Advanced Search | Search All That Chat


ATC Rush/Standing Room LOGIN REGISTER THREADED MODE

Threaded Order Chronological Order
Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: theaterluvr 06:20 am EST 12/19/15
From Saturday's Times

a modern framing device — a bareheaded Tevye in modern clothing, and, at the end, an inescapable visual nod to the current global refugee crisis

For months, the innovation, which consumes perhaps a minute in a show that is 155 minutes long, has been debated by the show’s Tony-winning director, Bartlett Sher, and its Tony-winning lyricist, Sheldon Harnick

Ultimately, after weeks of previews during which the framing device was adjusted and argued over, Mr. Harnick, who had the right to block the change, acceded to the staging.
Link NYTimes
reply to this message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: Vectorbabe 01:45 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Whence Tevye's red coat... - theaterluvr 06:20 am EST 12/19/15
Pushing the boundaries of revivals is a great tradition. (See my other posts.)

I was lucky enough to see Anne Bogart's production of South Pacific that took place in a hospital facility to help shell-shocked war veterans re-enter society.

Not a single word was changed, but the setting was an explosion of power.

Unfortunately the R&H executors shut the product down shortly after it opened.

Why try to infuse new relevance into South Pacific? Doesn't it have enough relevance of anti-racism and the way indigenous people are taken advantage of. (Think Bloody Mary)

For the same reason Sam Mendes pushed the boundaries of Cabaret.

I admit there are parts of the original Broadway production that I miss in the current revivals. But Mendes did the theatre a benefit in changing the scope of the production.

And the last scene is one of the most powerful I've ever seen. First time I saw it I sat in my seat for 5 minutes crying my eyes out.

But the red parka is such an insignificant framing device. And yet it says so much and gets people talking and thinking.
reply to this message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: whereismikeyfl 11:44 pm EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - Vectorbabe 01:45 pm EST 12/19/15
Just to correct, the R&H executors did not shut down the Anne Bogart South Pacific. It was a college production and closed when its scheduled run was over.

The executors understood the thrust of the production before it opened. They saw the production as a test to where the catalog could go at a time when R&H was not taken seriously. When the production finally opened, the people controlling the estate were divided. Some were enthusiastic about the production. Others did not like it.

Also, the production did not change the setting of the play. Rather it framed it as a performance of the classic musical by vets in a hospital. The play within a play setting may have helped audiences to see the play's relevance, but the WW2 setting remained the same.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: singleticket 12:55 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Whence Tevye's red coat... - theaterluvr 06:20 am EST 12/19/15
the innovation, which consumes perhaps a minute in a show that is 155 minutes long

It's where Sher can prove himself a master of knowing his audience. He uses an accent to trigger a connection between the past and present where some directors would use a sledge hammer. His productions vary in success but he knows how to negotiate his ideas with a largely conservative audience and hats off to him and his producers for fighting for those ideas with Harnick.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: portenopete 04:16 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - singleticket 12:55 pm EST 12/19/15
I agree!

I understand Harnick's resistance but I am glad that he has allowed the change to happen. The bones of FIDDLER are so strong that it can withstand interpretation.

And fifty years on, the show has entered the popular imagination so thoroughly that I applaud an attempt to remind audiences of what the show is about at its core.

Sure there will be cognoscenti who think it's overdone, but obviously Harnick realized that a point is being made to a lot of people and thinks it's a valuable point to make.

Looking forward to this show!
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: ryhog 04:45 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - portenopete 04:16 pm EST 12/19/15
Also, that opening image, which bleeds promptly into the familiar one, does not in the least take the audience out of the play because, until it is bookended, it doesn't really convey much of anything. That, I assume, is what was meant by the comment that it is "insignificant." The only basis for a complaint is that expressed by the purists who believe in the sanctity of the book of a musical as if it were the Talmud.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: singleticket 01:31 pm EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - ryhog 04:45 pm EST 12/19/15
I haven't seen the production yet but I'm not sure if that's the case. People might have a good reason beyond purity for not liking or agreeing with the book-ended images and they might have a troubling resonance beyond "let's be compassionate towards contemporary refugees as that is the history of the Jewish diaspora". Sometimes metaphor resonates in unexpected directions.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: ryhog 02:44 pm EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - singleticket 01:31 pm EST 12/20/15
Perhaps I could have been clearer: I think you are right when you consider the book-ended images; I was focusing only on the upfront image which I would not call a metaphor because it is an inchoate image. My sense is that it does not yet resonate on any stop except "purity."
reply to this message | reply to first message
Sher obviously feels that today's audiences need to be...
Posted by: icecadet 12:19 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Whence Tevye's red coat... - theaterluvr 06:20 am EST 12/19/15
...led by the hand in order to make the connection made by the "framing device.

