestration has
been growing in the last ten years, and I do think that's a good thing.
(Especially with our reduced orchestras based mostly on economics and
our need for over-amplificaton, which can be blamed on audiences,
actors, and those who cast them.) But again, this is not the same thing
as saying that no key or orchestration should ever be touched in any
way.
Steve and Rhonda
haven't seen it. The truth is its a lot funnier than the original>>
I got it from you? I can read? I wasn't talking about counting jokes,
here. And you may be right. But you stated that by introducing some more
serious material (albeit just as a context) it was more like a SOUTH
PACIFIC. Desireable for you. Not for everybody. That was the context of
"unnecessary."
The show is sold out there and being extended. Reading what any of us
who like the old version say here is not likely to dissuade anyone from
buying a ticket. If they CAN BE dissuaded, the pre-press might have done
that already.
Which BTW I've yet to see anyone else address amidst the mantra of "you
haven't seen it."
PrestonDL
>Which BTW I've yet to see anyone else address amidst the mantra of "you
>haven't seen it."
>
Huh?
D.
Sigh..um..whatever
RmadlloLvr
>Which BTW I've yet to see anyone else address amidst the mantra of "you
>haven't seen it."
>
Translatation, please?
-Katan
Harlett O'Dowd
> >>
> First, I don't recall anyone ever stating that this version of FDS was
done to
> showcase the Amercan Musical Theater Heritage. I believe it was done to
breath
> life into a musical that has little or no chance of serious revival. As
far as
> re-thinking without rewriting, I think that should always be the first
choice.
> But what about shows that defy that? Just let 'em languish?
If you can't figure out how to make them work without disfiguring them,
you're not the team to handle the job.
> But the original musicals are still there. They haven't been destroyed.
If they're not readily available for public consumption and these mutations
are, then the mutations BECOME the show in the minds of the bulk of people
who see them. This is a far greater disservice than to let them languish.
> >Until that day, alas, we have to endure this mad scramble for awards and
> >"new and improved" versions that can be packaged and released on an
> >unsuspecting, largely uneducated public. After all, royalties are far
more
> >important to Stone, Hwang and the R&H organization than preserving the
> >artistic intentions of the likes of Rodgers, Hammerstein, Berlin, Porter,
> >Bennett .....
>
> Do you really think D.H. Hwang did this for the royalties?
In a word, yes. I sincerely doubt he would have worked on the show as a
dramaturg/Asian consultant only. It wouldn't have been ecconomically
attractive to him. In his present capacity, he has a book to a musical
credit to add to his resume, the opportunity to be nominated for a Tony, and
the promise of residuals for every subsequent production based on this
production.
I would charge everyone who has contributed new material to recent revisals
have done so for exactly this purpose (Prince, Stone, R&H, etc.) It's a
pretty easy way to generate a cash cow without having to go to the trouble
of writing a musical yourself.
While the men and women who have contributed to revisals are extremely
talented in their own right, I find this theatrical prostituion morally
reprehensible.
Harlett O'Dowd
"KAR" <ke...@work.sorry> wrote in message
news:8NnA7.5543$J12.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Perhaps. What it is NOT, however, is Rodgers and Hammerstein.
>
> Well, actually it is, according to its title; the organization that
licenses
> the material seems to agree with this position. While I feel they did a
> disservice to Annie Get Your Gun in allowing it to be rescripted to the
> point of pointlessness, it was certainly more their legal right do so then
> it is correct to deny this as a fact. You may disagree with this right,
> that doesn't negate its reality.
As I stated before, I consider it to be dishonest advertising at the very
least and a morally reprehensible business practice in general. Obviously,
if you have the estate behind you you can do anything you want with the
material. They have every legal right to do so. Do I think it right or
proper? No.
And I think I've stated clearly in previous posts what I think of the R&H
organization.
>The casting of a (re-)writer is a producer's most
> significant task, particularly when dealing with a piece of stature. I'm
> curious why other production aspects such as choreography, sets and
costumes
> are never argued over nearly as significantly when discussing restaging a
> show (orchestrations frequently are). Why is the book (paticularly in
this
> case, in which in my opinion, the book to FDS is weak and all over the
> place) the line one may not cross and other areas are free for the
> transgression?
As I stated in previous posts, the PHYSICAL production of a show (musical,
Shakespeare, opera) can/should be rethought out and re-invented with each
new production, but the CONTENT (book, music, lyrics, orchestrations, dance
arrangements), while they can be trimmed should not be re-written.
> >
> > > Um, this show does not resemble Miss Saigon in any way in tone or
> > structure or
> > > much of anything (okay there is one picture of Mao at the very
beginning
> > and
> > > there are a lot of asians in it).
> >
> > You have Lea Salonga running away from the commies. That's close
enough.
> > Perhaps she could sing "I Would Die For You" in lieu of "The Next Time
it
> > Happens" which currently appears (even to those who have seen and liked
> > this) to be a bad choice for an act one closer.
>
> That's an emotional and invalid argument. And while it is sarcastic, it
> would be better to argue that she might want to sing "Boys and Girls Like
> You and Me." No point taking an absurd point of view in your sarcasm as it
> renders your argument easy to negate.
>
My "saracastic" point was to point out the similarities, real or imagined
between MISS SAIGON and this FDS. Of course I think "I Would Die For You",
"The Next Time It Happens" and "Boys and Girls Like You and Me" would all be
equally bad choices for the act one closer, specifically because none of
these songs are from FDS and, as such, are equally inappropriate for the
character and scene.
> > Again, my argument is not against this particular production
specifically
> > but the revisal concept in general. If the people involved were REALLY
> > interested in showcasing our American Musical Theatre heritage they
would
> > find a way to re-think them without re-writing them.
>
> Having not seen it, I ask purely out of curiosity if you feel the same way
> about the recent "Kiss Me, Kate" production in which, I understand the
> Harrison Howell character was reconsidered and "From This Moment On" was
> interpolated (wasn't it? at least for a period of time).