BTW: Does the "bareheaded" Tevye of today indicate that the idea of wearing of a yarmulke is now "as crazy as a "fiddler on the roof"?
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Sher obviously feels that today's audiences need to be...
Posted by: Chromolume 02:32 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Sher obviously feels that today's audiences need to be... - icecadet 12:19 pm EST 12/19/15
BTW: Does the "bareheaded" Tevye of today indicate that the idea of wearing of a yarmulke is now "as crazy as a "fiddler on the roof"?

I think that would be stretching the point to find too much symbolism in things, as we are all so wont to do, lol.

I think the simpler explanation is - in a show where tradition is questioned as much as it is celebrated - the "tradition" of wearing kipot (though some would certainly argue wearing them is a religious commandment, not just a "tradition") is not observed as it once was.
reply to this message | reply to first message
Poor Sheldon
Posted by: wisebear 11:01 am EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Whence Tevye's red coat... - theaterluvr 06:20 am EST 12/19/15
After being worked on for a month, the poor old guy could have been "convinced" to set the whole thing to disco. I don't believe this is what he really wanted.
reply to this message | reply to first message
Maybe I shouldn't post this but . . .
Posted by: AlanScott 02:24 am EST 12/21/15
In reply to: Poor Sheldon - wisebear 11:01 am EST 12/19/15
Ryhog, I have such news for you.
Remember Bart Sher,
That mad director,
Remember at the Beaumont?
When Cable had the fever,
And got hallucinations,
With desperate Bloody Mary?
Well, I just learned that Tevye's in a parka all of red.

No!

Yes!

Enoch! Enoch! Wait till I tell you!
Remember Bart Sher,
That mad director,
Remember at the Beaumont,
That "Happy Talk" was far-out,
Well, I just heard that Bart Sher's gotten Sheldon on his side.

No! Terrible! Terrible!

Delvino!
Do you remember Bart Sher,
That crazy director,
Remember how he added
Lines Hammerstein deleted?
Well, I just heard
That Danny Burstein's dressed in
A somewhat reddish parka!

No!

In Kiev!

Ann! Ann!
Remember Bart Sher, with all his strange ideas?
Remember South Pacific,
With morose Bloody Mary
Well, I just heard
The fiddler flies on wires
And Sheldon's gone to Kiev!

No!

God forbid!

He didn't!

He did!

Listen, everybody, terrible news! Terrible!
Remember Bart Sher,
Who took the joy from Nellie?
Well, I just heard from someone who should know,
That Sheldon's been arrested,
And Alix has a parka,
Hofesh studies dancing,
And Burstein's acting bored,
Sperling flies on wires,
And Hecht can't get a laugh.

And that's what comes from Bartlett Sher directing!
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Sheldon
Posted by: singleticket 01:32 pm EST 12/20/15
In reply to: Poor Sheldon - wisebear 11:01 am EST 12/19/15
I disagree but people do have a tendency to pile-on in this era of twitter and Facebook.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Sheldon
Posted by: NeoAdamite 01:49 am EST 12/20/15
In reply to: Poor Sheldon - wisebear 11:01 am EST 12/19/15
After being worked on for a month, the poor old guy could have been "convinced" to set the whole thing to disco. I don't believe this is what he really wanted.

On the basis of having seen him speak several times in the last year, and having had one (very brief) conversation with him myself: you're wrong. What he told the Times is completely reasonable, in fact the only reason to agree to a change--it turned out to reinforce the audiences' understanding of the story.

I don't know why that's so hard to accept
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Sheldon
Posted by: sf 06:22 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Poor Sheldon - wisebear 11:01 am EST 12/19/15
...because obviously, this addition means the show will NEVER BE DONE ANY OTHER WAY EVER AGAIN.