Like you, I have not seen it, largely because of this scene and what I've
heard of the re-orchestrations.
>I rather enjoy the opportunity to look at a work not as a
> museum piece but as something that is part of an ongoing dialogue. I may
> shout back, but at least it's an involving process.
I don't look at our musical theatre heritage as "museum pieces" any more
than I see Shakespeare or opera as "museum pieces." If it's a valid piece,
staged with faith in the material and performed with gusto, it will work.
If not, no amount of re-structuring or re-writing will fix it.
Period.
My argue with revisals is the people who work on them have contempt for the
original. I would never claim to know more about musical theatre than
Rodgers, Hammerstein, Porter or Berlin. It is disheartening to see how many
people working in the business today do.
> But even that is a PRESUMPTION. Re-release Orson Welles' (alleged)
intended
> cut on Touch of Evil and film fans will argue relentlessly as to Welles'
> actual intent. Re-release "The Godfather," reconstructed and the Director
> will tell you his cut of the film chronologically (which HE did) for
> television was no good, which in turn will have some argue that it was
> better or at least no less valid. Remaster the sound for Dolby and create
> all new arguments. While I'm glad that Ted Turner was shouted down by the
> crowds for trying to colorize classic black and white films, it was that
> very effort which gave film preservationists a valid criterion for a
> dialogue about restoration. Or for purely commercial purposes, sell a DVD
of
> Shrek with a new ending, thus suggesting to your audience that what they
saw
> in the theatre was not (someone's) original intent. Hard and fast, in my
> opinion, is for closing times at the bar. Or some of the people around
here
> were objecting to new releases of refined CDs with original or rawer takes
> (i.e., the remastered "Gypsy") because that's not what they were used to.
>
Of course you conveniently leave out the other side of the coin - the
reconstruction of the Garland A STAR IS BORN, or the reconstruction of
Stroheim's GREED or any of the restoration work which has garnered us new,
pristine prints which allow us to see them as they were originally screened
and viewed. When this happens, the films become new and viable, not the
stratchy, faded "antiques" many of us believe vintage film to be.
Many people younger than 35 have problems even sitting through a
black-and-white film because it's "fake." But the fakery was part of the
art. B&W films, when projected properly are irridescent. They GLOW. They
didn't call it "the silver screen" for nothing. Film restoration allows
many of us to experience that again. It's a good thing.
There's nothing wrong or dated or "broke" about ANYTHING GOES or SHOW BOAT
or FLOWER DRUM SONG in their original book/music/lyric/dance
music/orchestration configuration that a good production team couldn't make
into the hit of the year if they trusted the material. That was the crux of
may original argument and it remains.
> > "The Seagull" that played recently in NY Public had a great comic bit
during
> Konstantin's play in which Arkadina's chair squeaked. It was, IMO,
> fabulous. It certainly is not called for in the text and is unprecedented
> in my experience with "The Seagull." In the context of what I considered
to
> be a thoroughly grand evening, I loved it. The Shakespeare argument is
very
> valid. What is the "correct" way to do Hamlet? In period Danish
clothing?
> In Elizabethan garments? With bear-baiting? I doubt I've ever seen the
> whole text. Thank God. One of the best production conceptions I ever saw
> was the entire text done by 5 actors in a readers theatre format. Theatre
is
> NOT film, which is one of the reasons I have trouble watching most filmed
> theatre performances. It's about the immediate moment.
Again, production choices, not re-writing and perfectly justifiable. The
LADY IN THE DARK at the Prince in Philly is a good example. The book was
not (to my understanding) changed. However, in order to tame some of the
alleged mysogeny of the piece they cast a woman as Dr. Brooks and altered
the way the end is played to give the impression Liza and Charley will
continue as a team, she will not "submit" to him. Nothing needed to be
changed, but it colored the show for our times.
This is what a good production team SHOULD do.
Beb11572
>often the only show in a season without stars, because if James Shigeta
>wasn't available, there weren't any.
I didn't know James Shigeta played it on stage as well. When/where?
Occasionally, you'd have Chita Rivera or Fran Warren as Linda Low, and - how's
this for a blast from the past - Ramon Novarro as Master Wang Chi Yang!
Beb11572
>While the men and women who have contributed to revisals are extremely
>talented in their own right, I find this theatrical prostituion morally
>reprehensible.
>
Amen, amen and amen.
This used to be the thing you'd expect to see done to GOOD NEWS or HIT THE
DECK.
But ANNIE GET YOUR GUN? Anything by Hammerstein?
Sheesh!!!
Beb11572
>> Perhaps. What it is NOT, however, is Rodgers and Hammerstein.
>
>Well, actually it is, according to its title; the organization that licenses
>the material seems to agree with this position.
But the *real* Rodgers & Hammerstein sure as heck wouldn't. From the
description of "not your father's FLOWER DRUM SONG," they are probably both
spinning in their graves as we speak, and if Rodgers knew that his daughter
would allow somebody to re-write his show beyond recognition, he'd probably
have cut her off without a nickel! :-)
Beb11572
>same sense of pride and respect for the giants of of musical past as film
>preservationists, opera companies and those who work in classical theatre
>have for their material.
Unfortunately, that day has already come...and gone. That's *exactly* the way
these shows were done at City Center and Lincoln Center, and in *any* of the
old Civic Light Opera Associations or Music Fairs in the country. Often with
the original costumes and set designs and in some cases, stars.
It's only in the last ten years or so that this "not your
father's/grandfather's" crap has come into play (with shows of the Hammerstein
era).
Pizzaman95
(Beb11572) writes:
Maybe people will someday wake up to the fact that books don't need to
be made modern (period pieces are period pieces) and PCism need not
run amok. FDS is an oft-forgotten, overlooked show that could open
up many eyes to the beauty of its score, if we'd just let it. Why did it
need to be changed?