For God's sake.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Sheldon
Posted by: enoch10 05:45 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Poor Sheldon - wisebear 11:01 am EST 12/19/15
>> I don't believe this is what he really wanted.

and that's ok. he could have put his foot down but he didn't and in the end it worked out. theater is a collaborative art form. you often don't get everything you want. sometimes this works in your favor and sometimes it doesn't.
reply to this message | reply to first message
Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: reed23 03:21 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Poor Sheldon - wisebear 11:01 am EST 12/19/15
Poor Joseph Stein, who actually wrote FIDDLER ON THE ROOF's book, as opposed to Sheldon Harnick, who supplied the lyrics. Stein is not around to offer his approval or disapproval.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: sf 06:20 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Poor Joseph Stein - reed23 03:21 pm EST 12/19/15
Does the addition of this (apparently very brief) framing device involve changing a single word of Joseph Stein's book?
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: ryhog 07:14 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Poor Joseph Stein - sf 06:20 pm EST 12/19/15
Yes, in the sense that modern plays are micromanaged in a way that older plays, say, Shakespeare's, were not.

The book of the musical includes its detailed stage directions, and those directions have to be changed (i.e., not followed religiously). This is in contrast to, say, Henry V, the framing device of which is provided without any micromanagement at all, other than to say that someone has to enter in order to pronounce the spoken text.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: sf 07:20 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Poor Joseph Stein - ryhog 07:14 pm EST 12/19/15
That's a stretch, and you know it.

In any case, it's irrelevant in this case: the rights-holders have agreed to allow Sher to do this, and the inclusion of this particular device in this particular production does not in any way alter the published script.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: ryhog 08:01 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Poor Joseph Stein - sf 07:20 pm EST 12/19/15
while you and I agree on substance, it is actually not a stretch and it's worth pointing this out. The book of a musical is not, as many assume, just the non-sung dialogue, but includes everything prescribed about the sequence and staging of the show.

This device DOES alter the published script-otherwise the producers would have told the rights holders to fuck off.

There are productions that have been shut down because of the color of a costume, and because a SL door is moved to SR. The writers of shows have a lot of power in America.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: Chromolume 07:57 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Poor Joseph Stein - sf 07:20 pm EST 12/19/15
ryhog: The book of the musical includes its detailed stage directions, and those directions have to be changed (i.e., not followed religiously).

sf: That's a stretch, and you know it.

It IS a huge stretch. For better or for worse, directors (and actors) are taught generally not to worry about printed stage directions. Obviously there are times when they NEED to be paid attention to (crucial plot points, etc), and I personally think they should be read before they are ignored, simply so one get an idea of what was originally intended. But to be followed religiously? Whether one thinks they should be or should be, they often aren't.
reply to this message | reply to first message
Stage directions
Posted by: KingSpeed 09:25 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Poor Joseph Stein - Chromolume 07:57 pm EST 12/19/15
It is my understanding that most scripts' stage directions are that of the original's stage manager's notes.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Stage directions
Posted by: AlanScott 01:26 am EST 12/20/15
In reply to: Stage directions - KingSpeed 09:25 pm EST 12/19/15
If you see, say, a Samuel French script that is full of very specific staging notes, including SR and SL indications and so on, then that is a script that almost surely is taken at least in part from the stage manager's script.

But many published scripts have stage directions that are really the authors'. Some of them incorporate certain specific things from an original production's staging, but judiciously edited.

The published script of Fiddler does not include the kind of detailed stage directions that you see in certain acting-edition scripts — more so in ones from the past, I think, than in the present. But even in the past, certain authors did not allow those kinds of stage directions in the acting editions of their plays.

Looking through some old acting editions I have, it can be really tough to know which stage directions were in the script that the author wrote before the production went into rehearsal, which come right from the stage manager's script, and which ones the playwright added later to the script for publication, based on things that were done in the original production. Sometimes it's quite obvious, but a lot of the time it's not. At least not to me.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Stage directions
Posted by: ryhog 10:30 am EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Stage directions - AlanScott 01:26 am EST 12/20/15
re timing

I don't understand why this matters in relation to the grant of rights. (I understand the historical interest.) Many/most new plays have changes in dialogue, directions etc added during rehearsal, during previews and sometimes even later. And the last signoff on every publication is the author's.