Beb11572
It didn't.
Steve and Rhonda
and - how's this for a blast from the past - Ramon Novarro as Master
Wang Chi Yang!>>
Love it. Best blast since Gale Sondergaard.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sir Cedric Harwick, Sal Mineo, Cyril Ritchard, Darren McGavin, Mickey
Rooney, David Wayne, Kenneth Nelson, Marlon Brando, Rita Moreno,
etcetera, etcetera......
RmadlloLvr
1. Oscar Hammerstein, who laboured mightily to fix the troubled original
production of Flower Drum Song when it floundered out of town, does not seem to
have considered FDS a mjor achievment. He told his son Jimmy, after the show
opened: " I've had some unlucky flops in my life. I've had some shows that
deserved to run better than they did. And I've had some well-deserved hits. But
this is the first lucky hit I've ever had."
2. David Henry Hwang: "The funny thing about working on Flower Drum Song is
that I've never felt I was trying to 'fix' the original. It's been a process of
telling a story about the conflict between generations amd the joys and costs
of assilimilation as I know them - in collaboration with Rogers and
Hammerstein. Directors constantly get to collaborate with past masters. Writes
don't. This is very exciting."
-Karan
Steve and Rhonda
RATM) is not likely to dissuade anyone from buying a ticket. If they CAN
(clarification: are persons who COULD) BE dissuaded, the pre-press
(clarification: articles involving quotes from the adaptors and
licensing folk including comments about pidgin English and the horrors
of Larry Blyden in makeup) might have done that (clarification: scared
them off) already. Which BTW I've yet to see anyone else address>>
This discussion was broken into at least one other thread. (Two I
think.) I posted one article with comments on <A> thread. I thought it
was this one, sorry--
RATM: All FLOWER DRUM-- all the time!
Milton Demel
description of "not your father's FLOWER DRUM SONG," they are probably both
spinning in their graves as we speak, and if Rodgers knew that his daughter
would allow somebody to re-write his show beyond recognition, he'd probably
have cut her off without a nickel! :-)
>>
Oh PUHLEASE!!!! The current revival is very good. I will bet half the
naysayers on this thread haven't even seen it. I am sure Rogers and
Hammersteen would be pleased and honored that their work is being kept alive
and explored in different ways. BRING IT ON!
LuvInStuCty
But the *real* Rodgers & Hammerstein sure as heck wouldn't. From the
description of "not your father's FLOWER DRUM SONG," they are probably both
spinning in their graves as we speak, and if Rodgers knew that his daughter
would allow somebody to re-write his show beyond recognition, he'd probably
have cut her off without a nickel! :-) >>
Anyone who has seen the current production would probably disagree with you.
To everyone out there: If you happen to be in Los Angeles ; treat yourself. It
is a delightful production. It is funny, beautifully perforemed and nicely
staged.
Milton Demel
To everyone out there: If you happen to be in Los Angeles ; treat yourself. It
is a delightful production. It is funny, beautifully perforemed and nicely
staged. >>
getting longer by the day.
Steve and Rhonda
everything at the end (not unlike most musicals from the golden age).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And this is a bad thing?
Steve and Rhonda
destroyed.>>
mutations are, then the mutations BECOME the show in the minds of the
bulk of people who see them. This is a far greater disservice than to
let them languish.
And in many cases what you describe happens to shows that would NOT have
"languished." (To once again stress that this matter is bigger than this
production, which, conceivably it is possible to like AND at the same
time question its method as a basic solution. Ends not justifying the
means and all that.)
Steve and Rhonda
came up to me and said, for all your work, you really didn't make it any
better. I took that as a compliment."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to do one of these shows (with
the same cast in rep.) performing both the original and the revisal
versions-- and watching audience reaction?
Steve and Rhonda
Re: Just saw FLOWER DRUM SONG
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001, 9:25pm (EDT+4)
From: beb1...@aol.com (Beb11572)
What songs were dropped in the revival? I wouldn't miss the lame "I Am
Going to
Like It Here."
I would. One of the most charming songs in musical theatre, IMO. Done
right, that song could make you fall in love with that girl right then
and there.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Done wrong even. If that's possible.
Steve and Rhonda
cases I would choose the original, and in some the revival. Or maybe mix
and match would work best! Nancy>>
But already there are many instances of the options dwindling and the
original becoming unavailable. (SHE LOVES ME.) This is not BTW always a
case of authors' or even estates' intents but a licensing house's
decision based on things like "better materials." And this dates back to
shows like PAINT YOUR WAGON, ANYTHING GOES, SHOW BOAT, etc.
Steve and Rhonda
of his record at this) tried to get Finian's Rainbow on Broadway. I
believe if the current book were used, it would never happen; it's still
one of the great musical theatre scores of all time. And while I would
miss it, were it necessary to the writer to drop, say, "The Begat," in
order to make it happen, I'd still judge the show on its merits. (My
concern about Peter Stone is that he would drop all black characters
rather than deal with the problem of the antiquated albeit
well-intentioned book.)
-------------------------------------------------
And wouldn't it be nice if just ONCE these days, the PC guardians would
just shut up and let someone put the damn thing up as is to allow the
audiences to decide for themselves before assuming the worst? (And even
if there WERE a small number of offended people, SO WHAT? It hasn't
stopped THE SOPRANOS.) This would certainly be easier than making the
decision that "they can't handle the truth" first, and then workshopping
and tinkering with the thing for years longer than it took to create it!
Steve and Rhonda
How did I miss this one for "the list?" (I'm assuming you're neither
Spanish nor cockney.)
Steve and Rhonda
Re: Just saw FLOWER DRUM SONG
From: rmadl...@aol.com (RmadlloLvr)
Translatation, please?
-Katan>>
My wife got it immediately when she read it. Said I must be speaking
EAST coast.
David Zack
>than for Mei Li, I have to wonder if you've even seen the ORIGINAL!>>
>
>And these comments make me wonder the same about you. Let's see, Mei Li.
>Minimal vocal talent required. (pre "Love Look Away.") Just a charming
>actress of Oscar calibre. Judging from Ms. Salonga's work in MS and
>REDWOOD CURTAIN, she comes up short in both departments.
There you go again, acting as though your opinions are fact. Some of us thing
Lea Salonga is exceedingly charming. Some of us think she is a very capable
actress.
>I know you're going through an awkward age, David.
>So I'm graciously sending you one of my "Not Yet 37, Pay No Attention"
Gee, how characteristically derisive of you. You might just as well print up
shirts for your 'friends' that read "I'm not NewportsRetro, so clearly my
opinions mean nothing. Pay no Attention." Wouldn't that do even more to
protect your fragile ego?
Though there is a germ of an idea here. (Germ being a particularly apropos
word here...) I do need to remind myself to pay no attention to certain
parties. I always get suckered into these arguments. It starts innocently
enough, and with good intentions. I see a conversation to which I believe I
can meaningfully contribute. And you consistently respond with petulant
bickering and by reaching so far for semantics to dissect, it's a wonder your
reach hasn't yet dislocated your arm.
I'm sure you'll have an effusively vitriolic response to my observations this
evening. But don't go to any trouble on my account, as I probably won't be
here to hear it. I've stopped paying attention.
Michael Callery
Carousel, King and I, South Pacific, and Sound of Music. Two of these
were written for Mary Martin and one for Gertrude Lawrence. They count
as stars in my book ... in fact, two of these K&I and SOM, were almost
commissioned by their respective stars in that they brought the idea to R&H.
Mike
Steve and Rhonda wrote:
> Even though
> most of the big 5 R & H shows weren't written for stars, they served
> stars well over the years.
Steve and Rhonda
Re: Just saw FLOWER DRUM SONG
From: davi...@aol.com (David Zack)
There you go again>>
Was that Reagan who said that? Karen..?
Bushie?
<<You might just as well print up shirts for your 'friends'>>
There really are "Come Back When You're 37" T-shirts, BTW. I saw my
first in Cape Cod in 1987. The reason I remember it so clearly, is that
I had just celebrated my 37th Birthday at our put-in rehearsal for a
42ND STREET stock tour. They were still selling them there in 92 and 93.
<<Wouldn't that do even more to protect your fragile ego?>>
To quote a Golden Oldie, APPLAUSE: "About as fragile as a Moose."
<<Though there is a germ of an idea here. (Germ being a particularly
apropos word here...)>>
Not "derisive" at all, no.
<<I do need to remind myself to pay no attention to certain parties.>>
"Certain Individuals" from WISH YOU WERE HERE. Cute song.
<<I always get suckered into these arguments. It starts innocently
enough, and with good intentions.>>
I'll check on that, in this case, and get back to you. But I think
you're being disingenuous here.
<<I see a conversation to which I believe I can meaningfully
contribute.>>
This is sounding very familar even without the strings behind it. What's
the title of John Cullum's first song from SHENANDOAH again?
<<I'm sure you'll have an effusively vitriolic>>
Effusive is good. We like effusive.
<response to my observations this evening. But don't go to any trouble
on my account>>
"No trouble a tall." It's always a delight.
<<as I probably won't be here to hear it.>>
Not again! Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Gary Nichols. WEHT?
Matthew Murray
> >Perhaps. What it is NOT, however, is Rodgers and Hammerstein.
>
> Well, this is just a silly statement. Of course it is.
To me, that's a far sillier statement. It's not really. If the
original book has been rewritten, and the complete score is not being
presented in the original way, then it's not Rodgers and Hammerstein at
all. As KAR pointed out, yes, it has their names on it because the R&H
estate allowed it, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with them
at all anymore. If it were REALLY Rodgers & Hammerstein's Flower Drum
Song, none of us would be talking about this.
If you like what they did, fine, and argue it all you want. But
to claim that what's onstage right now is equivalent to what they did and
deserves to have their name attached in that way is something I find
ridiculous, and I don't think anyone needs to have seen the show to say
that. (And, indeed, I have not, which is why I'm not making statements
about its quality.)
> First, I don't recall anyone ever stating that this version of FDS was
> done to showcase the Amercan Musical Theater Heritage. I believe it
> was done to breath life into a musical that has little or no chance of
> serious revival.
So, you're saying the only way to breathe life into Flower Drum
Song is to rewrite the book and alter the score? Is it not even remotely
possible a talented director might be able to find a way to do it with the
original script?
> As far as re-thinking without rewriting, I think
> that should always be the first choice. But what about shows that
> defy that? Just let 'em languish?
Are you saying that Flower Drum Song is one of those shows, then?
And I still think the first priority should be to NEW shows. Why
not have David Henry Hwang write a new musical about the Asian-American
experience in the United States, with a completely new score by a new,
exciting composer (possible also one of Asian heritage)? Why MUST classic
musicals be CHANGED instead of new ones being created. Why is the
solution always to change what's already been done instead of doing
something new? It's disgusting to me, it really is. If I want to see
Flower Drum Song, I want to SEE Flower Drum Song. Not Hwang's recreation
of it, but the actual SHOW that Rodgers and Hammerstein created. Despite
what you claim, the two things in this circumstance are not equal. I
would be much more interested in seeing a new musical about the
Asian-American experience than seeing a Rodgers & Hammerstein classic
revised just because no one has the courage or fortitude to make a new
one.
> But the original musicals are still there. They haven't been destroyed.
True, but I don't think passing off these revisals AS the original
shows does the originals any good.
> >important to Stone, Hwang and the R&H organization than preserving the
> >artistic intentions of the likes of Rodgers, Hammerstein, Berlin, Porter,
> >Bennett .....