That said, high profile productions do not necessarily start with the published script, nor do they deal with the publisher as lesser productions do. Regardless, the version to be performed (or at least a change outline) is communicated to the author's representative (or in some cases the author comes in to give approval as was the case presumably with Harnick).

The comment I made related to the legal standard, and it is straightforward. People often have difficulty wrapping their heads around intellectual property rights, but it is easier, sometimes to think in tangible property contexts because the bottom line is the same. If I own a parcel of land, you might trespass on it with impunity enroute to somewhere, assuming it won't matter to me. But if and when it does matter to me, you will have to stop. The reason producers with a lot on the line are foolish to assume is because the consequences can be a lot worse than just readjusting your travel route.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Stage directions
Posted by: AlanScott 06:06 pm EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Stage directions - ryhog 10:30 am EST 12/20/15
I think you meant that post as a response to someone else.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Stage directions
Posted by: ryhog 10:30 pm EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Stage directions - AlanScott 06:06 pm EST 12/20/15
no but that's ok.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Stage directions
Posted by: AlanScott 11:15 pm EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Stage directions - ryhog 10:30 pm EST 12/20/15
If you did intend it as a reply to my post, then I'm really puzzled.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Stage directions
Posted by: ryhog 11:30 pm EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Stage directions - AlanScott 11:15 pm EST 12/20/15
Any day I can puzzle you is a good day :-)

My post was really cumulative of several, and I think my focus was not the same as yours. (I was talking about legalities and you were talking about how published scripts evolve.) My reference to "timing" was simply intended to mean that regardless of how a script evolves to its published form (whether an acting edition or otherwise), the author has to sign off on it, so to say it is the SM's version ought not be read as suggesting it is some outlier from what the author sanctioned.

As I said (I think) earlier in this thread, some authors care deeply about how their work is presented, and others simply don't. In America, in the theatre (close to uniquely), it's a wild kingdom when it comes to scripts and the control of what transpires on a stage.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Stage directions
Posted by: AlanScott 12:16 am EST 12/21/15
In reply to: re: Stage directions - ryhog 11:30 pm EST 12/20/15
Well, I did start to think "ryhog intends this as a cumulative post, not a specific response to mine," but still it was puzzling since, as you say, my focus and your focus were rather different.

Another thing to remember: It was by no means uncommon at one time, and may still happen sometimes, for a version of a script published in hardcover (or sometimes in paperback) to differ from the acting edition. Sometimes the differences were merely in terms of there being stage directions in the acting edition that were not in the edition meant for a more general readership, but also sometimes in dialogue and other elements.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Stage directions
Posted by: ryhog 01:01 am EST 12/21/15
In reply to: re: Stage directions - AlanScott 12:16 am EST 12/21/15
very true. Also remember that no matter what script a producer approaches a licensing office about, the rights are going to be granted on the version the rightsholder wants performed. And also also understand that no Bway production contract is negotiated by the producer calling Samuel French, DPS or the like.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Stage directions
Posted by: StageDoorJohnny 05:33 am EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Stage directions - AlanScott 01:26 am EST 12/20/15
two older era authors who did write their stage directions were James Barrie and GB Shaw. Indeed, Barrie's stage directions are almost as much fun as his plays
And where today's authors may be careful to insist on the gender of the actor playing a role, or a specific setting for their play (Beckett for sure) I've never heard of a case of someone being sued for not following stage directions -- in fact a theater in Connecticut is being sued now for essentially lifting a production, sets, costumes AND blocking from Hartford Stage. If I do a show in 3/4 thrust or in the round, how do I follow stage directions?
reply to this message | reply to first message
Shaw, O'Neill, Barrie
Posted by: AlanScott 06:39 pm EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Stage directions - StageDoorJohnny 05:33 am EST 12/20/15
It's generally clear with such authors as Shaw, O'Neill and Barrie that the stage directions come from them. They often go far beyond simple descriptions of sets in terms of where, say, the fireplace should be in relation to the door to the hallway and the door to the study, into . . . well, I don't have to tell any of you the kinds of things you find in their stage directions.

I remember someone, maybe Mordden, talking about how Mielziner got huge praise for his scenic effects for Me and Juliet, and some of the critics seemed to think that the ideas came from him. The ideas came from Hammerstein. Mielziner made them happen onstage, but they were in Hammerstein's head first.