>
> Do you really think D.H. Hwang did this for the royalties?
Yes. If he didn't do the job for money, why would he do it? How
many writers would ever contribute their work for free? Richard Rodgers
and Oscar Hammerstein II certainly didn't!
> Just as a sidenote since you bring up Stone. I thought the revision of AGYG
> was terrible. Made a PC mess of it--besides not making any sense. FWIW, FDS
> is an infinitely better rewrite.
Irrelevant. It's not really Flower Drum Song anymore, which has
been the argument that Steve and Bruce (among others) have been saying.
It could be the best rewrite in the world, but it's still a rewrite.
----------------------------
Matthew A. Murray
matthe...@mindspring.com
http://www.matthewmurray.net
----------------------------
Matthew Murray
> My "saracastic" point was to point out the similarities, real or imagined
> between MISS SAIGON and this FDS. Of course I think "I Would Die For You",
> "The Next Time It Happens" and "Boys and Girls Like You and Me" would all be
> equally bad choices for the act one closer, specifically because none of
> these songs are from FDS and, as such, are equally inappropriate for the
> character and scene.
I'm confused. What is this "I Would Die For You" song a number of
people have mentioned? What show is it from? Or, are you referring to
the act one finale from Miss Saigon, "I'd Give My Life For You?"
Steve and Rhonda
first time they wrote for a star. (Singular.) So, I'm assuming even
SOUTH PACIFIC began before Martin was in the picture. Maybe not. Which
would shift the 3/5 balance. At any rate, as Beb has pointed out there
were FDS star packages in stock with some names in a couple of different
roles. And the Big 5 have served as vehicles for many characters besides
Nellie, Anna and Maria to star, the latest trend being SOM starring
Capt. von Trapp. (Richard Chamberlain, Barry Williams.) Anway, I think
we can still safely say that finding someone to star in FDS was more
problematic than any of the others.
Matthew Murray
> I don't look at our musical theatre heritage as "museum pieces" any more
> than I see Shakespeare or opera as "museum pieces." If it's a valid piece,
> staged with faith in the material and performed with gusto, it will work.
> If not, no amount of re-structuring or re-writing will fix it.
>
> Period.
I agree 100% with this. I think works should always be performed
as originally intended (sorry Steve, but I won't get into the
intermission thing THIS time around).
> My argue with revisals is the people who work on them have contempt for the
> original. I would never claim to know more about musical theatre than
> Rodgers, Hammerstein, Porter or Berlin. It is disheartening to see how many
> people working in the business today do.
Well, I agree with that concept, but I don't think it's
necessarily equivalent to these writers having contempt for the original
creators--I find that a pretty strong statement. My understanding is that
a lot of it has to do with union rules and regulations, and sometimes
these "changes" can spiral out of control. While I think shows should be
performed as intended, I find cuting a line here or there to facilitate a
transition or something like that far less egregious than cutting songs,
altering what of the score you leave in, changing the book, or going
against the original intentions of the creators. (And, unfortunately, I
cannot think of a single major revival of a musical on Broadway in the
last ten years that has not done at least one of these things. Well...
Other than Jesus Christ Superstar, and we know how THAT turned out.)
> Of course you conveniently leave out the other side of the coin - the
> reconstruction of the Garland A STAR IS BORN, or the reconstruction of
> Stroheim's GREED or any of the restoration work which has garnered us new,
> pristine prints which allow us to see them as they were originally screened
> and viewed. When this happens, the films become new and viable, not the
> stratchy, faded "antiques" many of us believe vintage film to be.
I agree in terms of film, but I find it extraordinary unlikely
that anything is going to be done that will allow us to experience these
classic musicals as they were originally presented. I think that's
actually impossible, and not necessarily desirable. I LOVE new spins on
things, I just don't think you need to make changes JUST for the sake of
making changes in order to do it. New direction, new sets, new costumes,
and new IDEAS can do wonders!
(Of course, my ultimate solution is to NOT revive these shows and
instead make NEW ones, but God forbid anyone should do THAT!)
> There's nothing wrong or dated or "broke" about ANYTHING GOES or SHOW BOAT
> or FLOWER DRUM SONG in their original book/music/lyric/dance
> music/orchestration configuration that a good production team couldn't make
> into the hit of the year if they trusted the material. That was the crux of
> may original argument and it remains.
Well, right, but in terms of Show Boat (at least), does anyone
even know with absolute certainty what the original book and score
actually were? It's most assuredly not what's available for amateur
groups to produce, as far as I know...
> Again, production choices, not re-writing and perfectly justifiable. The
> LADY IN THE DARK at the Prince in Philly is a good example. The book was
> not (to my understanding) changed. However, in order to tame some of the
> alleged mysogeny of the piece they cast a woman as Dr. Brooks and altered
> the way the end is played to give the impression Liza and Charley will
> continue as a team, she will not "submit" to him. Nothing needed to be
> changed, but it colored the show for our times.
>
> This is what a good production team SHOULD do.
I agree with the concept, though I can't say anything about the
production of Lady in the Dark because I haven't seen it. I have a little
concern over the changing of the ending, because it seems to me that the
original intent of the authors might have been altered, but if they can
even do that without screwing up the score and the book beyond
recognition, more power to them. If only more Broadway revival teams
could figure out how to do that!
Matthew Murray
> Oh PUHLEASE!!!! The current revival is very good. I will bet half the
> naysayers on this thread haven't even seen it. I am sure Rogers and
> Hammersteen would be pleased and honored that their work is being kept alive
> and explored in different ways. BRING IT ON!
Maybe THEY would, but I'm not sure Richard RODGERS and Oscar
HAMMERSTEIN II would be as happy.
Steve and Rhonda
CAROUSEL being the other step-child that ran only about six months
longer than FDS, right? FDS may have been an accidental hit, but it was
a hit. On Broadway. On the road. It was performed and recorded in London
and made into a splashy Hollywood theatrical film, which fared better at
the box office than say, M. BUTTERFLY. I've read a collection of Mr.
Hwang's other plays and frankly, he should have such an accidental hit.
Oh, wait a minute, he has. It's called AIDA.
(This one's for you, Matthew.)
Steve and Rhonda
certainty what the original book and score actually were? It's most
assuredly not what's available for amateur groups to produce, as far as
I know...>>
Not even close, Matthew. But while ABSOLUTE certainty is impossible, a
pretty good original SHOW BOAT could be put together-- especially after
McGlinn's work. Ditto for ANYTHING GOES. Neither is likely to occur.
We'll probably get Prince's SHOW BOAT if anything, again because
materials are available. (Not because it's a better version.)
Michael Callery
Flower Drum Song is hard to cast, just that R&H did write for stars on
occasion. Sometimes to disastrous ends -- Pipe Dream, for example. It's
probably also important to note that both Oklahoma and Carousel were
produced by The Theatre Guild. R&H might have wanted stars, we'll never
know, they didn't have the clout. After Carousel, they produced their
shows themselves. And then we got the stars for the big hits.
From Steve Citron's latest book about Sondheim's hesitation to write
only the lyrics to Gyspy when Merman rejected him for the music:
"Hammerstein persuaded him [Sondheim] to do Gypsy. He said that the
chance to work with these people and particularly to write a show for a
star -- which he had never done before -- was invaluable."
So, by this time, Hammerstein knew he was writing for stars.
A much better example of switching stars from the female to the male is
The King and I. And then switching back. I'm thinking here of one of the
earlier Broadway revivals of King and I when Angela Landsbury was
brought in to play Anna when Yul Brenner had his vacation.
Mike
Steve and Rhonda
Asian. Neither was, much later, Martin Vidnovic. So why is the fact that
Larry Blyden played Sammy Fong (earning a Tony nom.) used as a tool to
point out the lack of authenticity in FDS?
Matthew Murray
Shh, Steve, stop using logic.
Also, I don't mean for this to be an insensitive question, but
what was the climate of 1950s Broadway like for actors of Asian descent?
Were there very many performers? Were there any plays written
specifically for them?
Beb11572
>
>1. Oscar Hammerstein, who laboured mightily to fix the troubled original
>production of Flower Drum Song when it floundered out of town, does not seem
>to
>have considered FDS a mjor achievment. He told his son Jimmy, after the show
>opened: " I've had some unlucky flops in my life. I've had some shows that
>deserved to run better than they did. And I've had some well-deserved hits.
>But
>this is the first lucky hit I've ever had."
Lucky hit or not, he wasn't embarrassed to put his name on it. I resubmit, he
would be appalled if he knew that 40 years after his death, somebody would come
along and rewrite the plot of his show beyond recognition.
>2. David Henry Hwang: "The funny thing about working on Flower Drum Song is
>that I've never felt I was trying to 'fix' the original.
Then why was he hired? Somebody thought the show was "broke" and they hired
him to "fix" it. Otherwise, it would have been left alone.
It's been a process
>of
>telling a story about the conflict between generations amd the joys and costs
>of assilimilation as I know them - in collaboration with Rogers and
>Hammerstein. Directors constantly get to collaborate with past masters.
>Writes
>don't. This is very exciting."
It would have been infinitely more exciting if Hwang had written an entirely
new show, with a new composer/lyricist, about a young woman in China whose
father is killed by the communists... a show inspired by the same source
material; not taking R & H's FLOWER DRUM SONG score and grafting it onto a new
story.
Beb11572
>and - how's this for a blast from the past - Ramon Novarro as Master
>Wang Chi Yang!>>
>
>Love it. Best blast since Gale Sondergaard.
If Gale Sondergaard were alive today, sounds as if she could play the "new"
"dragon lady" Madame Liang...
Matthew Murray
Thanks, Steve, I always appreciate it.
I'm trying to figure out, actually, why anyone would let him near
a musical after what he did to Aida. I'm sorry, but shouldn't the first
qualification not be the racial heritage of a playwright, but rather his
capacity to do the job? Admittedly, I'm not familiar with much of Hwang's
other work, but the book for Aida is really terrible, and why anyone would
want him to work on their musical is beyond me.
Beb11572
>description of "not your father's FLOWER DRUM SONG," they are probably both
>spinning in their graves as we speak, and if Rodgers knew that his daughter
>would allow somebody to re-write his show beyond recognition, he'd probably
>have cut her off without a nickel! :-)
> >>
>
>
>Oh PUHLEASE!!!!
From the folks who brought you "um" and "not your father's"...
The current revival is very good.
Can we please agree on a definition here? This show is *not* a "revival." A
revival would be a new production of the show as written. This is an entirely
new show. A "reviSal."
I will bet half the
>naysayers on this thread haven't even seen it.
Considering the fact that we don't live in L.A., we wouldn't have. But that's
entirely irrelevant. Yes, I DO have to see a show in order to comment upon the
quality of its acting, direction, set design, etc. No, I DON'T have to see it
in order to know that *Rodgers & Hammerstein's* FLOWER DRUM SONG has been
destroyed. The outline of the plot is enough. No Helen Chao, no "Sunday," no
"Other Generation," Dr. Li getting killed by the communists, Wang Chi Yang
turning into 'Sammy Fong' ...sorry, pal, that ain't FLOWER DRUM SONG. It may
be a "very good" show, but FLOWER DRUM SONG it is not. Period.
I am sure Rogers and
>Hammersteen would be pleased and honored that their work is being kept alive
>and explored in different ways.
May I ask what, exactly, you know of Rodgers and Hammerstein to legitimately
make that statement? I know people who actually worked for them, and have
heard many a story about the eagle eye of Richard Rodgers in particular, and
his insistence on things being done *just so* (and kept that way). I know
somebody who went in as a replacement in one of their shows, and Mr. Rodgers
(a/k/a "Boss Man") upon seeing her for the first time, noted that she sang a
particular phrase with a *slightly* different rhythm than he had written it.