Unfortunately, of course, they were the best things about that particular show.

Some of the lawsuits in recent years have seemed a tad odd to me given the history of acting editions. Not all of them, but that Love! Valour! Compassion! suit seemed odd to me given that for so long it was common for acting editions to include not only detailed stage directions based on what was done in the original production but even floor plans and prop lists. Certainly the message given for decades was that it was not only OK to copy a Broadway or London production, it was expected. Things have changed, but it's not surprising that the director in Florida (Michael Hall, not the actor) may well have thought that it was perfectly fine for him to borrow ideas used in Mantello's production.

I don't have a copy of the licensed script, but the lawyer quoted in the linked article says that the elements over which Mantello sued were in the licensed script. I'd guess that they no longer are in the licensed script. I think Manello's beef should have been with McNally and Dramatists, not with Hall and the Caldwell
Link Settled out of court
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Shaw, O'Neill, Barrie
Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 08:19 pm EST 12/20/15
In reply to: Shaw, O'Neill, Barrie - AlanScott 06:39 pm EST 12/20/15
I happened to see that Florida production of L!V!C!, which was not long after the Broadway production, and my impression -- even before the lawsuit was filed -- was that they copied the Broadway production down to the minutest details, including specific blocking, interpretations of the roles, and even facial expressions and line readings. I assume that was the issue, rather than recreation of the floor plan and props list.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Shaw, O'Neill, Barrie
Posted by: AlanScott 12:53 am EST 12/21/15
In reply to: re: Shaw, O'Neill, Barrie - Michael_Portantiere 08:19 pm EST 12/20/15
Part of it, according to the news reports at the time, was the use of the model house, which Mantello said was his idea, but which I'm guessing is (or at least was) mentioned in the acting edition.

Anyway, there are a lot of articles online about the specifics of the case, none of which probably get quite as specific as you and I might prefer.
reply to this message | reply to first message
O'Neill
Posted by: showtunetrivia 10:53 am EST 12/20/15
In reply to: re: Stage directions - StageDoorJohnny 05:33 am EST 12/20/15
A few years ago, the Neo-Futurists did an entire show based on the incredibly detailed stage directions in O'Neill's early plays.

Laura
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: O'Neill
Posted by: ryhog 11:05 am EST 12/20/15
In reply to: O'Neill - showtunetrivia 10:53 am EST 12/20/15
It was fun. I think they actually did a second play with more of them (that I didn't see).
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: ryhog 08:06 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Poor Joseph Stein - Chromolume 07:57 pm EST 12/19/15
i agree it is what everyone is taught but legally (and this is what's going on here) the authors hold ALL the cards. That's only an issue in high profile situations, but Broadway is as high as it gets.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: Chromolume 08:32 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Poor Joseph Stein - ryhog 08:06 pm EST 12/19/15
So, every major Broadway revival of any given show has either used all the original staging as recorded in the script, and/or they have sought permission from the authors or estate to change things? Somehow I have this feeling there have been LOADS of exceptions to this. I think authors often "look the other way" and/or ore open to other interpretations, and I certainly don't think that anyone expects stage directions to ever be followed to the letter anyway.

Yes, Robbins' choreography is supposed to be used in certain shows. Yes, I know there are playwrights like Albee who like to take control of major productions. Yes, there are estate owners who are known to be careful caretakers (I used to think Jo Sullivan was one, but the McAnuff How To Succeed and Guys And Dolls make me think otherwise) - but I really don't think that many authors/estates/rightsholders are quite as rigid as you think.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: ryhog 10:06 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Poor Joseph Stein - Chromolume 08:32 pm EST 12/19/15
No, and I didn't say that. What I did say, and what folks need to understand, is that the authors have this power. Some wield big bats; some don't give a damn. But in general on broadway shows, either the authors or their agents and executors are engaged in the process (just as Harnick obviously was here) so that any potential issues can be resolved before the stakes are too high. To be clear, I was not suggesting that all or even many rights holders are extremely rigid but it behooves every producer sitting on millions of dollars of investment to confirm that there is not going to be an unpleasant surprise at a very bad time. And regarding script changes, anyone who changes something without sending a copy of the proposed changes to the rights holder or agent-and this is true at any level-is just nuts. (And yes I know there are many people in our business who are nuts. :-))
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: Chromolume 10:15 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Poor Joseph Stein - ryhog 10:06 pm EST 12/19/15
And yes I know there are many people in our business who are nuts. :-)

Never would have thought that, lol. ;-)
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Joseph Stein
Posted by: ryhog 04:11 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Poor Joseph Stein - reed23 03:21 pm EST 12/19/15
The man is dead. When we die, we don't get to approve, disapprove, like, dislike, love, hate or anything else. He doesn't even get to pick the paint color for the living room of his home.