We're talking dots on eighth notes here.
Suffice it to say, "Boss Man" would NOT have said:
BRING IT ON!
Harlett O'Dowd
"Matthew Murray" <hl...@zork.plover.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101102...@zork.plover.net...
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Harlett O'Dowd wrote:
>
>
> > My argue with revisals is the people who work on them have contempt for
the
> > original. I would never claim to know more about musical theatre than
> > Rodgers, Hammerstein, Porter or Berlin. It is disheartening to see how
many
> > people working in the business today do.
>
> Well, I agree with that concept, but I don't think it's
> necessarily equivalent to these writers having contempt for the original
> creators--I find that a pretty strong statement. My understanding is that
> a lot of it has to do with union rules and regulations, and sometimes
> these "changes" can spiral out of control.
Let's call it a lack of faith, then. If you don't believe the material can
stand on its own two feet you shouldn't revive it.
> > Of course you conveniently leave out the other side of the coin - the
> > reconstruction of the Garland A STAR IS BORN, or the reconstruction of
> > Stroheim's GREED or any of the restoration work which has garnered us
new,
> > pristine prints which allow us to see them as they were originally
screened
> > and viewed. When this happens, the films become new and viable, not the
> > stratchy, faded "antiques" many of us believe vintage film to be.
>
> I agree in terms of film, but I find it extraordinary unlikely
> that anything is going to be done that will allow us to experience these
> classic musicals as they were originally presented. I think that's
> actually impossible, and not necessarily desirable. I LOVE new spins on
> things, I just don't think you need to make changes JUST for the sake of
> making changes in order to do it. New direction, new sets, new costumes,
> and new IDEAS can do wonders!
As I've said before, new concepts and designs are great and necessary in
revivals.
> Well, right, but in terms of Show Boat (at least), does anyone
> even know with absolute certainty what the original book and score
> actually were? It's most assuredly not what's available for amateur
> groups to produce, as far as I know...
Yes, the original book exists in various archives and collections and
McGlinn has assembled as much of the original orchestrations that are known
to survive. Sadly, however, R&H does not/will not offer this to
regional/stock/amateur groups - even if you were able to contact McGlinn and
Miles Kreuger for the parts you need.
But they will gladly sell you the Prince abomination.
> I agree with the concept, though I can't say anything about the
> production of Lady in the Dark because I haven't seen it. I have a little
> concern over the changing of the ending, because it seems to me that the
> original intent of the authors might have been altered, but if they can
> even do that without screwing up the score and the book beyond
> recognition, more power to them. If only more Broadway revival teams
> could figure out how to do that!
The ending is written vague and, I believe, was intended to indicate the
couple would share responsibility (not like Annie's total acquiescence to
Frank's vanity at the end of AGYG.) I always walked away from reading the
script that the two became "partners" but many friends who have problems
with the whole "afraid to be a woman" saw this (in the 80s) as Liza's giving
up her power in order to be loved.
Apparently, in this production (which sadly, I've been unable to see) she
has acquired a sense of balance, which was her entire struggle to begin
with. So no, I don't think the staging competes with Hart's original
intention.
And I doubt Kitty Karlisle would have allowed it if it had.
Harlett O'Dowd
"Matthew Murray" <hl...@zork.plover.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101102...@zork.plover.net...
>
> > My "saracastic" point was to point out the similarities, real or
imagined
> > between MISS SAIGON and this FDS. Of course I think "I Would Die For
You",
> > "The Next Time It Happens" and "Boys and Girls Like You and Me" would
all be
> > equally bad choices for the act one closer, specifically because none of
> > these songs are from FDS and, as such, are equally inappropriate for the
> > character and scene.
>
> I'm confused. What is this "I Would Die For You" song a number of
> people have mentioned? What show is it from? Or, are you referring to
> the act one finale from Miss Saigon, "I'd Give My Life For You?"
Sorry. Yes, the correct title of the song is "I'd Give My Life For You."
I've tried to block most of that show out of my mind and, as such, do not
have the CD here for reference.
Thanks.
Beb11572
>Nellie, Anna and Maria to star, the latest trend being SOM starring
>Capt. von Trapp. (Richard Chamberlain, Barry Williams.)
Probably only because there are no "star" soprano ingenues anymore (anyone care
to speculate why?). Can anybody think of a celebrity under - I'll stretch it to
40 - who could play (and sing) Maria in THE SOUND OF MUSIC? Or are Marie
Osmond and Debby Boone the last of that lot?
That's why Parthy has become the female "star" of SHOW BOAT. Once upon a time,
it was usually Magnolia (i.e. Shirley Jones, Ann Blyth, Patrice Munsel, Barbara
Cook). But again, I can't think of one celebrity who could play her (except in
the last scene) now.
Matthew Murray
> Let's call it a lack of faith, then. If you don't believe the material can
> stand on its own two feet you shouldn't revive it.
I agree with that completely.
> Yes, the original book exists in various archives and collections and
> McGlinn has assembled as much of the original orchestrations that are known
> to survive. Sadly, however, R&H does not/will not offer this to
> regional/stock/amateur groups - even if you were able to contact McGlinn and
> Miles Kreuger for the parts you need.
It's been a few years since I listened to the McGlinn recording...
In what major ways is it different from the currently licensed version?
> But they will gladly sell you the Prince abomination.
Well, I'm not sure I'd call it an ABOMINATION, but I think I'd
probably call it unnecessary.
> Apparently, in this production (which sadly, I've been unable to see) she
> has acquired a sense of balance, which was her entire struggle to begin
> with. So no, I don't think the staging competes with Hart's original
> intention.