I certainly hope the most important losses his death caused are not the approval rights over a show. Notwithstanding, he can and does get to approve from the grave because the executor he chose for his estate (because of our corporate welfare copyright laws) will stand in his shoes for years to come. There is nothing poor about him or his estate.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Sheldon
Posted by: Budinsky 01:40 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Poor Sheldon - wisebear 11:01 am EST 12/19/15
You not only make Harnick sound senile and defenseless but present yourself as his mind-reader and/or conscience. Sounds presumptuous to me, but then again you're on a first-name basis with the man. Perhaps you're his confidant.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Sheldon
Posted by: ryhog 11:13 am EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Poor Sheldon - wisebear 11:01 am EST 12/19/15
only a lousy writer gets what he or she really wants in any play. A good writer listens to the audience and is guided by what resonates for it. That resonance is not static. It is the resulting synthesis that creates greatness. Harnick is far better than a good writer, and knows better than to write egocentric-ly.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Poor Sheldon
Posted by: owk 05:24 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Poor Sheldon - ryhog 11:13 am EST 12/19/15
And, by the way, your approval rights don't die with you. Joseph Stein's estate has, I'm sure, all the same approval rights as Mr. Stein had when he was alive. And as for Sheldon Harnick, he's hardly a feeble man -- in fact, he is, at 91, as wise, clear of mind and articulate of voice as he was 50 years ago. Just watch him at any event at the 92nd Street Y or the recent WNYC/Greene Space event on sexism in musicals (you can stream it) and you'll see.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: Vectorbabe 09:38 am EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Whence Tevye's red coat... - theaterluvr 06:20 am EST 12/19/15
A Tevye in a red parka?

Sounds crazy, no?

But in our little revival of Fiddler on the Roof, you might say our director is trying to scratch out a relevance to today for a musical that is over 50 years old without breaking his neck.

It isn't easy.

You may ask, why does he try if it's so dangerous?

Well, he does because theatre must constantly adapt to survive. And revivals that push the limits are the hallmark of great theatre.

Does it always work? Not always. And it may not have today.

But why does he do it?

That I can tell you in one word.

Tradition!

It is a tradition in the theatre to break traditions.

Without that tradition, our theatre would be as boring as...as...as nothing on the roof!
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: lowwriter 01:10 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - Vectorbabe 09:38 am EST 12/19/15
If the material is strong enough it doesn't have to necessarily be tinkered with to be made relevant now. I don't think Fiddler needs this framing device.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: ryhog 11:00 am EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - Vectorbabe 09:38 am EST 12/19/15
awesome, and even if none of it works it would have been worth it for this wonderfully and perceptive homage.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: Vectorbabe 01:33 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - ryhog 11:00 am EST 12/19/15
Thanks!
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: jerseymerle 10:46 am EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - Vectorbabe 09:38 am EST 12/19/15
That is the post of the day!
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: Vectorbabe 01:34 pm EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - jerseymerle 10:46 am EST 12/19/15
Thanks!
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: Haberville 09:05 am EST 12/19/15
In reply to: Whence Tevye's red coat... - theaterluvr 06:20 am EST 12/19/15
Don't get me started on the red coat...
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: NewtonUK 09:25 am EST 12/19/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - Haberville 09:05 am EST 12/19/15
Or the two girls dressed as men who dance at the wedding.
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: Ann 02:58 pm EST 12/27/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - NewtonUK 09:25 am EST 12/19/15
test 2
reply to this message | reply to first message
re: Whence Tevye's red coat...
Posted by: T.B._Admin. 02:59 pm EST 12/27/15
In reply to: re: Whence Tevye's red coat... - Ann 02:58 pm EST 12/27/15
testing again + 1
reply to this message | reply to first message


All That Chat is intended for the discussion of theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)

Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.



Time to render: 0.791036 seconds.