I'm very happy about that, then. And, unfortunately, it's also
been a few years since I read the book to Lady in the Dark, so my memory
of the last scene may be cloudy.
DAVEYLOW
> I'm trying to figure out, actually, why anyone would let him near
>a musical after what he did to Aida. I'm sorry, but shouldn't the first
>qualification not be the racial heritage of a playwright, but rather his
>capacity to do the job? Admittedly, I'm not familiar with much of Hwang's
>other work, but the book for Aida is really terrible, and why anyone would
>want him to work on their musical is beyond me.
>
>----------------------------
>Matthew A. Murray
>matthe...@mindspring.com
>
I agree that Hwang's work on Aida isn't great. Hwang has written some good
plays and worked on some experimental operas, though, and I think it makes
sense that he was approached since he's written several plays dealing with
Chinese and Chinese American families. Let's face it, most writers in the
theater and in films don't even think about including Asian or Asian American
characters in their scripts. Their defense is usually that they don't have any
friends in in the Asian or Asian American community or don't know how to
approach characters with this background. So just don't include Asian or Asian
American characters at all.
Steve and Rhonda
I'm aware of that. I know the order in which all 9 appeared (10 if you
count STATE FAIR) even.
<I'm not disputing that Flower Drum Song is hard to cast, just that R&H
did write for stars on occasion.>>
Okay, we need a clearer defintion here. As a team. Specifically for.
Before hand. Not tailored to later. I still believe this applies only to
K & I and SOM. Getting back to the six hits- only Martin (twice), Pinza,
and Lawrence were billed above the title. Others <became> stars in these
roles or after doing them, of course.
<<After Carousel, they produced their shows themselves. And then we got
the stars for the big hits.>>
So they knew at the casting stage that ALLEGRO and ME AND JULIET were
not going to be big?
<<So, by this time, Hammerstein knew he was writing for stars.>>
His experience at doing so probably preceeded his collaboration with
Rodgers.
<<A much better example of switching stars from the female to the male
is The King and I. And then switching back. I'm thinking here of one of
the earlier Broadway revivals of King and I when Angela Landsbury was
brought in to play Anna when Yul Brenner had his vacation.>>
Why is the Brynner vacation a "better" example than SOM, in which
Chamberlain took over the role for longer than a vacation stint, then
toured with the show, setting a precedent for another actor to do so?
But yes KING AND I did (and continues to) serve as a possible showcase
for either star, even though originally, one was not, in fact, starred.
Hmm? I'm just wondering what the deal was when Alfred Drake (after
turning down the role) replaced the vacationing Brynner in the original.
Bushwhacker
>
>
> Re: Just saw FLOWER DRUM SONG
>
> Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001, 9:09am (EDT+4)
> From: davi...@aol.com (David Zack)
> There you go again>>
>
> Was that Reagan who said that? Karen..?
> Bushie?
>
Yep, he used it very effectively in a debate. But I'm staying out of *this* one -- I feel very
strongly *both* ways. Or is it the Tevye syndrome again?
Unknown
> on occasion. Sometimes to disastrous ends -- Pipe Dream, for example.
****
Their first choice for 'Doc' was Henry Fonda, but Fonda couldn't sing.
The first choice for Suzy was Julie Andrews, but she opted for "My Fair
Lady", with Rodgers telling her to go for it. He must have sensed something
bigger with the Lerner & Loewe show than his own. "Pipe Dream" deserves
a visit at Encores! or Mufti.
****
Michael Callery
Mike
Eagle
>
By the way, the cut songs in the current FDS
>are "Sunday" (a nice tune) and "The Other Generation".
>****
I always thought "I Enjoy Being a Girl" and "The Other Generation" had pretty
parallel counterparts in BYE BYE BIRDIE: "How Lovely to Be a Woman" and "Kids."
Eagle
Beb11572
>
>Mike
It was *always* six hits, Mike. Of the seven New York newspapers that existed
at the time, it only got one negative notice - otherwise, four favorables and
two outright raves. It ran for 602 performances, made a profit (although I
don't know the exact figures), was toured nationally, had several of its songs
become popular hits, and was made into a major motion picture. So, in its
time, it was a hit. Maybe a "minor" hit, but one all the same.
It's just that - probably because of casting problems more than anything else -
it has not had the eternal visibility of the other five.
PrestonDL
>be made modern (period pieces are period pieces
FDS is still a period piece. Very much so.
) and PCism need not
>run amok.
It isn't at all PC to my mind.
FDS is an oft-forgotten, overlooked show that could open
>up many eyes to the beauty of its score, if we'd just let it. Why did it
>need to be changed?
Because the book is clunky and doesn't work well and the show was not being
done much. Now many people will have their eyes opened to almost all of its
beautiful score.
BTW, did you see it before offering your opinion?
D.
PrestonDL
>To everyone out there: If you happen to be in Los Angeles ; treat yourself.
>It
>is a delightful production. It is funny, beautifully perforemed and nicely
>staged. >>
>I agree with you. However the run is sold out and the cancelation line is
>getting longer by the day.
>
>
I agree guys, but there is an element on this group seems to be particularly
peeved by this. They hate the very IDEA of it. They would rather discuss what
dead people would or would not have thought about something--a really pointless
thread--and discuss the textual merits of something they have not seen--a
really pointless thread-- or attack you for your spelling--a desperately
pointless thread.
D.
Michael Callery
the origninal subject line? So naturally 3/6 is better than 3/5 since
that's not a majority. But then neither is 3/6. I am fully aware that
Flower Drum Song was a hit ... that was not the point of my post. I
stand firm that Rodgers and Hammerstein did, when called for, write for
stars and that three of the top five shows were star vehicles.
Hammerstein's experimental shows, Allegro and Me and Juliet, were
exceptions that prove the rule. Although I think Lisa Kirk was pretty
well known then, but I'm prejudiced for reasons I don't want to go into.
Mike